Traditional Set Configuration Research Articles

Impact of squat set configuration on mechanical performance in paired sets of upper-body exercises.

Paired sets and alternative set configurations (e.g., cluster sets) are frequently employed by strength and conditioning practitioners; however, their synergistic impact remains underexplored in research. This study aimed to elucidate whether the set configuration used in a lower-body exercise affects mechanical performance during paired sets of upper-body exercises. Twenty-one resistance-trained individuals (14 men and 7 women) randomly completed three experimental sessions that involved four sets of five repetitions at 75%1RM during both the bench press and bench pull exercises. The three experimental sessions varied solely in the activity conducted during the inter-set rest periods of each upper-body exercise: (i) Traditional squat - six squat repetitions without intra-set rest at 65%1RM; (ii) Rest redistribution squat - two clusters of three repetitions of the squat exercise at 65%1RM with 30s of intra-set rest; and (iii) Passive rest - no exercise. The rest redistribution set configuration allowed the sets of the squat exercise to be performed at a faster velocity than the traditional set configuration (p = 0.037). However, none of the mechanical variables differed between the exercise protocols neither in the bench press (p ranged from 0.279 to 0.875) nor in the bench pull (p ranged from 0.166 to 0.478). Although rest redistribution is an effective strategy to alleviate fatigue during the sets in which it is implemented, it does not allow subjects to perform better in subsequent sets of the training session.

Acute Effect of Upper-Lower Body Super-Set vs. Traditional-Set Configurations on Bar Execution Velocity and Volume.

This study aimed to compare the effect on bar execution velocity and number of repetitions between two velocity-based resistance training protocols only differing in the set configuration of the full-squat (SQ) and bench-press (BP) exercises. Moderately strength-trained men were assigned to a traditional (TS, n = 9)- or an alternating-set (AS, n = 10) configuration group to perform four testing sessions against different relative loads (55–60–65–70% 1RM). Relative load, magnitude of intra-set velocity loss (%VL), number of sets, inter-set recovery time, and exercise order were matched for both groups in each session. Mean propulsive velocity of the first repetition (MPVfirst), average number of repetitions per set (NRS), total number of repetitions (TNR), and total training time per session (TT) were measured. No significant differences between training conditions were observed for any relative load in MPVfirst, NRS, and TNR in both exercises. The TS group completed a significantly higher number of repetitions (p < 0.05) at faster velocities (MPV > 0.9–1.1 m·s−1) in the SQ. In conclusion, training sessions performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate relative loads and %VL result in similar bar execution velocity and volume, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional approach.

The effect of a six-week plyometric training performed with different set configurations on explosive performance: cluster vs. traditional set configurations.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects on jump, sprint and change of direction performance of a 6-week plyometric training performed using two different set configurations. Twenty-five male soccer players (age 15.04±0.84 years; height 172.3±6.3 cm; weight 56.18±8.7 kg) from the same U16 team of a professional club voluntarily participated in the study. Countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), standing long jump (SLJ), zigzag agility test, 10 m and 20 m sprint performance tests were carried out in the week before and the week after the 6-week plyometric training period. After pretests, players were allocated to the cluster (CLS; N.=9), traditional (TRD; N.=8), or control groups (CON; N.=8) according to pretest results. The results of this study show that the CLS group had significantly greater improvements than the CON group in all tests except the zigzag test, while the TRD group showed significant improvement in sprint tests, SJ and SLJ compared to the CON group (p <0.05). Also, both CLS and TRD groups had significantly better performance in post-test than in pre-tests in all cases except for the TRD group Zigzag test. We conclude that coaches may be advised to use the CLS set configuration since it is as effective as traditional methods, but poses lower risk in terms of performance decrement and injury due to fatigue and technical deformations.

