Effect of Short-Rest Interval versus Traditional Multiple-Set Resistance Training Combined with Endurance Training in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial
In brief
Short-rest training improved quadriceps strength more: 23 vs 11 Nm
In a 12-week cardiac rehabilitation trial of 71 patients, short-rest resistance training produced a larger gain in one measure of quadriceps strength than traditional multiple-set training: 23 versus 11 Nm. Fitness, sit-to-stand performance and lean mass improved similarly, and other strength measures did not show consistent superiority, so either approach remains an option based on patient preference.
- Journal
- American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation (Q1)
- Published
- 7 October 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Alexis Gillet, Michel Lamotte, Kevin Forton, Lucille Blaise, Jonathan Strapart, Chantal Godefroid, et al.
- PMID
- 42839337
- DOI
- 10.1097/PHM.0000000000003170
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Rehabilitation (top studies of the week, 8 November 2026): Both resistance training modalities feasible and effective
Abstract
This randomized clinical trial compared short-rest interval resistance training (3/7 RT) with traditional multiple-set resistance training (3×9 RT) during a 12-week supervised cardiac rehabilitation program in patients with cardiovascular disease. Seventy-one participants were randomized to endurance training combined with either 3/7 RT (n=37) or 3×9 RT (n=34), performed three times per week. Primary outcomes were changes in VO₂peak and quadriceps strength; secondary outcomes included 30-s sit-to-stand performance and total lean mass. VO₂peak increased similarly in both groups (+3.6±3.3 vs. +4.0±4.6 ml/kg/min; P=0.786), as did sit-to-stand performance (+2±3 vs. +2±3 repetitions; P=0.873) and total lean mass (+1.04±1.5 vs. +0.94±1.7 kg; P=0.791). Quadriceps strength increased in both groups across multiple strength assessments but improved more after 3/7 RT than after 3×9 RT (+23±20 vs. +11±22 N·m; P=0.022) for isokinetic strength. These findings suggest that both resistance training modalities are feasible and effective within a cardiac rehabilitation program. As no consistent superiority of either protocol was observed across muscle strength measures, either modality may be considered in clinical practice, with patient preference taken into account when selecting the training approach.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.