Delayed potentiation effect after high-load resistance priming: Effects of rest-redistribution set structures on...

This investigation involved examining whether Rest-Redistribution Set (RR) and Traditional-Set (TS) resistance priming (RP) protocols could induce a Delayed Potentiation Effect (DPE). Additionally, it was analyzed whether the RR protocol demonstrated significant advantages over the TS protocol in various performance parameters across different testing time points following the RP.

Twenty-four male collegiate Physical Education majors participated in this study, each completing two resistance protocols involving the back squat exercise: (1) a RR protocol incorporating a 30-s intra-set rest and a 200-s inter-set rest, and (2) a TS protocol without intra-set rest and with a 240-s inter-set rest. Both protocols comprised four sets of five repetitions performed at 85 % of one-repetition maximum (1RM). Performance outcomes, including countermovement jump (CMJ), sprint time, Y-balance test scores, change of direction (COD) ability, and agility, were evaluated at three time points: baseline (Pre), 6 h post-exercise (Post-6h), and 24 h post-exercise (Post-24h). Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors for protocol (RR vs. TS) and time (Pre, Post-6h, Post-24h). When significant main effects or interaction effects were identified, Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted.

(1) A significant interaction between RP protocols and testing time points was observed for CMJ, sprint, and agility performance (P < 0.05). Simple effects of time: At Post-6h, both RP protocols elicited significant DPE across most metrics. Specifically, the TS protocol improved sprint (P < 0.001) and agility (P < 0.001) compared to Pre, whereas the RR protocol enhanced CMJ (P = 0.003), sprint (P < 0.001), and agility (P < 0.001). By Post-24h, TS showed significant declines in CMJ (P = 0.007) and sprint (P < 0.001) relative to Pre, while RR maintained improvements in agility (P = 0.001). Simple effects of RP protocol: At Post-6h, RR outperformed TS in CMJ (P = 0.005), sprint (P = 0.013), and agility (P = 0.005). At Post-24h, RR demonstrated significantly superior CMJ performance versus TS (P = 0.014). (2) No significant interaction effects between RP and testing time points were observed in COD or Y-balance tests (P > 0.05). However, time-dependent effects emerged: COD improved at Post-6h compared to Pre (P = 0.005), while Y-balance performance showed enhancements at both Post-6h and Post-24h compared to Pre (P < 0.001), with Post-24h values exceeding Post-6h (P < 0.001).

Both the RR and TS protocols induced DPE at the Post-6h mark. The RR protocol improved CMJ, sprint, and agility performance, while the TS protocol only enhanced sprint and agility metrics. In comparative terms, RR demonstrated a significantly greater DPE than TS across CMJ, sprint, and agility metrics. At the Post-24h mark, DPE diminished for most measures (with the exception of Y-balance), with RR maintaining CMJ and sprint performance levels close to baseline and demonstrating a significantly enhanced agility performance compared to baseline. Furthermore, RR outperformed TS in CMJ performance. The RP protocol also produced DPE in COD and Y-balance performance, with Y-balance achieving its highest recorded value at Post-24h. Although RR exhibited stronger overall efficacy, its effects were specific to certain performance parameters, indicating a need for further validation.