©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2009) 8, 388-392
http://www.jssm.org


Received: 27 April 2009 / Accepted: 08 June 2009 / Published (online): 01 September 2009






Effect of rest interval length on the volume completed during upper body
resistance exercise

Humberto Miranda 1, Roberto Simão 2, Leonardo Marmo Moreira 1, Renato Aparecido de Souza 1,
João Antônio Alves de Souza 2, Belmiro Freitas de Salles 3 and Jeffrey M. Willardson 4

1 Institute of Research and Development, Vale do Paraíba University, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil, 2 Universidade
Federal do Rio de Janeiro, School of Physical Education and Sports, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 3 Laboratory for Re-
search in Microcirculation, Department of Physiological Sciences, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro,
RJ, Brazil, 4 Department of Kinesiology and Sports Studies, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA


Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to compare the workout
volume (sets x resistance x repetitions per set) completed during
two upper body resistance exercise sessions that incorporated 1
minute versus 3 minute rest intervals between sets and exercises.
Twelve trained men completed two experimental sessions that
consisted of 5 upper body exercises (i.e. barbell bench press,
incline barbell bench press, pec deck flye, barbell lying triceps
extension, triceps pushdown) performed for three sets with an 8-
RM load. The two experimental sessions differed only in the
length of the rest interval between sets and exercises; one ses-
sion with a 1-minute and the other session with a 3-minute rest
interval. The results demonstrated that for each exercise, signifi-
cantly greater workout volume was completed when resting 3
minutes between sets and exercises (p < 0.05). These results
indicate that during a resistance exercise session, if sufficient
time is available, resting 3 minutes between sets and exercises
allows greater workout volume for the upper body exercises
examined.

Key words: Recovery, fatigue, strength, muscle endurance,
weight training, strength training.


Introduction

Resistance training can increase maximal strength, hyper-
trophy, power, and localized muscular endurance. The
prescriptive variables are numerous, and may include:
exercise order, rest intervals between sets and exercises,
frequency, velocity of movement, number of sets and
repetitions, and load or intensity. All of these variables
can be manipulated to meet specific training goals and
address individual needs (American College of Sports
Medicine, 2002; Baechle and Earle, 2000; Fleck and
Kraemer, 2004; Weiss, 1991).
According to Fleck and Kraemer (2004), the length
of the rest interval between sets is an important variable
when designing a resistance exercise program. Although
acknowledged, this variable is rarely monitored precisely
in field settings, despite its significant impact on acute
and chronic metabolic, hormonal, and cardiovascular
responses to resistance training (American College of
Sports Medicine, 2002; Baechle and Earle, 2000; Fleck
and Kraemer, 2004; Weiss, 1991).
Previous studies that examined rest interval
lengths from 1 to 5 minutes between sets for single exer-
cises demonstrated significant differences in repeti-
tion performance and the exercise volume completed
(Kraemer, 1997; Larson and Potteiger, 1997; Ratamess et
al., 2007; Rahimi, 2005; Richmond and Godard, 2004;
Willardson and Burkett, 2005; Willardson and Burkett,
2006a; Willardson and Burkett, 2006b).
Ratamess et al. (2007) compared differences in
workout volume (resistance x repetitions per set) over five
sets of the bench press exercise when performed at two
different intensities (i.e. 75% and 85% of a 1-RM) and
with five different rest intervals between sets (i.e. 30
seconds, 1, 2, 3, 5 minutes). The findings demonstrated
that irrespective of the intensity, workout volume (resis-
tance x repetitions per set) significantly decreased with
each set in succession over five sets when 30 seconds and
1 minute rest intervals were used. Workout volume (re-
sistance x repetitions per set) was maintained over two
sets for 2 minutes, three sets for 3 minutes, and fours sets
for 5 minutes. Consequently, the authors recommended
that if more than 2 to 3 sets of an exercise are performed,
then at least 2 minutes of rest might be needed to mini-
mize loading reductions and maintain repetition perform-
ance for the sets performed at the end of a workout.
However, a limitation of Ratamess et al. (2007)
and similarly designed studies (Kraemer, 1997; Larson
and Potteiger, 1997; Rahimi, 2005; Ratamess et al., 2007;
Richmond and Godard, 2004; Willardson and Burkett,
2005; Willardson and Burkett, 2006a; Willardson and
Burkett, 2006b) was the examination of single exercises,
when typical resistance sessions consist of multiple exer-
cises for the same muscle groups (American College of
Sports Medicine, 2002; Baechle and Earle, 2000; Fleck
and Kraemer, 2004; Weiss, 1991). There is a great need
for further research to compare the volume completed
over an entire resistance exercise session with different
rest intervals between sets. This would contribute to gen-
eral recommendations regarding resistance exercise pre-
scription to maximize volume; an important factor in
developing maximal strength (American College of
Sports Medicine, 2002; Baechle and Earle, 2000; Fleck
and Kraemer, 2004; Weiss, 1991). Therefore, the purpose
of the current study was to compare the workout volume
completed during two upper body resistance exercise
sessions that incorporated 1 minute versus 3 minute rest
intervals between sets and exercises.

