Using cluster and rest redistribution set structures as alternatives to resistance training prescription method based on velocity loss thresholds.
Fatigue
Strength training
Training monitoring
Training prescription
Velocity-based training
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
16
12
2021
accepted:
09
03
2022
entrez:
4
4
2022
pubmed:
5
4
2022
medline:
5
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of cluster (CS), rest redistribution (RR) and traditional (TS) set configurations on acute neuromuscular performance, and to determine the viability of using CS and RR as alternatives to training prescription based on velocity loss (VL). Thirty-one resistance-trained men performed, in a randomised order, three experimental sessions consisting of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises performed against the 10-repetition maximum load using CS (three sets of six repetitions; 30 s of intra-set rest every two repetitions; 3 min of inter-set rest), RR (9 sets of two repetitions; 45 s of inter-set rest), and TS (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 3 min of inter-set rest), set configurations. Linear mixed-effects model analysis revealed that participants had significantly lower VL ( These findings suggest that CS and RR are effective at reducing the overall fatigue-included decrease in velocity compared to TS and allow the majority of repetitions to be completed with less than 20% VL. Therefore, both CS and RR can be used to manage fatigue during resistance training, and as alternatives to training prescription method based on 20% VL threshold.
Sections du résumé
Background
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of cluster (CS), rest redistribution (RR) and traditional (TS) set configurations on acute neuromuscular performance, and to determine the viability of using CS and RR as alternatives to training prescription based on velocity loss (VL).
Methods
Thirty-one resistance-trained men performed, in a randomised order, three experimental sessions consisting of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises performed against the 10-repetition maximum load using CS (three sets of six repetitions; 30 s of intra-set rest every two repetitions; 3 min of inter-set rest), RR (9 sets of two repetitions; 45 s of inter-set rest), and TS (3 sets of 6 repetitions; 3 min of inter-set rest), set configurations.
Results
Linear mixed-effects model analysis revealed that participants had significantly lower VL (
Conclusions
These findings suggest that CS and RR are effective at reducing the overall fatigue-included decrease in velocity compared to TS and allow the majority of repetitions to be completed with less than 20% VL. Therefore, both CS and RR can be used to manage fatigue during resistance training, and as alternatives to training prescription method based on 20% VL threshold.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35368341
doi: 10.7717/peerj.13195
pii: 13195
pmc: PMC8973460
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e13195Informations de copyright
© 2022 Jukic et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Amador García Ramos is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.
Références
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Dec;31(12):3508-3523
pubmed: 28834797
J Hum Kinet. 2017 Aug 1;58:35-43
pubmed: 28828076
J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Oct;34(10):2867-2876
pubmed: 30036284
Percept Mot Skills. 2014 Dec;119(3):825-37
pubmed: 25456248
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 May;33(5):1258-1265
pubmed: 31034462
Sports Med. 2018 May;48(5):1207-1220
pubmed: 29470825
Int J Sports Med. 2010 May;31(5):347-52
pubmed: 20180176
Int J Sports Med. 2012 May;33(5):376-80
pubmed: 22318559
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Feb;50(2):334-343
pubmed: 28991037
Sports Med. 2021 May;51(5):1061-1086
pubmed: 33417154
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020 Aug;52(8):1752-1762
pubmed: 32049887
Sports Med. 2018 Apr;48(4):765-785
pubmed: 29372481
J Sports Sci. 2017 Jun;35(11):1073-1082
pubmed: 27433992
Sports Med. 2020 Dec;50(12):2209-2236
pubmed: 32901442
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 25;18(3):
pubmed: 33504038
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017 Jul;27(7):724-735
pubmed: 27038416
Sports Med. 2019 Dec;49(12):1861-1877
pubmed: 31506904
Biol Sport. 2014 Jun;31(2):157-61
pubmed: 24899782
Sports Med. 2018 Jan;48(1):137-151
pubmed: 28933024
Eur J Sport Sci. 2020 Oct;20(9):1168-1177
pubmed: 31825728
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Jan;31(1):38-45
pubmed: 9927008
Int J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;35(11):916-24
pubmed: 24886926
Sports Med. 2016 Oct;46(10):1419-49
pubmed: 26838985
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Sep;43(9):1725-34
pubmed: 21311352
J Hum Kinet. 2019 Aug 21;68:5-16
pubmed: 31531129