BACKGROUND: Using lifting straps during pulling exercises (such as deadlift) may increase absolute velocity performance. However, it remains unclear whether lifting straps could also reduce the degree of relative fatigue measured by velocity decline and maintenance in a training set. HYPOTHESIS: There will be less mean velocity decline (MVD) and greater mean velocity maintenance (MVM) for deadlifts performed with (DLw) compared with without (DLn) lifting straps, and an underestimation of MVD and MVM when using the first compared with the fastest repetition as a reference repetition. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized cross over design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: A total of 16 resistance-trained men performed a familiarization session, 2 1-repetition maximum [1RM] sessions (1 with and 1 without lifting straps), and 3 randomly applied experimental sessions consisting of 4 sets of 4 repetitions: (1) DLw against the 80% of DLn 1RM (DLwn), (2) DLn against the 80% of the DLn 1RM (DLnn), and (3) DLw against the 80% of the DLw 1RM (DLww). MVD and MVM were calculated using the first and the fastest repetition as the reference repetition. RESULTS: MVD was significantly lower during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLww (P < 0.01), whereas MVM was greater during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLwn (P < 0.01) with no differences between DLwn and DLnn for both MVD and MVM (P > 0.05). The second repetition of the set was generally the fastest (54.1%) and lower MVD and higher MVM were observed when the first repetition was used as the reference repetition (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Lifting straps were not effective at reducing MVD and increasing MVM when the same absolute loads were lifted. Furthermore, using the first repetition as the reference repetition underestimated MVD, and overestimated MVM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The fastest repetition should be used as the reference repetition to avoid inducing excessive fatigue when the first repetition is not the fastest.

• Keywords
• fatigue, monitoring, resistance training, training prescription, velocity,
• MeSH
• Muscle, Skeletal MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Resistance Training * MeSH
• Muscle Strength MeSH
• Fatigue MeSH
• Weight Lifting MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

BACKGROUND: The acute effects of resistance training (RT) set structure alteration are well established; however, less is known about their effects on chronic training adaptations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesise the available evidence on the effectiveness of traditional (TS), cluster (CS) and rest redistribution (RR) set structures in promoting chronic RT adaptations, and provide an overview of the factors which might differentially influence the magnitude of specific training adaptations between set structure types. METHODS: This review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines encompassing the literature search of five databases. Studies in English that compared muscular strength, endurance, and/or hypertrophy adaptations, as well as vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts in the slopes of force-velocity profiles between TS and CS or RR set structures (i.e., alternative set structures) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, none had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Pooled results revealed that none of the set structures were more effective at inducing strength (standardised mean difference (SMD) = - 0.06) or hypertrophy (SMD = - 0.03). TS were more effective at improving muscular endurance compared to alternative set structures (SMD = - 0.38), whereas alternative set structures tended to be more effective for vertical jump performance gains (SMD = 0.13), but this effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). Greater velocity and power outputs at submaximal loads (SMD = 0.18) were observed when using alternative set structures compared to TS. In addition, alternative set structures promoted greater shifts of the slope of force-velocity profiles towards more velocity dominant profiles compared to TS (SMD = 0.28). Sub-group analyses controlling for each alternative set structure independently showed mixed results likely caused by the relatively small number of studies available for some outcomes. CONCLUSION: Modifying TS to an alternative set structure (CS or RR) has a negligible impact on strength and hypertrophy. Using CS and RR can lead to greater vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts to more velocity dominant force-velocity profiles compared to training using TS. However, TS may provide more favourable effects on muscle endurance when compared to CS and RR. These findings demonstrate that altering TS to alternative set structures may influence the magnitude of specific muscular adaptations indicating set structure manipulation is an important consideration for RT program design. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

• MeSH
• Acclimatization MeSH
• Adaptation, Physiological MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Rest MeSH
• Resistance Training * MeSH
• Muscle Strength MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Meta-Analysis MeSH
• Systematic Review MeSH