Research article

Miranda et al.



389

Table 1. Total workout volume (sets x resistance x repetitions per set) for 1 min. versus 3 min.
conditions. Data are means (±SD).
Session BBP (kg) IBBP (kg) PDF (kg) BLTE (kg) TPD (kg)
1 min. 1334 (405) 691 (241) 506 (202) 460 (190) 394 (145)
3 min. 1527 (468) * 1118 (329) * 776 (252) * 619 (227) * 655 (246) *
BBP = barbell bench press; IBBP = incline barbell bench press; PDF = pec deck flye; BLTE =
barbell lying triceps extension; TPD = triceps pushdown. * Significant difference total workout
volume 1 min. versus 3 min. condition (p < 0.05).

Methods

Experimental approach to the problem
In order to examine the effect of different rest intervals on
the workout volume completed (sets x resistance x repeti-
tions per set), an 8-RM was assessed on three noncon-
secutive days for the barbell bench press (BBP), incline
barbell bench press (IBBP), pec deck flye (PDF), barbell
lying triceps extension (BLTE), and triceps pushdown
(TPD) with the highest 8-RM load used to design the two
exercises sessions. All machine exercises (i.e. PDF, TPD)
were performed on Life Fitness equipment (Franklin Park,
IL). Following the 8-RM assessments, subjects com-
pleted two experimental resistance exercise sessions with
either one or three minutes rest between sets and exercises
in a randomized crossover design. The workout volume
completed (sets x resistance x repetitions per set) was
recorded for each exercise during each session and later
compared between the rest interval conditions.

Subjects
Twelve men (23.58 ± 2.53 years; 1.74 ± 0.04 m; 74.33 ±
7.88 kg) with at least two years of recreational resistance
training experience, volunteered to participate in the cur-
rent study. All subjects answered “no” to all questions on
the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire - PAR-Q
(Shephard, 1988) and signed an informed consent form, in
accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Repetition maximum testing
The 8-RM assessments were conducted in the following
order: BBP, IBBP, PDF, BLTE, and TPD. In order to
increase the reliability of the 8-RM assessments, the fol-
lowing strategies were employed: 1) all subjects received
standard instructions on exercise technique prior to test-
ing; 2) exercise technique was monitored and corrected as
needed; 3) all subjects received verbal encouragement
during testing.
During the 8-RM assessments, each subject per-
formed a maximum of three 8-RM attempts for each ex-
ercise, with 5 minutes rest between attempts (Miranda et
al., 2007). After the 8-RM load for a specific exercise was
determined, a 10 minute rest interval was allowed prior to
the 8-RM assessment for the next exercise. No pause was
allowed between the eccentric and concentric phases of
each repetition and a complete range of motion (as nor-
mally defined) had to be completed. The 8-RM testing
demonstrated intraclass coefficients of BBP = 0.96, IBBP
= 0.98, PDF = 0.96, BLTE = 0.97, TPD = 0.98. A one-
way ANOVA did not demonstrate significant differences
(p < 0.05) between the 8-RM loads for the three assess-
ment sessions.

Experimental resistance exercise sessions
In both experimental sessions, three sets of each exercise
were performed with 48 to 72 hours between sessions.
Warm-up prior to each session consisted of 2 sets of 12
repetitions of the first exercise (BBP) at 40% of the 8-RM
load. Subjects were verbally encouraged to perform all
sets to voluntary exhaustion. No attempt was made to
control the repetition velocity; however, subjects were
required to utilize a smooth and controlled motion with no
pause between repetitions. The workout volume com-
pleted (sets x resistance x repetitions per set) was re-
corded for each exercise during each session and later
compared between the rest conditions.

