Effects of Different Set Methods on Sleep Architecture and Oxygen Saturation in Strength Training
Project no. 23074 · Status: Kapanmış (Yayın bekleniyor) · 2021
Summary
<p>This study aimed to investigate the effects of classical/traditional set (KS) and cluster set configurations (CLS), which are among strength training set methods, in sleep architecture and oxygen saturation (SpO₂) during sleep. The participants are consisted of fourteen healthy male volunteers (age: 22.41±2.38 years; height:177.79±6.55 cm; weight: 77.15±12.65 kg) who were recreationally active and had no sleep problems. Before the tests started, the participants’; circadian rhythm (score: 51.29±6.01), daily calorie needs (2886.54±310.11 cal.), state - trait anxiety score (STAI-TX1, STAI-TX2), sleep quality (PSQI) were determined. Participants in three different nights were assigned to the interventions of control sleep, KS sleep, and CLS sleep with computer-based randomization software. There was a 72±24 hours break between interventions. STAI-TX1 and STAI-TX2 were repeated before each sleep. Each strength training was applied in a single session and the 10 RM method was used to determine the intensity. KS resistance training was applied at 85% intensity, as 4 sets of 6 repetitions. 3 minutes rest was given between sets and movements. CLS resistance training was performed with 85% intensity, 4 sets (3x2) repetitions, 30 seconds between repetitions, 3 minutes rest between sets and movements. In the training, smith machine frontal squat, bench press, lat pull-down machine, cable face pull, barbell preacher curl and triceps push-down movements were applied. The differences in blood lactate (ΔkLA) with blood draw before and after exercise were determined as 5.62±1.72 mmol·L-1 for KS and 3.11±0.90 mmol·L-1 for CLS. After the resistance training interventions, sleep architecture and SpO₂ analyzes were performed by polysomnography between 23:00 and 07:00 hours in the sleep clinic. According to our results, no significant difference was found in any parameter in control sleep, KS sleep and CLS sleep (p>0.05). Although the KS configuration gave better results in total sleep time (TST), nrem-2 time (N-2), nrem-3 time (N-3), rem time (R), sleep onset latency (SOL), nrem-1 sleep latency (N-1L), nrem-2 sleep latency (N-2L) parameters compared to CLS, they were statistically similar. On the other hand, CLS configuration compared to KS in sleep efficiency (SE), rem sleep's latency (RL), wakefulness (W), wake after sleep onset (WASO) and periodic limb movement of sleep (PLMS) parameters better results were obtained at a statistically insignificant level. In conclusion, the KS and CLS configurations used in resistance training did not make a statistically significant difference in sleep architecture and SpO2 values during sleep in recreationally active men without sleep problems.</p>