BACKGROUND: The alteration of individual sets during resistance training (RT) is often used to allow for greater velocity and power outputs, reduce metabolite accumulation such as lactate and also reduce perceived exertion which can ultimately affect the resultant training adaptations. However, there are inconsistencies in the current body of evidence regarding the magnitude of the effects of alternative set structures (i.e., cluster sets and rest redistribution) on these acute mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual responses during and after RT. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse current evidence on the differences between traditional and alternative (cluster and rest redistribution) set structures on acute mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual responses during and after RT, and to discuss potential reasons for the disparities noted in the literature. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and five databases were searched until June 2019. Studies were included when they were written in English and compared at least one acute mechanical, metabolic, or perceptual response between traditional, cluster or traditional and rest redistribution set structures in healthy adults. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included. Pooled results revealed that alternative set structures allowed for greater absolute mean [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.60] and peak velocity (SMD = 0.41), and mean (SMD = 0.33) and peak power (SMD = 0.38) during RT. In addition, alternative set structures were also highly effective at mitigating a decline in velocity and power variables during (SMD = 0.83-1.97) and after RT (SMD = 0.58) as well as reducing lactate accumulation (SMD = 1.61) and perceived exertion (SMD = 0.81). These effects of alternative set structures on velocity and power decline and maintenance during RT were considerably larger than for absolute velocity and power variables. Sub-group analyses controlling for each alternative set structure independently showed that cluster sets were generally more effective than rest redistribution in alleviating mechanical, metabolic, and perceptual markers of fatigue. CONCLUSION: Alternative set structures can reduce mechanical fatigue, perceptual exertion, and metabolic stress during and after RT. However, fundamental differences in the amount of total rest time results in cluster sets generally being more effective than rest redistribution in alleviating fatigue-induced changes during RT, which highlights the importance of classifying them independently in research and in practice. Additionally, absolute values (i.e., mean session velocity or power), as well as decline and maintenance of the mechanical outcomes during RT, and residual mechanical fatigue after RT, are all affected differently by alternative set structures, suggesting that these variables may provide distinct information that can inform future training decisions. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

• MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Lactic Acid blood   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Rest * MeSH
• Resistance Training methods   MeSH
• Physical Exertion MeSH
• Fatigue * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Meta-Analysis MeSH
• Systematic Review MeSH
• Names of Substances
• Lactic Acid MeSH

Redistributing long inter-set rest intervals into shorter but more frequent rest intervals generally maintains concentric performance, possibly due to improved energy store maintenance. However, eccentric actions require less energy than concentric actions, meaning that shorter but more frequent sets may not affect eccentric actions to the same degree as concentric actions. Considering the increased popularity of eccentric exercise, the current study evaluated the effects of redistributing long inter-set rest periods into shorter but more frequent rest periods during eccentric only knee extensions. Eleven resistance-trained men performed 40 isokinetic unilateral knee extensions at 60°·s-1 with 285 s of total rest using traditional sets (TS; 4 sets of 10 with 95 s inter-set rest) and rest-redistribution (RR; 20 sets of 2 with 15 s inter-set rest). Before and during exercise, muscle oxygenation was measured via near-infrared spectroscopy, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded after every 10th repetition. There were no differences between protocols for peak torque (RR, 241.58±47.20 N; TS, 231.64±48.87 N; p=0.396) or total work (RR, 215.26±41.47 J; TS, 209.71±36.02 J; p=0.601), but moderate to large effect sizes existed in later repetitions (6,8,10) with greater peak torque during RR (d=0.66-1.19). For the entire session, RR had moderate effects on RPE (RR, 5.73±1.42; TS, 6.09±1.30; p=0.307; d=0.53) and large effects on oxygen saturation (RR, 5857.4±310.0; TS, 6495.8±273.8; p=0.002, d=2.13). Therefore, RR may maintain peak torque or total work during eccentric exercise, improve oxygen utilization at the muscle, and reduce the perceived effort.

