Effect of Rest-Interval on Decline of Torque Between Sets of a Isokinetic Knee Extensor Exercise in Young and Old Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence regarding age-associated muscle fatigue and recovery following resistance exercise is equivocal. Rest interval length between exercise sets that allows for complete recovery is a critical variable to consider when prescribing safe and effective resistance training protocols for older adults. To-date the effect of rest interval on decline of mean torque and peak torque in older women has not been reported. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of a rest interval, between sets of isokinetic knee extensor exercise, on the decline of mean and peak torque in physically active younger and older women. METHODS: 20 young (22.4 ± 1.7 years) and 16 older (70.7 ± 4.3 years) women performed 3 sets of 8 maximum repetitions of knee extension/flexion at 60° per second. The rest interval between sets was 15, 30 or 60 seconds and was randomly assigned across 3 testing days. The work-to-rest ratios were 1:1/2, 1:1, and 1:2. Study participants were all involved in exercise programs that included resistance exercises 2 to 3-day s per week within the last year. Total volume of the exercise that was used in this study has been applied previously with older adults. RESULTS: Mean and peak torque in knee extensors were greater in young (p<001) than older women for all exercise sets regardless of the rest interval. No significant (p=.09) interaction for rest by set by age group was observed. For both young and older women there was a main effect (p<001) for mean torque when 15 and 30 seconds rest intervals were applied between sets, but not when a 60 second (p=.42) rest interval was employed. There was a main effect (p<001) for peak torque by set when 15 seconds rest intervals were utilized between sets, however, no main effect by set was observed when the rest intervals of 30 (p=.32) and 60 seconds (p=.67) were set. CONCLUSION: Active younger and older women require similar rest intervals between sets for isokinetic knee extensor exercises. However, irrespective of age, full recovery of mean torque and peak torque requires work-to-rest ratios' of 1:2 and 1:1 respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".