Rest Between Sets
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Notevenslightly |  | Rest Between Sets | 19-05-2015 @ 22:59 |
 Member 5692, 101 posts SQ 170, BP 140, DL 200510.0 kgs @ 105kgs UnEq | Rest Between Sets by Dr. Ken E. Leistner I recently took part in the best strength-training seminar I've ever been associated with. In addition to the featured speakers, which included the strength coaches of two professional and three major college football teams, there were two very successful high school coaches, and a very, very bright Ph.D., as well as myself. In addition, the audience contained strength and conditioning coaches from other major college and high school programs, who were able to give the speakers the kind of information that made the entire affair a true interchange of ideas. Although all of the speakers held similar philosophies of strength training, each of us did things a little bit differently. The material was far from identical, and the differences were instructive and valuable to everyone present. One of the most noticeable differences was the amount of rest taken between sets of exercises, and this is a topic that's of interest to everyone. When an athlete wants to demonstrate strength, it's imperative to create conditions that will best allow that demonstration. The athlete should take every "shortcut" possible, reducing the distance the weight is moved, improving leverages in the involved bodyparts, altering body position and utilizing equipment that makes the lift as "easy" as possible, wearing apparel that provides maximum support to the involved parts, and of course, being as well rested and mentally prepared as possible. In order to build strength, the athlete should make each and every repetition as difficult to do as is possible. No supportive gear or favorable body position should be pursued, nor should the lifter attempt to maximize the possibilities of making each rep. In other words, the harder each rep of each set is, assuming that the movement works the bodypart it purports to, the "better," the harder, and the more productive the workout will be. It's obvious that the more time taken between sets, the more rested and mentally prepared or "psyched" the lifter can be. Again, this is great if one's primary desire is to demonstrate the strength that's already present and which has resulted from previous workouts. If the goal is to continue to build strength, each all-out set which has preceded the one being done, will have taken something away from the trainee's energy and strength levels. In a very tough workout, the psychological edge will also be worn thin, with the athlete fighting to concentrate on each rep of each set. This is in stark comparison to the lifter who stalks the gym between sets, tightening his wraps, pulling up the straps on the supportive suit, sniffing ammonia or amyl nitrate, getting slapped by his training partner after eight minutes of rest following the preceding set. Obviously, it's almost impossible to maintain a high level of intensity if one takes the time to fully recover between sets. At one extreme, and this is what we do with the majority of our trainees, no rest is taken between sets, other than that necessary to go from one exercise to the next, and properly and safely position oneself for that particular movement. For the uninitiated, this is a very difficult way to train, and it's true that cardiorespiratory deficiency will reduce the ability to exert maximal muscular effort, at least at first. However, in a very short period of time, the body adapts to the stimulus. Reducing the time of identical workouts increases the intensity of the workout. Although there have been a number of articles published which indicated that circuit training, or Nautilus training without rest between sets, did little for cardiovascular fitness, aerobic capacity was defined and tested for in a way that did not give a complete account of the matter, and training all-out and heavily on each set, with minimal rest between sets, will give good benefits for local muscular and metabolic endurance. I also believe that once the adaptation is made, in the long term, the increased intensity caused by minimal inter-set rest will lead to greater gains in strength. Quoting the University of Michigan's Mike Gittleson, "You can handle greater weights if you train slowly, because you're getting more rest between sets. But, if you're gaining strength working quickly, it becomes all relative. If the fast worker takes more rest between sets, he too will handle heavier relative loads. By the same token, if the slow worker works quickly, he must train with less weight, often even with less relative weight than the fast worker." Some strength coaches, who also believe that one high-intensity set, taken to the point of momentary muscular failure/fatigue, is the best way to train for increased gains in muscular strength and size, prefer more rest between sets than I advocate. They often give their athletes up to one minute between sets in order to allow further respiratory recovery so that breathing limitations or difficulties don't hamper their next attempted set. By anyone's standards, one minute between heavy, all-out sets, taken to absolute failure, is not excessive rest, but it will make a significant difference in the amount of weight that can be used, especially in those sets done immediately after a major movement such as squats or Leverage Leg Press, or those done toward the end of a workout. What we sometimes do is provide a "built in" respite in the body of the training session. As I stated previously, we rest only as long as it takes to move from one exercise to the next, and in those programs that call for two consecutive sets of the same exercise, a maximum of one minute between those sets. I have always felt that whatever was lost in terms of the ability to handle a bit more weight in subsequent sets, was offset by the increased intensity in those sets due to the effects of the lack of rest. In a training session where we will do, for example, a set of Leverage Leg