King Grub
2016-09-15, 07:36
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of intra-set rest frequency and training load on muscle time under tension, external work, and external mechanical power output during back squat protocols with similar changes in velocity.
METHODS:
Twelve strength-trained men (26.0±4.2 y; 83.1±8.8 kg; 1.75±0.06 m; 1.88 ± 0.19 1RM:body mass) performed three sets of twelve back squats using three different set structures: traditional sets with 60% 1RM (TS), cluster sets of four with 75% 1RM (CS4), and cluster sets of two with 80% 1RM (CS2). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to determine differences in peak force (PF), mean force (MF), peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV), peak power (PP), mean power (MP), total work (TW), total time under tension (TUT), percent mean velocity loss (%MVL), and percent peak velocity loss (%PVL) between protocols.
RESULTS:
Compared to TS and CS4, CS2 resulted in greater MF, TW, and TUT in addition to less MV, PV, and MP. Similarly, CS4 resulted in greater MF, TW, and TUT in addition to less MV, PV, and MP compared to TS. There were no differences between protocols for %MVL, %PVL, PF, or PP.
CONCLUSIONS:
These data show that the intra-set rest provided in CS4 and CS2 allowed for greater external loads compared to TS, increasing TW and TUT, while resulting in similar PP and %VL. Therefore, cluster set structures may function as an alternative method to traditional strength- or hypertrophy-oriented training by increasing training load without increasing %VL or decreasing PP.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016 Sep 6. Cluster Sets Permit Greater Mechanical Stress Without Decreasing Relative Velocity.
METHODS:
Twelve strength-trained men (26.0±4.2 y; 83.1±8.8 kg; 1.75±0.06 m; 1.88 ± 0.19 1RM:body mass) performed three sets of twelve back squats using three different set structures: traditional sets with 60% 1RM (TS), cluster sets of four with 75% 1RM (CS4), and cluster sets of two with 80% 1RM (CS2). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to determine differences in peak force (PF), mean force (MF), peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV), peak power (PP), mean power (MP), total work (TW), total time under tension (TUT), percent mean velocity loss (%MVL), and percent peak velocity loss (%PVL) between protocols.
RESULTS:
Compared to TS and CS4, CS2 resulted in greater MF, TW, and TUT in addition to less MV, PV, and MP. Similarly, CS4 resulted in greater MF, TW, and TUT in addition to less MV, PV, and MP compared to TS. There were no differences between protocols for %MVL, %PVL, PF, or PP.
CONCLUSIONS:
These data show that the intra-set rest provided in CS4 and CS2 allowed for greater external loads compared to TS, increasing TW and TUT, while resulting in similar PP and %VL. Therefore, cluster set structures may function as an alternative method to traditional strength- or hypertrophy-oriented training by increasing training load without increasing %VL or decreasing PP.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016 Sep 6. Cluster Sets Permit Greater Mechanical Stress Without Decreasing Relative Velocity.