Chronic Effects of Altering Resistance Training Set Configurations Using Cluster Sets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The acute responses to cluster set resistance training (RT) have been demonstrated. However, as compared to traditional sets, the effect of cluster sets on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations remains unclear. To compare the effects of RT programs implementing cluster and traditional set configurations on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations. Systematic searches of Embase, Scopus, Medline and SPORTDiscus were conducted. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized or non-randomized comparative studies; (2) publication in English; (3) participants of all age groups; (4) participants free of any medical condition or injury; (5) cluster set intervention; (6) comparison intervention utilizing a traditional set configuration; (7) intervention length ≥ three weeks and (8) at least one measure of changes in strength/force/torque, power, velocity, hypertrophy or muscular endurance. Raw data (mean ± SD or range) were extracted from included studies. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. Twenty-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. No differences between cluster and traditional set configurations were found for strength (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.21 to 0.11, p = 0.56), power output (ES = 0.02 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.20, p = 0.86), velocity (ES = 0.15 ± 0.13, 95% CI - 0.10 to 0.41, p = 0.24), hypertrophy (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.14, 95% CI - 0.32 to 0.23, p = 0.73) or endurance (ES = - 0.07 ± 0.18, 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.29, p = 0.70) adaptations. Moreover, no differences were observed when training volume, cluster set model, training status, body parts trained or exercise type were considered. Collectively, both cluster and traditional set configurations demonstrate equal effectiveness to positively induce muscular and neuromuscular adaptation(s). However, cluster set configurations may achieve such adaptations with less fatigue development during RT which may be an important consideration across various exercise settings and stages of periodized RT programs.

Load-velocity Profiles Change after Training Programs with Different Set Configurations.

This study explored the changes in load-velocity relationship of bench press and parallel squat exercises following two programs differing in the set configuration. A randomized controlled trial was carried out in a sample of 39 physically active individuals. Participants were assigned to rest redistribution set configuration, traditional set configuration, or control groups. Over 5 weeks, the experimental groups completed 10 sessions with the 10 repetitions maximum load of both exercises. Rest redistribution sets consisted in 16 sets of 2 repetitions with 60 s of rest between sets, and 5 min between exercises, whereas traditional sets entailed 4 sets of 8 repetitions with 5 min of rest between sets and exercises. The load-velocity relationships of both exercises were obtained before and after the training period. For bench press, an increase of the velocity axis intercept, and a decrease of the slope at post-test were observed in both rest redistribution (p<0.001, G=1.264; p<0.001; G=0.997) and traditional set (p=0.01, G=0.654; p=0.001; G=0.593) groups. For squat, the slope decreased (p<0.001; G=0.588) and the velocity axis intercept increased (p<0.001; G=0.727) only in the rest redistribution group. These results show that rest redistribution sets were particularly efficient for inducing changes in the load-velocity relationship.

Acute mechanical, physiological and perceptual responses in older men to traditional-set or different cluster-set configuration resistance training protocols

PurposeThe aims of this study were to compare mechanical outputs (i.e. power and impulse), physiological (i.e. heart rate) and perceptual (i.e. effort and fatigue) responses in older men to traditional-set or different cluster-set configuration resistance training protocols.MethodsIn a randomized cross-over design, 20 healthy old men (aged 67.2 ± 2.1 years) completed four resistance training sessions using the back squat exercise loaded with optimal power loads. Training configurations were: traditional (TRA), three sets of six repetitions with 120-s rest between each set; Cluster-set 1 (CLU1), 24 single-repetition clusters with 10 s of rest after every cluster; Cluster-set 2 (CLU2), 12 double-repetition clusters with 20-s rest after every cluster; and Cluster-set 4 (CLU4), 6 quadruple-repetition clusters with 40-s rest after every cluster.ResultsCluster-set configurations resulted in greater power outputs compared to traditional-set configuration (range 2.6–9.2%, all ple 0.07 for main effect and protocol times set interactions). CLU1 and CLU2 induced higher heart rate (range 7.1–10.5%, all p < 0.001 for main effect and protocol times set interactions), lower rating of perceived exertion (range − 1.3 to − 3.2 AU, all ple 0.006 for pairwise comparisons) and lower ratings of fatigue (range − 0.15 to − 4 AU, all ple 0.012 for pairwise comparisons) compared to TRA and CLU4. Finally, an absolute preference for CLU2 was reported.ConclusionsFindings presented here support the prescription of CLU2 as an optimal resistance training configuration for trained older men using the back squat.

