EXERCISE ORDER INTERACTS WITH REST INTERVAL
DURING UPPER-BODY RESISTANCE EXERCISE
HUMBERTO MIRANDA,1 ROBERTO SIMÃO,2 PATRÍCIA DOS SANTOS VIGÁRIO,2
BELMIRO FREITAS DE SALLES,2 MARCOS T.T. PACHECO,1 AND JEFFREY M. WILLARDSON3
1
Institute of Research and Development, Vale do Para´ıba University, Sa˜o Jose´ dos Campos,
Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; 2School of Physical Education and Sports, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 3Department of Kinesiology and
Sports Studies, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois
ABSTRACT
Miranda, H, Simão, R, dos Santos Vigário, P, de Salles, BF,
Pacheco, MTT, and Willardson, JM. Exercise order interacts
with rest interval during upper-body resistance exercise.
J Strength Cond Res 24(6): 1573–1577, 2010—The purpose
of this study was to compare repetition performance when
resting 1 minute vs. 3 minutes between sets and exercises for
an upper-body workout performed in 2 different sequences.
Sixteen recreationally trained men completed 4 experimental
resistance exercise sessions. All sessions consisted of 3 sets
with an 8–repetition maximum load for 6 upper-body exercises.
Two different exercise sequences (i.e., A or B) were performed
with either 1- or 3-minute rest between sets and exercises,
respectively. For sequence A1 (SEQA1) and sequence A3
(SEQA3), resistance exercises were performed in the following
order: lat pull-down with a wide grip (LPD-WG), lat pull-down
with a close grip (LPD-CG), machine seated row (SR-M),
barbell row lying on a bench (BR-B), dumbbell seated arm curl
(SAC-DB), and machine seated arm curl (SAC-M). Conversely,
for sequence B1 (SEQB1) and sequence B3 (SEQB3), the
exercises were performed in the opposite order. The results
demonstrated that the effect of exercise order was stronger
than the effect of rest interval length for LPD-WG (SEQA3 .
SEQA1 . SEQB3 . SEQB1) and SAC-M (SEQB3 . SEQB1
. SEQA3 . SEQA1), whereas the effect of rest interval length
was stronger than the effect of exercise order for LPD-CG,
SR-M, SAC-DB (SEQA3 = SEQB3 . SEQA1 = SEQB1), and
BR-B (SEQB3 . SEQA3 = SEQB1 . SEQA1). These results
suggest that upper-body exercises involving similar muscle
groups and neural recruitment patterns are negatively affected
in terms of repetition performance when performed at the end
Address correspondence to Jeffrey M. Willardson, jmwillardson@eiu.edu.
Study conducted at the Rio de Janeiro Federal University.
24(6)/1573–1577
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
vs. the beginning of a session, and the reduction in repetition
performance is greater when using 1-minute vs. 3-minute rest
interval between sets.
KEY WORDS strength, fatigue, recovery, volume, repetition,
performance
INTRODUCTION
O
ne of the key variables in resistance exercise
prescription involves the order in which exercises
are programmed during a workout. This can
determine the effectiveness of a workout in
accomplishing different training goals. For example, when
training for power, high velocity/ballistic style exercises are
typically programmed at the beginning of a workout when
the neuromuscular system is in a nonfatigued state and
capable of higher contractile velocities and rates of force
production (1,2).
The traditional recommendation regarding exercise order
has been to perform multijoint exercises before single-joint
exercises. Prior studies demonstrated that this approach
allowed for greater workout volume (load 3 repetitions)
compared with when single-joint exercises were performed
first (3,11–13,15). Specifically, Sforzo and Touey (11) demon-
strated a 22% decline in workout volume (load 3 repetitions)
on the first set of squats when preceded by leg curls and leg
extensions. Spreuwenberg et al. (15) demonstrated a 32%
decline in total repetitions on the first set of squats when
preceded by the lunge, stiff leg deadlift, and hang pull. These
studies highlight the need to program the order of exercises
so that weak muscle groups or movement patterns in greatest
need of improvement are performed first in a sequence.
