Intraset rest or no rest?

[nkl]

Have we discussed this before?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The impact of metabolic stress on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations.
Goto K, Ishii N, Kizuka T, Takamatsu K.
Institute of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of exercise-induced metabolic stress on hormonal responses and chronic muscular adaptations. METHODS: We compared the acute and long-term effects of an &quot;NR regimen&quot; (no-rest regimen) and those of a &quot;WR regimen&quot; (regimen with rest period within a set). Twenty-six male subjects were assigned to either the NR (N = 9), WR (N = 9), or control (CON, N = 8) groups. The NR regimen consisted of 3-5 sets of 10 repetitions at 10-repetition maximum (RM) with an interset rest period of 1 min (lat pulldown, shoulder press, and bilateral knee extension). In the WR regimen, subjects completed the same protocol as the NR regimen, but took a 30-s rest period at the midpoint of each set of exercises in order to reduce exercise-induced metabolic stress. Acute hormonal responses to both regimens were measured followed by a 12-wk period of resistance training. RESULTS: Measurements of blood lactate and serum hormone concentrations after the NR and WR regimens showed that the NR regimen induced strong lactate, growth hormone (GH), epinephrine (E), and norepinephrine (NE) responses, whereas the WR regimen did not. Both regimens failed to cause significant changes in testosterone. After 12 wk of resistance training, the NR regimen caused greater increases in 1RM (P &lt; 0.01), maximal isometric strength (P &lt; 0.05), and muscular endurance (P &lt; 0.05) with knee extension than the WR regimen. The NR group showed a marked increase (P &lt; 0.01) in muscle cross-sectional area, whereas the WR and CON groups did not. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that exercise-induced metabolic stress is associated with acute GH, E, and NE responses and chronic muscular adaptations following resistance training.
PMID: 15947720 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
</div>I think NR is more aimed for fat loss goals, but the study also pointed out that the NR group showed a marked increase in muscle CSA, whereas WR did not.  Dan promotes MS, but this particular study does seem to refute that kind of style in favor of the 'pump me up' (Arnold) style.  

 Any thoughts? What are your personal experiences? Studies?

 

[dkm1987]

As with most studies that look at metabolic stress as a hypertrophy factor they tend to not show what intraset rest can really do because they match load and reps. This IMO does not give intraset rest justice.

Also there are several other studies that have used various rest between reps and found that hypertrophy was the same.

Where intraset rest wins out over consecutive reps is the amount of work performed.

One of the reasons that some believe that the higher metabolic work adds more to the hypertrophic response is the high lactate levels and it's tie to serum GH increases. If that were the case then obviously any work that increased pyruvate cleaving would increase lactate and hence GH. In Dreyer's excellent work (below) it's obvious that when inserting rest the lactate response is higher because of the owrk performed (see tables below). So using the Kraemer, Goto, and other's theory of increased lactic acid induces postive increases in GH and hence hypertrophy then inserted rest would win out.

J Strength Cond Res. 2006 Aug;20(3):528-34.

Kinematic, kinetic, and blood lactate profiles of continuous and intraset rest loading schemes.

Denton J, Cronin JB.

New Zealand Institute of Sport and Recreation Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Denton, J., and J. B. Cronin, Kinematic, kinetic, and blood lactate profiles of continuous and intraset rest loading schemes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(3): 528-534. 2006.-The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the acute kinematic, kinetic, and blood lactate responses to continuous and intraset rest loading schemes that differed in terms of rest frequency but not total rest duration. Nine male subjects performed an isoinertial bench press task (6 repetition maximum load) with a continuous, an intraset rest equated by total rest time, volume, and load (ISRV), and an intraset rest equated by total rest time and load (ISRR) loading scheme. The scheme order was assigned in a block-randomized order with a minimum of 48 hours of recovery between testing sessions. Attached to the bar of the Smith machine was a linear position transducer that measured vertical displacement with an accuracy of 0.01 cm. Displacement data was sampled at 1,000 Hz and collected by a laptop computer running custom-built data acquisition software. Finger prick blood lactate samples were taken from the nondominant hand before exercise, immediately after exercise, and 5, 15 and 30 minutes after exercise. Blood glucose samples were taken before exercise only. It was observed that manipulating the rest period, by increasing the frequency but decreasing the length of each rest period, did not significantly influence the kinematics and kinetics associated with resistance training, but did have an effect on the postexercise blood lactate response when the load, rest duration, and training volume were equated (ISRV). This finding may be of practical significance if fatigue is important in strength development or conversely if power training requires minimal fatigue. It was also observed that increasing the frequency of the rest period enabled the subjects to perform a greater number of repetitions (ISRR), resulting in significantly greater kinematics, kinetics, and blood lactate accumulation.

 

[dkm1987]

Naturally the NR rest would have had a higher metabolic demand when the loads and volume were matched this in and of itself would have increased capillary density and as evidenced in my recent post in performance research it is capillary density that have a profound effect on strength endurance. Using the metric of SE in my opinion is fruitless when it comes to hypertrophic response.

 

[beingisbeing]

The &quot;MS&quot; style that Dan prefers, is that the max-stim that I've seen mentioned a few times? Can someone link me to some more info? Thanks guys

 

[nkl]

Here you go: http://www.hypertrophy-research.com/