Effect of Traditional, Cluster, and Rest Redistribution Set Configurations on Neuromuscular and Perceptual Responses During Strength-Oriented Resistance Training.

Cuevas-Aburto, J, Jukic, I, Chirosa-Ríos, LJ, González-Hernández, JM, Janicijevic, D, Barboza-González, P, Guede-Rojas, F, and García-Ramos, A. Effect of traditional, cluster, and rest redistribution set configurations on neuromuscular and perceptual responses during strength-oriented resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1490-1497, 2022-This study aimed to compare the acute effect of traditional (TR), cluster (CL), and rest redistribution (RR) set configurations on neuromuscular and perceptual measures of fatigue. Thirty-one resistance-trained men randomly performed a Control session and 3 experimental sessions consisting of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises performed against the 10 repetition maximum load using TR (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), CL (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 30 seconds of intraset rest every 2 repetitions; 3 minutes of interset rest), and RR (9 sets of 2 repetitions; 45 seconds of interset rest) set configurations. A significant effect of "set configuration" (p = 0.002) was observed for barbell velocity. The average velocity of the training session was lower for TR compared with CL (% difference = 5.09% in SQ and 5.68% in BP) and RR (% difference = 5.92% in SQ and 2.71% in BP). The 3 set configurations induced comparable decrements in countermovement jump height (% difference from -6.0% to -8.1%) and throwing velocity (% difference from -0.6% to -1.2%). Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-10) values collected after the sets were higher for TR (SQ: 6.9 ± 0.7 a.u.; BP: 6.8 ± 0.8 a.u.) compared with CL (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.4 ± 0.7 a.u.) and RR (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8 a.u.; BP: 6.6 ± 0.9 a.u.), while the session RPE did not differ between the set configurations (p = 0.595). CL and RR set configurations allow for higher velocities and lower RPE values during resistance training sessions not performed to failure in comparison with a TR set configuration.

A Cluster Set Protocol in the Half Squat Exercise Reduces Mechanical Fatigue and Lactate Concentrations in Comparison with A Traditional Set Configuration.

Splitting sets into clusters has been shown to maintain performance during resistance training. This study compared the acute fatigue produced by a traditional (TSC) versus a cluster (CSC) set configuration in the smith machine half squat exercise. Fifteen males performed a single bout of TSC and CSC separated by 72–96 h. In the TSC, participants performed as many repetitions as possible until reaching a 20% drop in barbell velocity (MPV), while in the CSC, they performed the same number of repetitions with 15 seconds inter-repetition rest. Effects of both protocols in MPV, countermovement jump height (CMJ), and blood lactate (BLa) were measured. Significant differences between protocols were found for MPV of the last repetition (0.4 vs 0.5 m/s TSC and CSC) and BLa (6.8 mmol/L vs 3.2 mmol/L TSC and CSC). Significant drop of velocity from the first to the last repetition of the set (19.9%), decrease in CMJ height (35.4 vs 32.6 cm), and increase in BLa (2.1 vs 6.8 mmol/L) pre–post-exercise was observed just for the TSC protocol. The results of the present study showed that CSC reduces the lactate response and mechanical fatigue produced by a single set on the half squat exercise in comparison with TSC.

Resistance Exercise-induced Regulation of Muscle Protein Synthesis to Intraset Rest.