Statistical analyses
The Shapiro-Wilk normality test and the homocedasticity
test were conducted prior to further statistical analysis
(Bartlett criterion). All variables presented normal distri-
bution and homocedasticity. For each exercise, a one-way
ANOVA was conducted to compare the total workout
volume (sets x resistance x repetitions per set) completed
for the one minute versus three minute rest condition. A
two (rest conditions) by three (sets) by five (exercises)
repeated ANOVA was also conducted to compare differ-
ences in the repetitions per set between rest conditions.
An alpha level of p < 0.05 was used to determine the
significance of comparisons. The statistical analysis was
conducted using the software SPSS 17.0 for Windows
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

The total workout volume completed (sets x resistance x
repetitions per set) for all exercises was significantly
greater for the three minute rest condition versus the 1
minute rest condition (p < 0.05; see Table 1). Within
each rest condition, there were significant differences in
the repetitions completed for each exercise set (p < 0.05;
see Table 2). Furthermore, there were significant differ-
ences between rest conditions in the repetitions completed
for most exercise sets (p < 0.05; see Figure 1).

Discussion

The key finding from the current study was that a signifi-
cantly greater workout volume (sets x resistance x repeti-
tions per set) was completed for each exercise when rest-
ing 3 minutes between sets and exercises (see Table 1).
Because the resistance was constant for all three sets of
each exercise, these differences in workout volume could

Rest intervals and resistance exercise



390

Table 2. Comparison repetitions per set (mean ± SD) within 1 min. and 3 min. conditions. Data are means (±SD).
Exercise / Sequence Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
BBP
1 min. 8.40 (.22) *† 6.42 (.51) ‡ 4.17 (.58)
3 min. 8.30 (.16) † 7.33 (.49) 5.92 (1.01)
IBBP
1 min. 5.00 (.74) † 3.92 (.67) 3.33 (.49)
3 min. 7.25 (.45) † 6.58 (.51) 6.08 (.67)
PDF
1 min. 4.58 (.79) 3.83 (.72) 3.33 (.78)
3 min. 6.83 (.39) 5.92 (.67) 5.33 (.78)
BLTE
1 min. 6.50 (.91) *† 4.92 (.90) 3.42 (1.01)
3 min. 7.33 (.65) † 6.58 (.67) 6.01 (.74)
TPD
1 min. 4.75 (.62) *† 3.08 (.79) ‡ 2.00 (.73)
3 min. 6.08 (.67) † 5.33 (.65) 4.92 (.57)
BBP = barbell bench press; IBBP = incline barbell bench press; PDF = pec deck flye; BLTE
= barbell lying triceps extension; TPD = triceps pushdown. * Significant difference repeti-
tions first set versus second set; † Significant difference repetitions first set versus third set;
‡ Significant difference repetitions second set versus third set (p < 0.05).

be accounted for due to the greater repetitions completed
per set for the 3 minute rest condition (see Figure 1). The
3 minute rest condition allowed for greater consistency in
repetitions over all three sets, whereas the 1 minute rest
condition did not allow sufficient recovery time. For
example, there were no significant differences in the repe-
titions completed between the first and second sets for
any exercise when resting 3 minutes between sets; how-
ever, there were significant reductions between the first
and second sets for three out of the five exercises when
resting 1 minute between sets (see Table 2).
These results were consistent with related studies
that compared repetition performance and the volume
completed during the performance of single exercises
(Kraemer, 1997; Larson and Potteiger, 1997; Ratamess et
al., 2007; Rahimi, 2005; Richmond and Godard, 2004;
Willardson and Burkett, 2005; Willardson and Burkett,
2006a; Willardson and Burkett, 2006b). Willardson and
Burkett (2005) compared repetition performance when
completing four sets of the back squat and bench press
with an 8- RM load and one, two, or five minute rest
intervals. For the back squat, the total repetitions pro-
gressively increased as the rest interval increased: one
minute (22.47 ± 4.79), two minutes (25.53 ± 4.29), and
five minutes (28.80 ± 3.08). The same results were dem-
onstrated for the bench press: one minute (17.13 ± 4.42),
two minutes (21.60 ± 4.52), and five minutes (25.73 ±
4.23). These results were consistent with the bench press
results of the current study in that the 3 minutes rest (21.3
± 1.0) allowed for significantly greater repetitions versus
the 1 minute rest (18.6 ± 0.5).
Another study by Willardson and Burkett (2006b)
compared repetition performance when completing five
sets of the bench press with 50% and 80% of a 1-RM and
one, two, or three minute rest intervals. Significant in-
creases in total repetitions were demonstrated as the rest





Figure 1. Comparison repetitions per set between 1 min. versus 3 min. conditions. BBP = barbell bench press; IBBP
= incline barbell bench press; PDF = pec deck flye; BLTE = barbell lying triceps extension; TPD = triceps pushdown.
* Significant difference repetitions between 1 min. versus 3 min. condition (p < 0.05).

