Author(s): FIGUEIRA JUNIOR, A., ALMEIDA, G.P.L., JOÃO, G.A., CHARRO, M.A., ROSA DA SILVA, C.E., SANTANA, W., MORENO, F., Institution: SÃO JUDAS TADEU UNIVERSITY, Country: BRAZIL, Abstract-ID: 328

INTRODUCTION:
Resistance training (RT) is recognized as an effective strategy for weight loss and increases in muscle mass, with positive effects on physical fitness, athletic performance, and cardiometabolic health. Dense resistance training systems have gained popularity due to their potential to increase metabolic stress and training efficiency. However, few studies have examined energy expenditure (EE) in trained adults using Rest-Pause (RP) and Sarcoplasma Stimulating Training (SST) compared with the Traditional Multiple-Set system (TMS) with equalized volume. PURPOSE: Compare energy expenditure and total mechanical load across Rest-Pause, Sarcoplasma Stimulating Training, and Traditional Multiple-Set resistance training systems with equalized volume in trained adult men.
METHODS:
A crossover study included 15 men (30.38 ± 2.06 years; 174.9 ± 0.07 cm; 88.40 ± 6.50 kg) with ≥3 years of resistance training experience who completed three experimental sessions (RP, SST, and TMS) in randomized order with a 72-hour washout period. One-repetition maximum (1-RM) testing was performed in the leg press (LP) and bench press (BP (ACSM, 2021), and loads were prescribed based on 1-RM values. SST consisted of sets to momentary concentric failure with intra-set rest intervals of 15–20 s, followed by a 20% load reduction and continuation to failure. RP consisted of sets to concentric failure with 20-s intra-set rest intervals until no repetitions could be completed. TMS consisted of multiple sets to failure with 1-min inter-set rest intervals. Total training volume (TL) was equalized and calculated as load × repetitions session. EE was estimated using the predictive equation by João et al. (2020). Statistical analyses included Shapiro–Wilk normality testing, one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc or Kruskal–Wallis tests, percentage differences (Δ%) and Spearman correlation (ρ).
RESULTS:
SST produced greater TL in BP (11.197±4.039kg; Δ% =58.0%) and LP (37.091±14.530 kg; Δ% = 125.7%) compared with TMS, whereas RP produced lower TL in BP and moderate TL in LP. TL was higher in SST (48.288± 18,300 kg) and RP (26,557±11,208 kg) compared with TMS (23.524±6,.818 kg). SST resulted in higher EE (181.77 kcal; Δ% =9.8%) compared with TMS (165.55 kcal), whereas RP resulted in lower EE (160.88 kcal; Δ% = −2.8%). No linear association between TL and EE was observed (RP: ρ =0.62; SST: ρ =0.09; TMS: ρ = −0.39). These findings highlight a dissociation between mechanical load and metabolic cost across resistance training systems
CONCLUSION:
SST resulted in greater energy expenditure and higher mechanical load compared with RP and TMS, despite equalized volume. These findings suggest that SST may be an effective strategy to maximize acute metabolic demand in trained adults. RP elicited lower EE but maintained high mechanical loading and training density, suggesting potential utility during phases focused on neuromuscular loading and muscle mass development.