• Keywords
• cluster sets, fatigue, isokinetic, muscle oxygenation, resistance training, velocity,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

This study determined whether redistributing total rest time into shorter, but more frequent rest periods could maintain velocity and power output during 3 traditional sets of 6 clean pulls using 80% (TS80), 100% (TS100) and 120% (TS120) of power clean 1RM with 180 seconds of inter-set rest and during 3 "rest redistribution" protocols of 9 sets of 2 clean pulls using 80% (RR80), 100% (RR100) and 120% (RR120) of power clean 1RM with 45 seconds of inter-set rest. The total number of repetitions performed above 10 and 20% velocity loss thresholds, mean and peak velocity maintenance (the average of all 18 repetitions relative to the best repetition; MVM, PVM), and decline (the worst repetition relative to the best repetition; MVD, PVD) were calculated. For MVM, PVM, MVD, and PVD, there were small-to-moderate effect sizes in favour of RR80 and RR100, but large effects favouring RR120, compared to their respective TS protocols. The number of repetitions within a 20% velocity loss threshold was 17.7 ± 0.6 during RR and 16.5 ± 2.4 during TS (effect size 0.69); and the number of repetitions within a 10% velocity loss threshold was about 13.1 ± 3.7 during RR and 10.7 ± 3.6 during TS (effect size 0.66). Therefore, RR generally allowed for a better overall maintenance of velocity and power, especially at heavy loads. Coaches who wish to implement velocity-based training, but who do not wish to purchase or use the associated equipment, may consider rest-redistribution to encourage similar training stimuli.

• Keywords
• cluster sets, fatigue, power, resistance training, traditional sets, weightlifting,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

Performing traditional sets to failure is fatiguing, but redistributing total rest time to create short frequent sets lessens the fatigue. Since performing traditional sets to failure is not always warranted, we compared the effects of not-to-failure traditional sets and rest redistribution during free-weight back squats in twenty-six strength-trained men (28 ± 5.44 y; 84.6 ± 10.5 kg, 1RM-to-body-mass ratio of 1.82 ± 0.33). They performed three sets of ten repetitions with 4 min inter-set rest (TS) and five sets of six repetitions with 2 min inter-set rest (RR6) at 70% of one repetition maximum. Mean velocity (p > 0.05; d = 0.10 (-0.35, 0.56)) and mean power (p > 0.05; d = 0.19 (-0.27, 0.64)) were not different between protocols, but the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was less during RR6 (p < 0.05; d = 0.93 (0.44, 1.40)). Also, mean velocity and power output decreased (RR6: 14.10% and 10.95%; TS: 17.10% and 15.85%, respectively) from the first repetition to the last, but the percentage decrease was similar (velocity: p > 0.05; d = 0.16 (0.30, 0.62); power: p > 0.05; d = 0.22 (-0.24, 0.68)). These data suggest that traditional sets and rest redistribution maintain velocity and power output to a similar degree when traditional sets are not performed to failure. However, rest redistribution might be advantageous as RR6 displayed a lower RPE.

• Keywords
• cluster sets, power output, resistance training, rest redistribution, training effort, velocity,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

Cluster sets allow for velocity and power output maintenance, but the literature routinely uses highly fatiguing traditional set protocols. Although such studies have merit, others suggest fatigue should be avoided when training to improve power output, making those cluster set studies less practical. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare these set structures when truncating sets using a power-based threshold. Nine males (23.4 ± 0.6 yr) with various sport backgrounds performed 6 sets of back squats with individualized loads that elicited the greatest mean power (MPmax) output (112.7 ± 12.1% of body mass). Each set during the traditional set (TS) protocol included as many repetitions as possible until two consecutive repetitions dropped below 90% MPmax, which was followed by 120 s inter-set rest. The design was identical for cluster sets (CS) but with an additional 20 s intra-set rest after every 2 repetitions. The number of repetitions performed, mean velocity, and mean power output, were analyzed using 2(protocol)*6(set) repeated measures ANOVA. The number of repetitions during CS (51.8 ± 14.4) was greater than TS (31.9 ± 3.7) (p = 0.001), but the average velocity (CS = 0.711 ± 0.069, TS = 0.716 ± 0.081 m·s-1; p = 0.732) and power output (CS = 630.3 ± 59.8, TS = 636.0 ± 84.3 W; p = 0.629) of those repetitions were similar. These data indicate that CS are a viable option for increasing training volume during contemporary training where sets are ended when repetitions drop below velocity or power thresholds.

• MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Athletes MeSH
• Weight Lifting * physiology   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Comparative Study MeSH