Open AccessEffect of different recovery methods in strength training on performance and perceived exertion
Author(s) -
Estêvão Scudese,
Gilmar Weber Senna,
Edgar Ismael Alarcón Meza,
Camilla Zarlotti,
Artur Luís Bessa de Oliveira,
Estélio Henrique Martín Dantas
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
revista andaluza de medicina del deporte
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.15
H-Index - 13
eISSN - 2172-5063
pISSN - 1888-7546
DOI - 10.1016/j.ramd.2015.12.003
Subject(s) - bench press , perceived exertion , treadmill , recovery rate , mathematics , significant difference , medicine , zoology , physical therapy , psychology , statistics , resistance training , chemistry , heart rate , chromatography , blood pressure , biology
ObjectiveThe study verified the acute influences of distinct recovery methods between sets on repetition performance and rate of perceived effort.MethodTwenty six trained men (20.61±2.95 years; 73.72±5.91kg; 175.00±5.14cm; 9.54±3.86%Fat) performed test and re-test of ten repetitions maxims, on non-consecutive days, for the bench press exercise. Four sets of ten repetitions maxims on bench press were performed with 2min of rest between sets for distinct recovery methods: passive recovery and active recovery (run performed on a treadmill at 45% of maximum oxygen consumption).ResultsNo differences were found between the passive recovery (25.50±3.13) and the active recovery (26.07±2.46) for the total number of completed repetitions (p=0.181). Additionally, the area under the curve did not show any difference between passive recovery (47.05±6.98repsmin−1) and active recovery (48.03±5.46repsmin−1). Important reductions were observed for each subsequent set for both recoveries methods (p=0.0001). The perceived effort data shown important increase from the second set for passive recovery (p=0.0001) and active recovery (p=0.001).ConclusionNo differences were observed between different recovery methods