de Salles · Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 2009 · narrative review · n=35 studies

Rest interval between sets in strength training.

Cited 402 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review synthesizing 35 studies without systematic review methodology or meta-analysis

PubMed 19691365 · doi:10.2165/11315230-000000000-00000 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

The authors synthesized findings from 35 studies identified across SciELO, Science Citation Index, MEDLINE, Scopus, Sport Discus, and CINAHL. The review evaluated the impact of rest interval lengths between sets on acute exercise performance and chronic adaptations (maximal strength, power, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance) across resistance loads between 50% and 90% of 1 repetition maximum.

What was found

Resting 3 to 5 minutes between sets with loads between 50% and 90% 1RM allowed for greater repetitions across multiple sets and produced greater chronic increases in absolute strength and muscular power compared to shorter rest (such as 1 minute). When testing maximal strength, 1-minute intervals were sometimes sufficient, though 3 to 5 minutes was physiologically and psychologically more reliable. For hypertrophy, short rest periods (30 to 60 seconds) combined with moderate-intensity sets stimulated higher acute growth hormone responses. For muscular endurance, short intervals (20 seconds to 1 minute) increased repetition velocity and total cycling torque, though chronic endurance adaptation evidence remained unclear. No specific effect sizes, confidence intervals, or p-values were provided in the abstract.

Why it matters

This review provides evidence-based guidance for tailoring rest intervals to specific resistance training outcomes, demonstrating that longer rest intervals (3 to 5 minutes) optimize training volume, absolute strength, and power development.

Limits

The abstract provides no quantitative effect sizes, statistical measures, or participant demographics. As a narrative review, it lacks formal systematic screening protocols and risk-of-bias assessments. The hypertrophy discussion relies on acute transient growth hormone elevations rather than direct measurements of long-term muscle mass changes.

Cited by