(20) Sex-specific Lift Quality Response to Incremental Decline in Intersession Recovery during Multi-session Resistance Training

The principle of individuality appears considerably evident when analyzing sex-specific response to exercise. Previous investigations recognize females as more fatigue resilient then males during repeated sprint performance, as well as resistance training at relative intensity levels. However, to the best of our knowledge, no investigations have examined the sex-specific responses to incremental decline in intersession recovery during multi-session resistance training. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to the examine differences in lift quality, expressed as repetitions completed, between males and females during resistance training when exposed to different intersession recovery time.

Methods: Fourteen resistance trained males (n = 7) and females (n = 7) participated in five resistance training sessions. Session-one consisted of one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing of squat (SQ) and bench press (BP). Sessions 2-5 consisted of four sets of SQ and BP executed in the following order: 1 set, 8 repetitions @ 55% 1RM; 1 set, 6 repetitions @ 65%, 1 set, 4 repetitions @ 75% 1RM, and 1 set of as many repetitions as possible (AMRAP) @ 85% 1RM. Ten-minute rest was allotted between SQ and BP. Upon completion of BP, a 5-minute recovery period was provided before participants completed 4 sets of 2-repetitions in reserve (RIR) for three assistance lifts (barbell reverse lunge, overhead press, and bent-over row), performed in circuit training fashion with no rest between exercises and 90s rest between circuits, designed to elicit fatigue. In order, 72hrs, 48hrs, 24hrs, then 6hrs rest were assigned as the 4 times points of intersession recovery. Repetitions completed during SQ an BP AMRAP sets were recorded as lift quality. A 2 (sex) x 4 (session) mixed factorial ANOVA (p < .05) was used to determine the sex-specific responses. RESULTS: No significant main effect was revealed between sex and session performance for SQ and BP, However, a significant mean effect was recognized be between SQ an BP session performance for males F (3, 2.749) = 4.41, p = .010, ƞ_p² = .269). Additionally, when repetitions were collapsed across all sets, an independent samples t-test reveal females overall repetitions completed (9.93 ± 6.57 reps) was significantly higher than males (7.0 ± 2.05 reps), t(110) = 3.183, p < .001.

Conclusion: While no significant differences were recognized for individual session repetitions between sexes, when all repetitions were collapsed, females completed significantly more total repetitions than males. Additionally, practical significance showcased females’ outperformed males mean repetitions completed during individual sessions.  Females, furthermore, performance did not significantly decline across sessions for neither SQ nor BP, while males experiences significant performance changes.  These results mirror findings from previous investigation regarding females possessing a greater work capacity then males at equivalent percentage 1RM. Concerning upper body work capacity, both sexes performance trended similarly when exposed to incremental decreases in intersession rests. However, lower body work produced by females trended upward and opposite to male performance as intersession recovery decreased. Moreover, these findings suggest females possess greater work capacity then males, particularly during lower body exercises, supporting the necessity of an alternative approach to resistance training programming for females.

Acknowledgements: None