Using cluster and rest redistribution set structures as alternatives to resistance training prescription method based on velocity loss thresholds.

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 ( = 0.0005) during CS and RR than TS. Generalised mixed-effects model analysis yielded significant main effects of set structure ( < 0.0001; RR > CS > TS), exercise ( < 0.0001; SQ > BP), and set number ( = 0.0006; Set 1 > Set 2 > Set 3) for maintaining repetition velocity above a 20% VL threshold.

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.