{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07623318385650224, 'fraction_numerical': 0.06925759840558046, 'mean_word_length': 4.135549872122762, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Efficacy of Rest Redistribution During Squats: Considerations for Strength and Sex.

ABSTRACT
Boffey, D, Clark, NW, and Fukuda, DH. Efficacy of rest redistribution during squats: Considerations for strength and sex. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-This study examined the kinematic, perceptual, and heart rate responses to rest redistribution (RR) and traditional sets (TS) during the barbell back squat for men and women possessing a wide range of strength levels. Forty-five resistance-trained subjects (30 men and 15 women) performed 40 repetitions of the barbell squat with 65% 1RM load with TS (4 × 10 repetitions, 3-minute rest) or RR (10 × 4 repetitions, 1-minute rest), in a randomized order on days separated by ≥72 hours. The significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 for all statistical analyses. The mean velocity (MV) maintenance was significantly higher for RR compared with TS (87.70 ± 4.50% vs. 84.07 ± 4.48%, respectively; p < 0.01, d = 0.35). Rating of perceived exertion (active muscles) was significantly lower for RR compared with TS (5.38 ± 1.42 vs. 6.08 ± 1.43, respectively; p = 0.02, d = -0.35). Rating of perceived exertion (overall) was also significantly lower for RR compared with TS (5.60 ± 1.40 vs. 6.48 ± 1.49, respectively; p = 0.02, d = -0.37). The relative strength ratio (relative strength ratio; squat 1RM: body mass) was significantly correlated with the difference in MV maintenance between RR and TS (r = -0.34, p = 0.02). No sex-based differences (p > 0.05) were found for any dependent variables. Rest redistribution produced significantly higher mean HR (143.25 ± 21.11 vs. 135.05 ± 20.74, p < 0.01) and minimum HR (102.77 ± 19.58 vs. 95.97 ± 22.17, p < 0.01). Subjects were better able to maintain velocity with RR compared with TS, while experiencing less perceived effort. Rest redistribution can be recommended for both men and women, but very strong individuals may not improve their velocity maintenance with RR to the same extent as less strong individuals.