SynthesisPloS one2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the acute effects of self-selected rest intervals on exercise performance maintenance, lactate levels, and heart rate.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRest interval duration is a key variable in exercise prescription, influencing both performance and physiological responses. Traditional training typically employs fixed rest intervals; however, this approach may not adequately reflect individual variability in recovery needs. Recently, self-selected rest intervals-based on individual perception-have gained attention as a potential strategy for more precise load regulation. Nevertheless, current evidence regarding their effects on exercise performance, heart rate, and blood lactate remains inconsistent.
methodsThis study followed PRISMA guidelines and conducted a systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from database inception to March 20, 2026. Acute experimental studies comparing self-selected and fixed rest intervals were included. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis was performed to account for dependency among multiple effect sizes. Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore potential moderators and assess robustness.
resultsSixteen studies (k = 16) involving 281 participants were included. No significant overall difference was observed between self-selected and fixed rest intervals for exercise performance (g = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.69], p = 0.29), with substantial between-study heterogeneity. After removing outliers, a small but significant effect favoring self-selected rest intervals was identified (g = 0.20, 95% CI [0.08, 0.33], p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed for heart rate (g = 0.002, p = 0.98) or blood lactate (g = -0.20, p = 0.36).
conclusionSelf-selected and fixed rest intervals produce comparable effects on exercise performance and physiological responses. However, self-selected rest intervals may confer a small advantage in maintaining performance under specific conditions. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to sensitivity to outliers and study heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.