Effect of a rest-pause vs. traditional squat on electromyography and lifting volume in trained women
Rest-pause (4 s unloaded rest between repetitions) single session training effects on lifting volume, and muscle activity via electromyography (EMG) are currently vague in the literature and can benefit strength and conditioning professionals for resistance training program design. This study compared differences in volume lifted and muscle activity between a rest-pause vs. traditional protocol.
Trained females (N = 13) completed both a rest-pause and traditional squat protocol consisting of four sets to movement failure at 80% pretest 1 repetition maximum load with 2-min rest between sets. Total volume and muscle activity of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, and gluteus maximus were measured on both training days. Differences in muscle activity were viewed as a percent change (%∆).
A paired samples t test indicated total volume lifted was higher in the rest-pause compared to the traditional protocol (2532 vs. 2036 kg; p < .05). Furthermore, paired samples t tests showed muscle activity %∆ of the gluteus maximus was greater in the traditional protocol compared to the rest-pause protocol (p < .05). No other muscle activity differences were observed in the remaining muscles.
The rest-pause allows for greater volume lifted via increased repetitions compared to a traditional protocol in trained women. The rest-pause method may be superior to a traditional method of training during a hypertrophy mesocycle, where a primary focus is total volume lifted. Furthermore, %∆ muscle activity in the GM will be greater while performing a traditional back squat protocol in comparison to a rest-pause.
KeywordsMuscle activation Mesocycle Repetition maximum Electromyography Volume
JAK is the lead author on this manuscript. MRP, JLC, and JMC are content specialist and members of the lead authors’ dissertation committee. DF is the statistician, and a member of the lead authors’ dissertation committee.
- Allen CC, Dean KA, Jung AP, Petrella JK (2013) Upper body muscular activation during variations of push-ups in healthy men. Int J Exerc Sci 6(4):278–288Google Scholar
- American College of Sports Medicine (2018) Guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- Clark BC, Manini TM, Doldo NA, Ploutz-Snyder LL (2003) Gender differences in skeletal muscle fatigability are related to contraction type and EMG spectral compression. J Appl Phys 94(6):2263–2272Google Scholar
- Haff GG, Triplett NT (2015) Essentials of strength and conditioning. Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
- Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau G, Hägg G (1999) European recommendations for surface electromyography. Roessingh Res Dev 8(2):13–54Google Scholar
- Joy JM, Oliver JM, McCleary SA, Lowery RP, Wilson JM (2013) Power output and electromyography activity of the back squat exercise with cluster sets. J Sports Sci 1:37–45Google Scholar
- Keogh JWL, Wilson GJ, Weatherby RP (1999) A cross-sectional comparison of different resistance training techniques in the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 13(3):247–258Google Scholar
- Lawton T, Cronin J, Drinkwater E, Lindsell R, Pyne D (2004) The effect of continuous repetition training and intra-set rest training on bench press strength and power. J Sports Med Phys Fit 44(4):361Google Scholar
- McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch VL (2014) Exercise physiology, nutrition, energy, and human performance, 8th edn. Baltimore, MarylandGoogle Scholar