Miranda et al.



391

interval increased, irrespective of intensity. At 50% of 1-
RM, the total repetitions increased as follows: one minute
(59.13 ± 10.31), two minutes (74.81 ± 12.36), and three
minutes (87.69 + 13.51). At 80% of 1-RM, the total repe-
titions increased as follows: one minute (18.06 ± 4.64),
two minutes (23.06 ± 5.95), and three minutes (27.06 ±
5.37).
A limitation of these (Willardson and Burkett,
2005; Willardson and Burkett, 2006b) and related studies
(Kraemer, 1997; Larson and Potteiger, 1997; Rahimi,
2005; Ratamess et al., 2007; Richmond and Godard,
2004; Willardson and Burkett, 2005; Willardson and
Burkett, 2006a; 2006b) was the evaluation of single exer-
cises. One study to date has compared different rest inter-
vals in the context of a typical resistance exercise session
consisting of multiple exercises (Miranda et al., 2007).
Miranda et al. (2007) compared repetition performance
during upper body resistance exercise that emphasized the
shoulder extensor (e.g. latissimus dorsi, posterior fibers of
the deltoid) and elbow flexor (e.g. biceps brachii, brachi-
alis, brachioradialis) muscle groups. Six exercises were
performed with 8-RM loads for three sets with either one
minute or three minutes rest between sets and exercises;
similar to the current study, significantly greater repeti-
tions were completed for all exercises when resting three
minutes between sets (Miranda et al., 2007).
The resistance exercises examined in the current
study emphasized the shoulder horizontal adductor (e.g.
pectoralis major, anterior fibers of the deltoid) and elbow
extensor (e.g. triceps brachii) muscle groups. Therefore,
the findings of the current study when combined with the
findings of Miranda et al. (2007), suggest similar per-
formance patterns for antagonistic muscle groups of the
upper body in recreationally trained men.
The results of the current study are easily applied
when prescribing resistance exercises for the muscle
groups examined. Instituting three minutes rest between
sets and exercises may result in a significantly greater
workout volume completed. However, it should be noted
that the findings of the current study are not applicable to
a sequence of lower body resistance exercises, which
should be examined alone or in combination with upper
body resistance exercises in future research.

Conclusion

The results of the current study add to the growing body
of knowledge regarding acute and chronic responses to
different rest intervals between resistance exercise sets. If
sufficient time is available, instituting longer rest intervals
(e.g. three minutes) allows for greater repetitions and
workout volume versus shorter rest intervals (e.g. one
minute). This performance enhancement has been dem-
onstrated across a wide variety of exercises and muscle
groups. Regarding the series of resistance exercises exam-
ined in the current study, it is not known whether resting
more than three minutes between sets would further in-
crease the workout volume completed. There might be a
point of diminishing returns at which the rest interval
between sets would become excessive, and yield no fur-
ther increases. Future research should examine strength
gains resulting from long-term training with shorter ver-
sus longer rest intervals between sets. The results of this
study may have the greatest relevance to programs de-
signed for maximal strength for the maintenance of the
load and repetitions per set.