We aimed to determine if any mechanistic differences exist between TRD and CLU signaling events associated with muscle anabolism. In randomized crossover trials, eight resistance-trained participants (23 ± 1 yr, 81 ± 4.7 kg, body fat: 18% ± 1.9%; 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 150 ± 9.1 kg) performed an acute bout of CLU (4 sets × (2 × 5) repetitions, 30-s intraset rest, 90-s interset rest) and TRD (4 sets × 10 repetitions, 120-s interset rest) barbell back squats at approximately 70% 1RM with total volume load equated during primed continuous L-[ring-C6]phenylalanine infusions. Blood and muscle biopsy samples were collected at rest and after exercise at 0, 2, and 5 h. There was no difference in postexercise MPS between the CLU and TRD condition (P > 0.05) and no changes in phosphorylation of mTORC1 downstream targets (p70S6K and 4EBP1). Total and phosphorylated yes-associated protein on Ser127 transiently increased (P < 0.01) immediately after exercise (t = 0) in CLU (~2.1-fold) and TRD condition (~2.2-fold). Our results show that CLU is a viable anabolic option by preserving power output with similar MPS stimulation when compared with the TRD condition in trained young adults.

High-speed resistance training in elderly women: Effects of cluster training sets on functional performance and quality of life.

To compare the effects of 12 weeks of high-speed resistance training on functional performance and quality of life in elderly women when using either a traditional-set (TS) or a cluster-set (CS) configuration for inter-set rest. Three groups of subjects were formed by block-design randomization as follows: (i) control group (CG, n = 17; age, 66.5 ± 5.4 years); (ii) 12-week high-speed resistance training group under a CS configuration (CSG, n = 15; age, 67.6 ± 5.4 years); and (iii) 12-week high-speed resistance training group under a TS configuration (TSG, n = 20; age, 68.0 ± 5.3 years). Training was undertaken three times per week, including high-speed resistance training exercises. The main difference between the training groups was the recovery set structure. In the TSG, women rested for 150 s after each set of eight repetitions, whereas the CSG used an interest rest redistribution, such that after two consecutive repetitions, a 30-s rest was allowed. Group × test interactions were observed for a 10-m walking speed test, an 8-foot up-and-go test, a sit-to-stand test, and physical quality of life (p < 0.05; d = 0.12-0.81). The main results suggest that both training methods improve functional performance and quality of life, however, the CS configuration induced significantly greater improvements in functional performance and quality of life than the TS configuration. These results should be considered when designing appropriate and better resistance training programs for older adults.

Inter-repetition rest training and traditional set configuration produce similar strength gains without cortical adaptations

ABSTRACTThis study compared the functional and neural effects of two strength training programmes differing in set configuration. Thirteen participants performed 10 sessions, over a period of 5 weeks, of unilateral leg extensions with different set configurations but with identical work-to-rest ratios for each limb: a traditional configuration (4 sets of 8 repetitions, 10RM load, 3-min pause between sets) and an inter-repetition rest configuration (32 repetitions, 10RM load, 17.4 s of rest between each repetition). Mean propulsive velocity of the traditional sessions was lower than for inter-repetition rest sessions (0.48 ± 0.06 vs. 0.54 ± 0.06 m · s−1; P < 0.001), while perceived exertion was higher (8.3 ± 0.9 and 6.56 ± 1.6 for traditional training and IRT; P = 0.002). One repetition maximum (RM), work with 10RM load, maximum mean propulsive power, maximum voluntary contraction and time to failure with 50% of maximum isometric force improved similarly in both legs (time effect, P < 0.001; effect size range, 0.451–1.190). Time and set configuration did not show significant main effects or interactions for cortical adaptations (motor-evoked potentials, short-interval intracortical inhibition, intracortical facilitation). There were no significant correlations between changes in cortical and peripheral neural adaptations and strength improvement. In conclusion, inter-repetition rest configuration was as effective as traditional training in improving muscle performance.

