RESUMO
PURPOSE: This study investigated the effects of different rest interval strategies during high-intensity interval resistance training (HIRT) on cardiorespiratory, perceptual, and enjoyment responses among trained young men. METHODS: Sixteen men experienced with HIRT underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing and were familiarized with the exercises and HIRT protocol. On the subsequent three visits, interspaced 48-72 h, participants performed HIRT sessions with different rest intervals in a randomized order: 10 s and 30 s fixed rest intervals (FRI-10 and FRI-30), and self-selected rest interval (SSRI). Oxygen uptake (VO2), heart rate (HR), and recovery perception (Total Quality Recovery Scale) were measured during HIRT, while enjoyment responses (Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale) were assessed immediately after the sessions. RESULTS: The VO2 during exercise was greater in FRI-10 than FRI-30 (55% VO2max and 47% VO2max, respectively, p = 0.01), while no difference occurred between SSRI and bouts performed with fixed intervals (52% VO2max vs. FRI, p > 0.05). HR, excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), recovery perception, and enjoyment responses were similar across conditions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Exercise intensity was not affected by the rest interval strategy. High exercise intensity was maintained in sessions performed with FRI or SSRI, without negative repercussions on the duration of training sessions and enjoyment responses after exercise sessions.
Assuntos
Treinamento Intervalado de Alta Intensidade , Treinamento Resistido , Masculino , Humanos , Exercício Físico/fisiologia , Consumo de Oxigênio/fisiologia , Terapia por Exercício , Teste de Esforço , Frequência Cardíaca/fisiologiaRESUMO
Physical conditioning programs often apply high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), but there is a lack of research investigating the effects of using fixed or self-selected resting intervals between exercises on the performance, relative intensity, and affective perception during this modality of training. This study compared fixed versus self-selected rest intervals in HIRT sessions on cardiorespiratory responses, number of repetitions, and enjoyment perception in trained young men. Sixteen trained males (27.1 ± 3.9 years; 56.6 ± 7.5 mL.kg-1.min-1) performed HIRT circuits with 30-s and self-selected recovery interval. The duration of resting intervals was longer in HIRT performed with fixed than self-selected intervals (14.04 ± 5.82 s; p < 0.0001; ES = 3.2). Both sessions elicited similar relative HRR (79.4 ± 6.2 % vs. 81.6 ± 4.2 %; p = 0.14), VO2R (43.0 ± 12.2% vs. 47.7 ± 9.6%; p = 0.10), and enjoyment reflected by scores in the PACES questionnaire (107.9 ± 15.1 vs. 109.2 ± 12.8; p = 0.65). The total number of repetitions (403.4 ± 45.5 vs. 353.1 ± 27.4; p < 0.01, ES = 1.3) and caloric expenditure (154.4 ± 28.6 kcal vs. 121.4 ± 21.6 kcal; p < 0.001, ES = 0.13) were greater in HIRT performed with fixed vs. self-selected intervals. In conclusion, HIRT performed with fixed and self-selected rest intervals elicited similar relative intensity and enjoyment perception. However, the number of repetitions and caloric expenditure were greater in sessions performed with fixed 30-s.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Institutional position stands are useful for practitioners when designing exercise routines for specific populations. Resistance training has been included in programs for patients with cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to analyze institutional guidelines providing recommendations for resistance training applied to cardiovascular disease. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception until 30 April, 2018. RESULTS: Of 994 articles initially found, 13 position stands were retained. Consensual indications occurred only for number of sets (one to three sets) and training frequency (two to three sessions/week). Recommendations concerning other major training variables were discordant regarding workload (none or loads ranging from < 30% up to 80% 1 repetition maximum) and exercise order (none or vaguely indicating alternation of muscle groups or circuit format), or insufficient regarding intervals between sets and exercises or number and type of exercises. Overall, guidelines lack recommendations of specific procedures for each type of disease at different severity levels, cardiovascular risk during exercise, or criteria for training progression. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations provided by institutional guidelines appear to be insufficient to support adequate resistance training prescription in the context of cardiovascular disease.