Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Sports Med. 2020 Dec;50(12):2209-2236. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01344-2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
在抗阻训练（RT）中改变个体组通常用于允许更大的速度和力量输出，减少乳酸等代谢物的积累，并降低感知的用力，这最终会影响到训练的适应性。然而，关于替代组结构（即集群组和休息重新分配）对 RT 期间和之后的这些急性机械、代谢和感知反应的影响的大小，目前的证据不一致。
本研究旨在系统地回顾和荟萃分析当前关于传统和替代（集群和休息重新分配）组结构在 RT 期间和之后的急性机械、代谢和感知反应之间差异的证据，并讨论文献中注意到的差异的潜在原因。
遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南，并在 2019 年 6 月之前搜索了五个数据库。当研究将英语写成并比较健康成年人在传统、集群或传统和休息重新分配组结构之间的至少一个急性机械、代谢或感知反应时，将其纳入研究。在可能的情况下进行了随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归。
纳入了 32 项研究。汇总结果表明，替代组结构允许更大的绝对平均值[标准化均数差（SMD）=0.60]和峰值速度（SMD=0.41），以及平均值（SMD=0.33）和峰值功率（SMD=0.38）在 RT 期间。此外，替代组结构在减轻 RT 期间（SMD=0.83-1.97）和之后（SMD=0.58）的速度和力量变量下降以及减轻乳酸积累（SMD=1.61）和感知用力（SMD=0.81）方面也非常有效。替代组结构对 RT 期间和之后的速度和力量下降以及维持的这些影响明显大于绝对速度和力量变量。控制每个替代组结构的亚组分析表明，集群组通常比休息重新分配更有效地缓解机械、代谢和感知疲劳标志物。
替代组结构可以减少 RT 期间和之后的机械疲劳、感知用力和代谢应激。然而，总休息时间的基本差异导致集群组通常比休息重新分配更有效地减轻 RT 期间的疲劳引起的变化，这突出了在研究和实践中独立分类它们的重要性。此外，绝对值（即平均会话速度或功率）以及 RT 期间机械结果的下降和维持，以及 RT 后残留的机械疲劳，都受到替代组结构的不同影响，这表明这些变量可能提供不同的信息，可以为未来的训练决策提供信息。
原始方案已前瞻性注册（CRD42019138954）于 PROSPERO（国际系统评价前瞻性注册）。