Effect of cluster set configurations on power clean technique

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of cluster set configurations on power clean technique. Ten male, recreational weightlifters performed three sets of six repetitions at 80% of one repetition max with 0 (P0), 20 (P20) or 40 seconds (P40) inter-repetition rest. During the first and second set of P0, the catch and first pull were in a more forward position during repetition 6 as compared to repetition 1, respectively. During the second set of P40, differences in horizontal displacement were found between repetitions 1 and 6 for the second pull and the loop. During the third set of P40, differences in horizontal displacement were found between repetitions 1 and 6 for the first pull, transition, and beginning of the second pull. No differences in horizontal displacement were found between repetitions 1 and 6 during P20. During each set of P0, vertical displacement decreased between repetitions 1 and 6 (1.02 ± 0.07 m vs. 0.94 ± 0.06 m; Mean ± s). Cluster set configurations led to the maintenance of vertical displacement throughout all sets. The results demonstrate cluster set configurations with greater than 20 seconds inter-repetition rest maintain weightlifting technique to a greater extent than a traditional set configuration.

Analysis of Factors That Influence the Maximum Number of Repetitions in Two Upper-Body Resistance Exercises: Curl Biceps and Bench Press

The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of exercise type, set configuration, and relative intensity load on relationship between 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and maximum number of repetitions (MNR). Thirteen male subjects, experienced in resistance training, were tested in bench press and biceps curl for 1RM, MNR at 90% of 1RM with cluster set configuration (rest of 30s between repetitions) and MNR at 70% of 1RM with traditional set configuration (no rest between repetitions). A lineal encoder was used for measuring displacement of load. Analysis of variance analysis revealed a significant effect of load (p<0.01) and a tendency in exercise factor (p=0.096), whereas the interaction effect was not significant. MNR at 70% of 1RM was lower for biceps curl (16.31+/-2.59 vs. 8.77+/-3 in bench press and biceps curl, respectively; p<0.05) and at 90% of 1RM (21.85+/-11.06 vs. 18.54+/-12.84 in bench press and biceps curl, respectively; p>0.05). Correlation between 1RM and MNR was significant for medium-intensity in biceps curl (r=-0.574; p<0.05) and between MNR and 1RM/body mass (r=-0.574; p<0.05). Neither 1RM nor 1RM/body mass correlated with velocity along set, so velocity seems to be similar at a same relative intensity for subjects with differences in maximum strength levels. From our results, we suggest the employment of MNR rather than % of 1RM for training monitoring. Furthermore, we suggest the introduction of cluster set configuration for upper-body assessment of MNR and for upper-body muscular endurance training at high-intensity loads, as it seems an efficient approach in looking for sessions with greater training volumes. This could be an interesting approach for such sports as wrestling or weightlifting.

Neuromuscular adaptations and hormone balance in strength athletes, physically active males and females during intensive strength training

To compare the effects of 12 weeks of high-speed resistance training on functional performance and quality of life in elderly women when using either a traditional-set (TS) or a cluster-set (CS) configuration for inter-set rest.Three groups of subjects were formed by block-design randomization as follows: (i) control group (CG, n = 17; age, 66.5 ± 5.4 years); (ii) 12-week high-speed resistance training group under a CS configuration (CSG, n = 15; age, 67.6 ± 5.4 years); and (iii) 12-week high-speed resistance training group under a TS configuration (TSG, n = 20; age, 68.0 ± 5.3 years). Training was undertaken three times per week, including high-speed resistance training exercises. The main difference between the training groups was the recovery set structure. In the TSG, women rested for 150 s after each set of eight repetitions, whereas the CSG used an interest rest redistribution, such that after two consecutive repetitions, a 30-s rest was allowed.Group × test interactions were observed for a 10-m walking speed test, an 8-foot up-and-go test, a sit-to-stand test, and physical quality of life (p < 0.05; d = 0.12–0.81). The main results suggest that both training methods improve functional performance and quality of life, however, the CS configuration induced significantly greater improvements in functional performance and quality of life than the TS configuration.These results should be considered when designing appropriate and better resistance training programs for older adults.