References

American College of Sports Medicine. (2002) Position stand: Progres-
sion models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise 34, 364-380.
Baechle, T.R. and Earle, T.W. (2000) Essentials of strength training and
conditioning. 2nd edition. Human Kinetics, Champaign.
Fleck, S.J. and Kraemer, W.J. (2004) Designing resistance training
programs. 3rd edition. Human Kinetics Champaign.
Kraemer, W.J. (1997) A series of studies: The physiological basis for
strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 11, 131–142.
Larson, G.D. and Potteiger, J.A.A. (1997) Comparison of three different
rest intervals between multiple squat bouts. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 11, 115-118.
Miranda, H., Fleck, S.J., Simão, R., Barreto, A.C., Dantas, E.H.M. and
Novaes, J. (2007) Effect of two different rest period lengths on
the number of repetitions performed during resistance training.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 21, 1032–1036.
Rahimi, R. (2005) Effect of different rest intervals on the exercise
volume completed during squat bouts. Journal of Sports Science
and Medicine 4, 361-366.
Ratamess, R.A., Falvo, M.J., Mangine, G.T., Hoffman, J.R.,
Faigenbaum, A.D. and Kang J. (2007) The effect of rest interval
length on metabolic responses to the bench press exercise.
European Journal Apply Physiology 100, 1-17.
Richmond, S.R. and Godard, P.M. (2004) The effects of varied rest
periods between sets to failure using the bench press in recrea-
tionally trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re-
search 18, 846-849.
Shephard, R.J. (1988) PAR-Q: Canadian home fitness test and exercise
screening alternatives. Sports Medicine 5, 185–195.
Weiss, L.W. (1991) The obtuse nature of muscular strength: The contri-
bution of rest to its development and expression. Journal of Ap-
plied Sports Science Research 5, 219-227.
Willardson, J.M. and Burkett, L.M. (2005) A comparison of 3 different
rest intervals on the exercise volume completed during a work-
out. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19, 23-26.
Willardson, J.M. and Burkett, L.N. (2006a) The effect of rest interval
length on the sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 20, 396-399.
Willardson, J.M. and Burkett, L.N. (2006b) The effect of rest interval
length on bench press performance with heavy versus light
loads. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 20, 400-
403.

Rest intervals and resistance exercise



392

Key points

• The length of the rest interval between sets is an
important variable when designing a resistance ex-
ercise program and may vary depending on the
characteristic being emphasized (i.e. maximal
strength, hypertrophy, localized muscular endur-
ance, power).
• Although acknowledged, this variable is rarely
monitored precisely in field settings.
• Previous studies that examined rest interval lengths
from 1 to 5 minutes between sets for single exer-
cises demonstrated significant differences in repeti-
tion performance and the exercise volume com-
pleted.
• There is a need for further research to compare the
workout volume (sets x resistance x repetitions per
set) completed over an entire resistance exercise
session with different rest intervals between sets.
• The results of the current study indicate that during
a resistance exercise session, if sufficient time is
available, resting 3 minutes between sets and exer-
cises allows greater workout volume for the upper
body exercises examined.


AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Humberto MIRANDA
Employment
Universidade do Vale do Paraíba. Institute
of Research and Development. São Paulo.
Degree
MSc, PhD Student
Research interests
Resistance training and Skeletal Muscle
investigations
E-mail: humbertomiranda01@gmail.com

Roberto SIMAO
Employment
Professor of School of Physical Education
and Sports (EEFD/UFRJ).
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Resistance training and physiopathology
and resistance training variables (e. g. rest
interval, exercise order).
E-mail: robertosimao@ufrj.br

Renato Aparecido de SOUZA
Employment
Assistant Professor
Universidade Federal dos Vales do
Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM)
Departamento de Fisioterapia
Diamantina/MG, Brasil
Degree
PT, MSc, PhD student
Research interests
Skeletal Muscle investigations
E-mail: tatosouza2004@yahoo.com.br

Belmiro F. DE SALLES
Employment
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
School of Physical Education and Sports.
Rio de Janeiro.
Degree
BSc, PhD Student
Research interests
Resistance training and physiopathology
and resistance training variables.
E-mail: belmirosalles500@hotmail.com

Leonardo Marmo MOREIRA
Employment
Institute of Research and Development of
the Universidade do Vale do Paraíba, São
Paulo, Brazil.
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Biophysics and bioinorganic chemistry.
E-mail: leonardomarmo@gmail.com

João A.A.A. de SOUZA
Employment
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
School of Physical Education and Sports.
Rio de Janeiro.
Degree
BSc
Research interests
Resistance training variables (e. g. rest
interval, exercise order).
E-mail: joaoedf@hotmail.com

Jeffrey M. WILLARDSON
Employment
Kinesiology and Sports Studies
Department. Eastern Illinois University.
Charleston, IL, USA.
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Spinal stability, muscle fatigue, ergogenic
aids.
E-mail: jmwillardson@eiu.edu

Jeffrey M. Willardson
Eastern Illinois University, Kinesiology and Sports Studies
Department, 2506 Lantz Bldg, 600 Lincoln Ave, Charleston, IL
61920, USA