Comparison of rest redistribution and traditional set configurations in terms of strength, power, and perceived exertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE: The rest redistribution (RR) method is a current approach used in resistance training that distributes the same total duration as the traditional set (TS) method but in shorter and more frequent rest intervals. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to bridge the existing gap by primarily comparing the effects of RR and TS configurations in resistance training, with a specific focus on strength, power-related performance outcomes, and perceived exertion. METHODS: The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature search encompassed the Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases and was last updated on 20 May 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (both parallel and crossover designs) involving healthy, active individuals that directly compared RR and TS configurations during resistance training. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 346 participants were included. The RR set configuration resulted in significantly greater improvements in mean power (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.72) and peak torque (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.36) compared to TS. Additionally, RR was associated with significantly lower perceived exertion (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.30). No significant differences were observed between RR and TS for peak power, mean velocity, maximal force, or mean force. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this meta-analysis compared the effects of RR and TS configurations on multiple strength- and power-related outcomes as well as perceived exertion. The findings indicate that RR provides significant advantages in mean power, peak torque, and perceived exertion, while no significant differences were observed in maximal force, mean force, peak power, or mean velocity. These results suggest that although RR may offer benefits for certain performance outcomes, its effects are not uniform across all strength and power variables. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol for the present systematic review was preregistered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42024496872. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024496872.