Effect of Rest Interval on Strength Recovery in Young and Old Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the effects of rest intervals on isokinetic muscle torque recovery between sets of a knee extensor and flexor exercise protocol in physically active younger and older women. Twenty young (22.4 +/- 1.7 years) and 16 older (70.7 +/- 4.3 years) women performed three sets of eight maximum repetitions of knee extension/flexion at 60 degrees x s(-1). The rest interval between sets was 15, 30, and 60 seconds and was randomly assigned across three testing days. No significant interaction of rest by set by age group was observed. There was a significant decline in mean knee extensor torque when 15- and 30-second rest intervals were used between sets, but not when a 60-second rest interval was applied for both the young and the old women. No significant decline for mean knee flexor torque was observed in the older women when a 30-second rest interval was used, whereas a longer 60-second rest interval was required in younger women. Active younger and older women require similar rest intervals between sets of a knee extensor exercise (60 seconds) for complete recovery. However, older women recovered faster (30 seconds) than younger women (60 seconds) between sets of a knee flexor exercise. The exercise-to-rest ratio for knee extensors was similar for young and old women (1:2). Old women required only a 1:1 exercise-to-rest ratio for knee flexor recovery, whereas younger women required a longer 1:2 exercise-to-rest ratio. The results of the present study are specific to isokinetic testing and training and are more applicable in rehabilitation and research settings. Practitioners should consider age and gender when prescribing rest intervals between sets.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".