Simao et al. (12,13) demonstrated that performing
exercises for either large or small muscle groups at the end
of a sequence resulted in significant reductions in repetition
performance. When exercises are performed at the end of
a sequence, longer rest intervals between sets may help
prevent fatigue-related reductions in repetition performance.
Previous studies that examined rest interval lengths ranging
from 30 seconds to 5 minutes between sets consistently
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2010 | 1573
Exercise Order and Rest Interval
demonstrated significant reductions in repetition performance
and workout volume with shorter rest intervals (4,7–9,17–19).
Ratamess et al. (8) compared differences in workout
volume over 5 sets of the bench press exercise when per-
formed at 2 different intensities (i.e., 75 and 85%) and with
5 different rest intervals between sets (i.e., 30 seconds and 1,
2, 3, and 5 minutes). The findings demonstrated that
irrespective of the intensity, workout volume significantly
decreased with each set in succession over 5 sets when
30-second and 1-minute rest intervals were used. Workout
volume was maintained over 2 sets for 2 minutes, 3 sets for
3 minutes, and 4 sets for 5 minutes. Consequently, the authors
recommended that if more than 2–3 sets of an exercise are
performed, then at least 2 minutes of rest might be needed to
minimize loading reductions and maintain repetition perfor-
mance for the sets performed at the end of a workout.
However, a limitation of the study by Ratamess et al. (8)
and similarly designed studies (4,7,9,17–19) was the exam-
ination of single exercise, when workouts typically consist of
multiple exercises for the same muscle groups. Reductions
in repetition performance might be more pronounced for
exercises performed at the end vs. the beginning of a workout,
thus highlighting the importance of prioritizing the order
of exercises and the need to possibly include longer rest
intervals between sets at the end of a workout. No studies to
date have examined the interaction between exercise order
and rest interval length. Therefore, the purpose of the current
study was to compare repetition performance when resting
1 vs. 3 minutes between sets and exercises for an upper-body
workout performed in opposite sequences.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A workout that involved entirely upper-body exercises was
examined during the current study because upper-body
muscle groups are sometimes worked on different days from
lower-body muscle groups in program designs that in-
corporate split routines (2). We acknowledge that exercises
for the upper and lower body are often combined within the
same workout. The current study was designed to examine
one of many commonly used training approaches and is thus
applicable to workouts that involve similar muscle groups
and neural recruitment patterns for the upper body.
For the current study, data were collected on 7 non-
consecutive days that were separated by 48–72 hours. The
8 repetition maximum (8RM) for all exercises was determined
on the first day and repeated on days 2 and 3. An 8RM load
was used to be consistent with prior studies that examined
repetition performance with different rest intervals at similar
intensities (4,7–9,17,18). A randomized crossover design was
used to determine the exercise sequence in combination with
the rest interval between sets and exercises for workout
sessions performed on days 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Two different exercise sequences (i.e., A or B) were
performed with either a 1-minute or a 3-minute rest interval
the TM
1574 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
between sets and exercises, respectively. For sequence
A1 (SEQA1) and sequence A3 (SEQA3), exercises were
performed in the following order: (a) lat pull-down with
a wide grip (LPD-WG), (b) lat pull-down with a close grip
(LPD-CG), (c) machine seated row (SR-M), (d) barbell row
lying on a bench (BR-B), (e) dumbbell seated arm curl (SAC-
DB), and (f ) machine seated arm curl (SAC-M). Conversely,
for sequence B1 (SEQB1) and sequence B3 (SEQB3), the
exercises were performed in the opposite order. All exercises
in each session were performed for 3 sets to voluntary
exhaustion using the predetermined 8RM load. The total
number of repetitions completed for each exercise (over 3
sets) was recorded.
Subjects
Sixteen recreationally trained men (25 6 4.16 years; 175 6
5 cm; 77.37 6 4.96 kg; 9.86 6 2.34% body fat) participated
in this study. All subjects had previous resistance training
experience (6.36 6 2.47 years), with a mean frequency of four
60-minute sessions per week, using 1- to 2-minute rest interval
between sets and exercises. All subjects were assessed via the
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (i.e., PAR-Q) (14)
and signed an informed consent in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki. Subjects were encouraged to report
for workout sessions fully hydrated and to be consistent in
their food intake throughout the duration of the study.
