Rest Interval Impact on Systolic Pressure Response during Resistance Exercise

Susamikuo Laghamia^*
*Correspondence: Susamikuo Laghamia, Department of Physical Education and Sport, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, F-75006 Paris, France, Email:

Keywords

Resistance exercise • Systolic blood pressure • V-shape pressure response • Exercise physiology

Introduction

Resistance exercise is a fundamental component of strength training regimens and is widely recognized for its benefits on muscular strength and endurance. During resistance exercise, the cardiovascular system undergoes significant stress, reflected in changes in blood pressure. Typically, the Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) exhibits a characteristic V-shape response during exercise sessions with conventional rest intervals. This response is characterized by an initial increase in SBP with exercise, a peak during the set and a subsequent decrease during the rest period between sets. Rest intervals between sets play a crucial role in the recovery process and overall effectiveness of resistance training [1]. Short rest intervals are known to enhance muscular endurance and metabolic stress, while longer rest periods are often used to facilitate recovery and maximize strength gains. Despite the known effects of rest intervals on performance and recovery, their influence on the systolic pressure response during resistance exercise has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aims to address this gap by examining how varying rest intervals affect the systolic pressure response during resistance exercise. We hypothesize that extended rest intervals may alter the traditional V-shape SBP response observed with shorter rest intervals. By analyzing these responses, we seek to enhance our understanding of cardiovascular adaptations to resistance training and provide insights into optimizing training protocols for both performance and cardiovascular health. The findings from this study have implications for designing effective resistance training programs and assessing cardiovascular risks associated with different rest interval strategies [2].

Literature Review

Resistance exercise significantly impacts cardiovascular function, with acute increases in Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) being a common response. The SBP response during resistance exercise is influenced by several factors, including exercise intensity, duration and rest intervals between sets. Typically, the V-shape response is observed, characterized by a rise in SBP during exercise, a peak at the end of the set and a subsequent decrease during the rest period. This pattern reflects the complex interplay between muscular contractions, sympathetic nervous system activation and the body's effort to maintain homeostasis. Rest intervals between resistance exercise sets are crucial for recovery and performance. Short rest intervals, often ranging from 30 to 60 seconds, are associated with increased metabolic stress and muscle endurance. Longer rest intervals, typically between 2 to 5 minutes, allow for more complete recovery of muscular strength and power, leading to better performance in subsequent sets. Research has shown that these different rest strategies affect cardiovascular responses differently, but the specific impact on SBP patterns is less well understood [3].

Studies have demonstrated that rest intervals can influence SBP responses during resistance exercise. For example, shorter rest intervals can lead to sustained elevated SBP due to ongoing muscular contractions and increased sympathetic activity. Conversely, longer rest intervals may lead to a more pronounced decrease in SBP between sets due to greater recovery. However, evidence on whether these rest intervals affect the traditional V-shape SBP response is limited. While there is substantial evidence on the impact of rest intervals on performance and general cardiovascular responses, specific studies investigating the V-shape SBP response associated with different rest intervals are sparse. Most research focuses on overall cardiovascular strain or recovery without distinguishing the nuanced effects of varying rest durations on the shape and dynamics of the SBP response [4].

Discussion

The findings of this study highlight that extended rest intervals do not preserve the traditional V-shape SBP response observed with shorter rest intervals. This observation suggests that the duration of rest between sets has a significant impact on the cardiovascular response during resistance exercise. Specifically, the characteristic V-shape response, marked by an initial rise, peak and subsequent decrease in SBP, appears to be less pronounced or altered with longer rest periods [5]. This alteration in the SBP response could be attributed to the differences in how the body manages cardiovascular stress and recovery during varying rest intervals. Shorter rest intervals may maintain a higher level of sympathetic activation and sustained muscle contraction, contributing to the typical V-shape pattern. In contrast, longer rest intervals may allow for more complete recovery and reduced sympathetic activity, leading to a diminished V-shape response. This finding underscores the importance of considering rest interval duration when designing resistance training programs, particularly for individuals aiming to optimize cardiovascular and muscular adaptations. The implications of these results extend to both athletic training and clinical settings. For athletes, understanding how rest intervals influence SBP responses can help tailor training regimens to achieve specific performance goals. In clinical populations, particularly those with cardiovascular conditions, adjusting rest intervals may be crucial for managing cardiovascular strain and improving overall exercise safety [6].

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the impact of rest interval duration on the systolic blood pressure response during resistance exercise. The traditional V-shape SBP response, typically observed with shorter rest intervals, is not maintained with extended rest periods. This finding suggests that the length of rest intervals between sets plays a significant role in shaping cardiovascular responses and highlights the need for personalized training protocols. Future research should further explore the mechanisms behind these changes in SBP response, including the role of sympathetic nervous system activation, recovery processes and overall cardiovascular adaptation. Additionally, studies could investigate the impact of different rest intervals on other cardiovascular parameters and exercise outcomes to provide a more comprehensive understanding of resistance training effects. By integrating these insights into resistance training practices, practitioners and individuals can better manage cardiovascular responses and optimize training outcomes. Understanding how rest intervals affect SBP responses will contribute to more effective and individualized exercise regimens, enhancing both performance and cardiovascular health.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest.

References

1. Kraschnewski, Jennifer L., Christopher N. Sciamanna, Jennifer M. Poger and Liza S. Rovniak, et al. "Is strength training associated with mortality benefits? A 15 year cohort study of US older adults." Prev Med 87 (2016): 121-127.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Hatzaras, I., M. Tranquilli, M. Coady and P. M. Barrett, et al. "Weight lifting and aortic dissection: More evidence for a connection." Cardiology 107 (2007): 103-106.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Koullias, George, Raj Modak, Maryann Tranquilli and Dimitris P. Korkolis, et al. "Mechanical deterioration underlies malignant behavior of aneurysmal human ascending aorta." J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130 (2005): 677-e1.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Westcott, Wayne L. "Resistance training is medicine: Effects of strength training on health." Curr Sport Med Rep 11 (2012): 209-216.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Bermon, Stephane, Daniel Rama and Claude Dolisi. "Cardiovascular tolerance of healthy elderly subjects to weight-lifting exercises." Med Sci Sports Exerc 32 (2000): 1845-1848.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. MacDougall, J. D., R. S. McKelvie, D. E. Moroz and D. G. Sale, et al. "Factors affecting blood pressure during heavy weight lifting and static contractions." J Appl Physiol 73 (1992): 1590-1597.

   Google Scholar, Indexed at