Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sports Med. 2021 May;51(5):1061-1086. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01423-4. Epub 2021 Jan 8.
The acute effects of resistance training (RT) set structure alteration are well established; however, less is known about their effects on chronic training adaptations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
抗阻训练（RT）组结构改变的急性效应已得到充分证实；然而，对于其对慢性训练适应的影响，人们知之甚少。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是综合现有证据，评估传统（TS）、集群（CS）和休息重新分配（RR）组结构在促进慢性 RT 适应方面的有效性，并提供一个概述，说明哪些因素可能会对不同组结构类型之间特定训练适应的幅度产生不同的影响。
本综述使用 PRISMA（系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目）指南进行，包括对五个数据库的文献检索。纳入比较肌肉力量、耐力和/或肥大适应以及垂直跳跃性能、亚最大负荷下的速度和功率以及力-速度曲线斜率变化的研究，这些研究比较了 TS 和 CS 或 RR 组结构（即替代组结构）之间的 TS 和 CS 或 RR 组结构。使用改良的 Cochrane 协作工具评估随机试验的偏倚风险。在可能的情况下进行了随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归分析。
17 项研究符合纳入标准，没有一项研究有超过一项被评估为高风险的偏倚项目。汇总结果显示，没有一种组结构在诱导力量方面更有效（标准化均数差（SMD）=-0.06）或肥大（SMD=-0.03）。与替代组结构相比，TS 更有效地提高肌肉耐力（SMD=-0.38），而替代组结构更有利于垂直跳跃性能的提高（SMD=0.13），但这种效果无统计学意义（p=0.190）。与 TS 相比，使用替代组结构时，亚最大负荷下的速度和功率输出更高（SMD=0.18）。此外，与 TS 相比，替代组结构更能促进力-速度曲线斜率向更速度主导型曲线的更大变化（SMD=0.28）。在单独控制每个替代组结构的亚组分析中，由于一些结果的研究数量相对较少，结果存在差异。
将 TS 改为替代组结构（CS 或 RR）对力量和肥大几乎没有影响。与 TS 相比，CS 和 RR 的使用可以导致更大的垂直跳跃性能、亚最大负荷下的速度和功率以及更偏向速度的力-速度曲线斜率变化。然而，与 CS 和 RR 相比，TS 可能对肌肉耐力产生更有利的影响。这些发现表明，改变 TS 为替代组结构可能会影响特定肌肉适应的幅度，表明组结构的改变是 RT 方案设计的一个重要考虑因素。
原始方案已前瞻性注册（CRD42019138954）于 PROSPERO（国际系统评价前瞻性登记库）。