Eight–Repetition Maximum Testing
The 8RM tests were conducted over 3 nonconsecutive days
in the following order: LPD-WG, LPD-CG, SR-M, BR-B,
SAC-DB, and SAC-M. All machine-based exercises were
performed on Life Fitness equipment (Brunswick Company,
Franklin Park, Illinois, USA). During the 8RM testing, each
subject performed a maximum of three 8RM attempts for
each exercise, with 5-minute rest between attempts (4) and
10-minute rest between tests for different exercises (5).
Standard exercise techniques were followed for each exercise.
No pause was allowed between the eccentric and concentric
phases of repetitions. For a repetition to be successful,
a complete range of motion (as normally defined) for each
exercise had to be completed.
Experimental Sessions
Forty-eight to 72 hours after completing the third day of 8RM
testing, subjects performed SEQA1, SEQA3, SEQB1, or
SEQB3 in a randomized crossover design. Forty-eight to 72
hours separated performance of each of the 4 sessions and all
sessions were performed at the same time of day. Warm-up
before each session consisted of 2 sets of 12 repetitions of the
first exercise (i.e., LPD-WG in SEQA1 and SEQA3; SAC-M
in SEQB1 and SEQB3) at 40% of the 8RM load. A 2-minute
rest interval was allowed after the warm-up set before subjects
performed the assigned workout (SEQA1, SEQA3, SEQB1,
or SEQB3). Subjects were verbally encouraged to perform all
sets to voluntary exhaustion. No attempt was made to control

Figure 1. Repetition performance SEQA1, SEQB1, SEQA3, and SEQB3 (mean 6 SD). *Significant difference repetitions vs. SEQA1. †Significant difference
repetitions vs. SEQB1. ‡Significant difference repetitions vs. SEQA3. #Significant difference repetitions vs. SEQB3.
the repetition velocity; however, subjects were required to
use a smooth and controlled motion. The total number of
repetitions for each exercise (over 3 sets) was recorded and
later compared between sessions.
Statistical Analyses
The statistical analysis was initially done by the Shapiro-Wilk
normality test and by the homoscedasticity test (Bartlett
criterion). All variables presented normal distribution and
homoscedasticity. To compare repetition performance (de-
pendent variable) for each exercise, a 1-way repeated analysis
of variance was conducted for each of the 6 exercises during
the 4 sessions (SEQA1, SEQA3, SEQB1, and SEQB3),
followed by Bonferroni post hocs. An alpha level of p # 0.05
was used to determine the significance of comparisons. The
statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 13.0 software
(SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).
RESULTS
The 8RM load intraclass coefficients for each exercise were
as follows: LPD-WG = 0.94, LPD-CG = 0.95, SR-M = 0.93,
BR-B = 0.93, SAC-DB = 0.95, and SAC-M = 0.96. The total
repetitions completed for each exercise of SEQA1, SEQA3,
SEQB1, and SEQB3 are presented in Figure 1. Based on the
exercise order, there were significant differences (p , 0.05)
in the total repetitions completed for LPD-WG (SEQA3 .
SEQA1 . SEQB3 . SEQB1) and for SAC-M (SEQB3 .
SEQB1 . SEQA3 . SEQA1). Based on the rest interval,
there were significant differences (p , 0.05) in the total
repetitions completed for LPD-CG, SR-M, and SAC-DB
(SEQA3 = SEQB3 . SEQA1 = SEQB1) and for BR-B
(SEQB3 . SEQA3 = SEQB1 . SEQA1).
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
DISCUSSION
The key finding from the current study was that the effect of
exercise order was stronger than the effect of rest interval
length for the LPD-WG and the SAC-M, whereas the effect of
rest interval length was stronger than the effect of exercise
order for the LPD-CG, SR-M, BR-B, and SAC-DB. These
results suggest that upper-body exercises involving similar
muscle groups and neural recruitment patterns are negatively
affected in terms of repetition performance when performed
at the end vs. the beginning of a session and the reduction
in repetition performance is greater when using 1-minute vs.
