Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Sports Act. Living
Sec. Elite Sports and Performance Enhancement
Volume 6 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1497979
This article is part of the Research Topic Enhancing Human Performance through Preconditioning and Post-Exercise Recovery Strategies View all articles

Comparison of the effects of three different resistance training methods on muscle fatigue in healthy untrained men

Provisionally accepted
Masafumi Kadota Masafumi Kadota 1Masatoshi Nakamura Masatoshi Nakamura 2Riku Yoshida Riku Yoshida 3Kosuke Takeuchi Kosuke Takeuchi 1*
  • 1 Kobe International University, Kobe, Japan
  • 2 Nishikyushu University, Kanzaki, Saga, Japan
  • 3 Maniwa Orthopedics Clinic, Maniwa, Okayama, Japan

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Traditional set (TS), paired-set (PS), and super-set (SS) are used as resistance training methods. However, the effects of these methods on muscle fatigue (muscle strength and training volume) are not clear. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of TS, PS, and SS on the muscle fatigue of the hamstrings and quadriceps. Thirteen healthy, untrained men performed three sets of leg curl and leg extension exercisesresistance training interventions. TS included three successive sets of the leg curl and leg extension exercises with a 60-second rest interval between sets and exercises. In the PS, leg curl exercises were performed alternatingly with the leg extension exercises with a 60-second rest interval between sets and exercises. In the SS, leg curl and leg extension exercises were performed alternatively with each set. During SS, a 60-second rest interval was set between sets but not between exercises. Muscle strength before and immediately after interventions, and training volume during the training, were measured using an isokinetic dynamometer machine. Time efficiency was calculated by dividing the total training volume by the time required for each intervention. Muscle strength of the hamstrings significantly decreased in TS (p = 0.04) but did not change in SS (p < 0.01) or PS (p = 0.43). The muscle strength of the hamstrings decreased in PS (p = 0.039) and SS (p = 0.001) but did not change in TS (p = 0.434). Muscle strength of the quadriceps significantly decreased in all interventions (p < 0.05). In all interventions, the training volume of the hamstrings significantly decreased in Set 2 (p < 0.05), and that of the quadriceps significantly decreased in Set 3 (p < 0.05). The total training volume in PS was significantly higher than TS (p < 0.01) and SS (p = 0.03). Time efficiency in SS was higher than TS (p < 0.01) and PS (p < 0.01). These results indicated that PS could be useful for individuals with sufficient time for resistance training because of greater training volume, while SS could be useful for those with limited time due to better time efficiency.

    Keywords: Resistance Training, Fatigue, Rest interval, order, Training volume

    Received: 18 Sep 2024; Accepted: 07 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Kadota, Nakamura, Yoshida and Takeuchi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Kosuke Takeuchi, Kobe International University, Kobe, Japan

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.