Press, stiff-legged deadlift, pullover, Leverage Double Press, and Leverage Pulldown, the metabolic demands are very high if one is truly training properly and taking "no rest" between those sets. In order to maximize performance on subsequent sets, we will often do an all-out set to failure/fatigue of an exercise that's not as metabolically demanding as the other movements, such as neck flexion and extension, or heel raises for the calves. I would much prefer to have our athletes do another exercise, even if it provides some "relief" from the onslaught of the "major movements," as opposed to resting. Like Mike Gittleson, I believe that "you must always be consistent with your rest period from workout to workout." This also maintains a reliable and reproducible interpretation of each workout. As impossible as it seems to adapt to the increased demands of linking heavy squats and deadlifts together with almost no rest between them, especially for the lifter or athlete who is in poor metabolic condition, which, of course, includes the overwhelming majority of competitive powerlifters, it can be done. In fact, it can be done so that results are greater than one could have expected. Remember that the purpose of a competitive meet or formal testing session, if the coach demands, is to demonstrate strength, but the day-to-day, week-to-week workouts should be designed to build strength in the most effective manner possible. I know that in my own case, I'm uncomfortable muscularly and respiratorily after my first, or at worst second set in any workout, especially when those first two sets are squats or Leverage Leg Presses, and a demanding lower-back movement. I also know that this forces me to better focus on all of the sets to follow, and markedly increases the intensity of the work I do. Over any ten- or twelve-week period, this adds up to increased gains. Once you've trained properly, at a very high level of intensity, you'll almost welcome the discomfort and the inability to fully "catch your breath." There is a certain feeling one has when a proper training session has been completed, and taking excessive rest between sets will steal that from you and reduce the gains that could have come from your workouts. | ||
| PhillippeHalter | | ... | 19-05-2015 @ 23:06 |
 Are horror films healthy...? Member 5449, 2203 posts | Interesting ideas | ||
| AMH_Power |  | ... | 20-05-2015 @ 09:18 |
we ride at dawn Member 4363, 1442 posts SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 20.05.2015 @ 09:19 AM by AMH_Power He assumes intensity is working at a higher fatigue. He lost my interest when he eluded to more rest reducing the intensity of the work out.In strength, the intensity is the load that is moved and governs the type of adaptation. The volume governs the magnitude of the adaptation. If rest is minimal, both the type of adaptation and the magnitude are reduced in order to become efficient. As a power/strength athlete efficiency is bad....proficiency is sought and not efficiency. His argument would suggest sacrificing off total reps in favour of shorter rest would yield bigger strength gains....it's this mindset that would turn usain bolt into paula ratcliffe. | ||
| ChrisMcCarthy | | ... | 20-05-2015 @ 09:21 |
Lost his pen, then found his pen. #phew Member 4899, 2956 posts | I'm sorry - I stopped reading at "Ken Leistner". | ||
| AdamT | | ... | 20-05-2015 @ 10:53 |
AKA the great reset Member 4056, 5207 posts | AMH_Power said:He assumes intensity is working at a higher fatigue. He lost my interest when he eluded to more rest reducing the intensity of the work out. In strength, the intensity is the load that is moved and governs the type of adaptation. The volume governs the magnitude of the adaptation. If rest is minimal, both the type of adaptation and the magnitude are reduced in order to become efficient. As a power/strength athlete efficiency is bad....proficiency is sought and not efficiency. His argument would suggest sacrificing off total reps in favour of shorter rest would yield bigger strength gains....it's this mindset that would turn usain bolt into paula ratcliffe. Aaron do you do online training? If you don't you should mate. Because you seem to know what the f**k you are talking about. | ||
| JackRevans | | ... | 20-05-2015 @ 16:07 |
 'There was also a sausage in my mouth.' Member 2477, 16481 posts SQ 190, BP 130, DL 235555.0 kgs @ 83kgs UnEq | But who was cliffs? | ||
| Funky_monkey | | ... | 20-05-2015 @ 17:22 |
 403 forbidden message Member 160, 5121 posts SQ 190, BP 137.5, DL 225552.5 kgs @ 86kgs UnEq | AMH_Power said: If rest is minimal, both the type of adaptation and the magnitude are reduced in order to become efficient. As a power/strength athlete efficiency is bad....proficiency is sought and not efficiency. Whilst I agree with everything else you said, why would you say efficiency is bad? Surely you want to be both efficient AND proficient? | ||
| AMH_Power | | ... | 20-05-2015 @ 17:38 |
we ride at dawn Member 4363, 1442 posts SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | Funky_monkey said: Whilst I agree with everything else you said, why would you say efficiency is bad? Surely you want to be both efficient AND proficient? These are mutually exclusive... as one goes up the other goes down. Proficiency is using as many resources as physical possible in the shortest period of time. Efficiency is using as little resources as possible to achieve the same task. Naturally, you will be thinking, "well, if I have used minimal resources to achieve the task, then that leaves more in the tank". Agreed, but using the s**t left in the tank is proficiency, which ultimately means less in the tank; and a reduction in efficiency. If you use the 'bit in the tank' it has to be expressed in one of the components in the formula for Work (force over distance). The distance is static providing the technique is the same, so that means it must be expressed in force (mass x acceleration). The mass (load) is the same, so it's the acceleration which exhibits the proficiency...and a higher force production. | ||