3-minute rest interval between sets.
These results highlight the importance of carefully pro-
gramming the order of exercises and rest intervals between
sets to maximize repetition performance. For example, when
using 3-minute rest interval between sets, performing the
LPD-WG or SAC-M at the beginning of a session resulted in
greater total repetitions (e.g., 23.0 6 1.4 and 24.5 6 2.9) vs.
performing these exercises at the end of a session (e.g., 12.1 6
2.2 and 14.1 6 2.1). Therefore, the total repetitions completed
nearly doubled when the LPD-WG or SAC-M was placed at
the beginning vs. the end of the workout. The same trends
were noted when using 1-minute rest intervals in performing
LPD-WG or SAC-M at the beginning of a session (e.g., 19.1 6
1.7 and 20.0 6 1.4) vs. the end of a session (e.g., 6.5 6 1.3 and
10.4 6 2.5).
When considering exercises performed in the middle of
a session, longer rest intervals between sets and exercises
resulted in greater total repetitions. For example, the SR-M
was the third exercise performed during sequence A and the
fourth exercise performed during sequence B. During
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2010 | 1575
Exercise Order and Rest Interval
sequence A, greater repetitions were performed for the SR-M
when resting 3 minutes vs. 1 minute between sets and
exercises (19.1 6 2.6 vs. 15.0 6 2.9). Similarly, during
sequence B, greater repetitions were performed for the SR-M
when resting 3 minutes vs. 1 minute between sets and
exercises (18.5 6 3.3 vs. 12.0 6 3.4). Therefore, when training
for upper-body strength, longer rest intervals between sets
and exercises may provide a superior stimulus because of
greater total repetitions performed with a given load and
consequently greater workout volume.
These findings were consistent with previous studies that
demonstrated greater repetitions when using longer rest
intervals between sets (4,7–9,17–19). However, a limitation of
these studies was the evaluation of 1 or 2 exercises; thus,
potential differences for a typical workout that involves
multiple exercises could not be evaluated. The potential
reductions in repetition performance during a typical
workout likely depend on factors such as the muscle mass
involved, the movements examined, and especially long-term
training practices.
Kraemer et al. (6) compared 9 competitive bodybuilders
and 8 competitive power lifters on a 10-station resistance
exercise circuit. Three consecutive sets of each exercise were
performed with a 10RM load; subjects rested 10 seconds
between sets and 30–60 seconds between exercises. The key
finding was that the bodybuilders demonstrated less re-
duction in repetition performance. The authors concluded
that the bodybuilders demonstrated greater fatigue resistance
because of adaptations associated with the bodybuilding style
of training (e.g., moderate to high repetition sets combined
with shorter rest intervals). Although not assessed, these
adaptations likely involved development of the fast glycolytic
energy system, with higher activities of anaerobic enzymes
(e.g., phosphorylase, phosphofructokinase, and lactate de-
hydrogenase), thus delaying proton accumulation and
metabolic acidosis (10,16).
An important point is that the results of the current study
may not apply to lower-body exercises. Prior research demon-
strated greater fatigue resistance for lower-body exercises vs.
the upper-body exercises. Willardson and Burkett (17)
examined repetition performance for recreationally trained
men over 4 sets of bench press and back squat with an 8RM
load and 1-minute rest intervals between sets. For the bench
press, subjects performed 7.47 6 1.06 repetitions on the first
set, followed by 4.40 6 1.64, 2.87 6 1.30, and 2.40 6 1.18
repetitions on the second, third, and fourth sets, respectively.
For the backs squat, subjects performed 7.87 6 0.52 repetitions
on the first set, followed by 5.93 6 1.90, 4.47 6 1.85, and 4.20
6 1.94 repetitions on the second, third, and fourth sets,
respectively. Greater fatigue resistance was demonstrated for
the back squat vs. the bench press, as evidenced by less
discrepancy in repetition performance between the first and
the last sets. However, future research should examine a lower-
body workout (and other large muscle mass exercises)
performed in succession.
the TM
1576 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The implications of this study are applicable to the design
of upper-body workouts with the goal of maximizing
repetition performance in recreationally trained men. For
exercises programmed toward the end of a workout,
reductions in repetition performance might be negated by
using longer rest intervals between sets. However, long-term
training with shorter rest intervals, as in programs designed
for hypertrophy or muscular endurance, may allow for
greater fatigue resistance: a topic that should be examined in
future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ms. H. Miranda is grateful to CAPES for the financial support.
Dr. R. Simão would like to thank the Brazilian National Board
for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and
Research and Development Foundation of Rio de Janeiro
State (FAPERJ).
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on progression
models in resistance exercise for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
34: 364–380, 2002.
2. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
3. Gentil, P, Oliveira, E, Rocha Junior, VA, Do Carmo, J, and Bottaro, M.
Effects of exercise order on upper-body muscle activation and exercise
performance. J. Strength Cond Res 21: 1082–1086, 2007.
4. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies: The physiological basis for strength
training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond
Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
5. Kraemer, WJ and Fry, AC. Strength testing: Development and
evaluation of methodology. In: Physiological Assessment of Human
Fitness. Maud, P and Foster, C, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
1995. pp. 115–138.
6. Kraemer, WJ, Noble, BJ, Clark, MJ, and Culver, BW. Physiologic
responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods.
Int J Sports Med 8: 247–252, 1987.
7. Larson, GD and Potteiger, JA. Comparison of three different rest
intervals between multiple squat bouts. J Strength Cond Res 11: 115–
118, 1997.
8. Ratamess, RA, Falvo, MJ, Mangine, GT, Hoffman, JR, Faigenbaum, AD,
and Kang, J. The effect of rest interval length on metabolic responses
to the bench press exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 100: 1–17, 2007.
9. Richmond, SR and Godard, PM. The effects of varied rest periods
between sets to failure using the bench press in recreationally trained
men. J Strength Cond Res 18: 846–849, 2004.
10. Robergs, RA, Ghiasvand, F, and Parker, D. Biochemistry of exercise
induced metabolic acidosis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol
287: R502–R516, 2004.
11. Sforzo, GA and Touey, PR. Manipulating exercise order affects
muscular performance during a resistance exercise training session.
J Strength Cond Res 10: 20–24, 1996.
12. Simao, R, Farinatti, PTV, Polito, MD, Maior, AS, and Fleck, SJ.
Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed
and perceived exertion during resistance exercises. J Strength Cond
Res 19: 152–156, 2005.
13. Simao, R. Farinatti, PTV, Polito, MD, Viveiros, L, and Fleck, SJ.
Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed
and perceived exertion during resistance exercise in women.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 23–28, 2007.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

14. Shephard, RJ. PAR-Q, Canadian home fitness test and exercise
screening alternatives. Sports Med 5: 185–195, 1988.
15. Spreuwenberg, LPB, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS, Hatfield, DL,
Silvestre, R, Vingren, JL, Fragala, MS, Hakkinen, K, Newton, RU,
Maresh, CM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of exercise order in a resistance-
training exercise session. J Strength Cond Res 20: 141–144, 2006.
16. Weiss, LW. The obtuse nature of muscular strength: The
contribution of rest to its development and expression. J Appl Sports
Sci Res 5: 219–227, 1991.
17. Willardson, JM and Burkett, LN. A comparison of 3 different rest
intervals on the exercise volume completed during a workout.
J Strength Cond Res 19: 23–26, 2005.
18. Willardson, JM and Burkett, LN. The effect of rest interval length on
bench press performance with heavy versus light loads. J Strength
Cond Res 20: 400–403, 2006.
19. Willardson, JM and Burkett, LN. The effect of rest interval length on
the sustainability of squat and bench press repetitions. J Strength
Cond Res 20: 396–399, 2006.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 6 | JUNE 2010 | 1577