Acute effects of different set configurations during a strength-oriented resistance training session on barbell velocity and the force–velocity relationship in resistance-trained males and females
This study explored the acute effects of strength-oriented resistance training sessions performed using three different set configurations on barbell velocity and the force–velocity (F–v) relationship of upper-body muscles in men and women.
Thirteen men (age: 23.8 ± 2.5 years; 6-repetition maximum [6RM] load: 73.4 ± 15.6 kg) and 13 women (age: 21.5 ± 1.4 years; 6RM load: 32.8 ± 5.2 kg) performed 24 repetitions with a 6RM load during the bench press exercise using traditional (TR: 6 sets of 4 repetitions with 3 min of rest between sets), cluster (CL: 6 sets of 4 repetitions with 15 s of intra-set rest every two repetitions and 2 min and 45 s of rest between sets) and inter-repetition rest (IRR: 1 set of 24 repetitions with 39 s of rest between repetitions) set configurations. The F–v relationship parameters [maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (v0) and maximum power (Pmax)] were determined before and after each training session.
The average training velocity did not differ between the three set configurations (p = 0.234), but the IRR set configuration generally provided higher velocities during the last repetition of each set. Significant decreases in F0 (p = 0.001) and Pmax (p = 0.024) but not in v0 (p = 0.669) were observed after the training sessions. Comparable velocity loss was observed for men and women (− 12.1% vs. − 11.3%; p = 0.699).
The administration of very short intra-set rest periods does not allow for the attainment of higher velocities than traditional set configurations during strength-oriented resistance training sessions conducted with the bench press exercise when the work-to-rest ratio is equated.
KeywordsStrength training Cluster set Inter-repetition rest Velocity loss
Traditional set configuration
Cluster set configuration
Inter-repetition rest set configuration
- 1 RM
One repetition maximum
Maximal theoretical force
Maximal theoretical velocity
Maximal theoretical power
We would like to thank all subjects that voluntary participated in this study.
Author contribution statement
AT, AGR and GGH conceived and designed research. AT and AGR collected data. AT, DJ, and AGR organized the database and performed the statistical analysis. AT and AGR wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Chiu LZF, Fry AC, Weiss LW et al (2003) Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 17:671–677. https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2003)017%3c0671:PPRIAA%3e2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
- Filho JCJ, Gobbi LTB, Gurjao ALD et al (2013) Effect of different rest intervals, between sets, on muscle performance during leg press exercise, in trained older women. J Sports Sci Med 12:138–143 (In press) Google Scholar
- Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB et al (2003) Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 17:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2003)017%3c0095:EODSCO%3e2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
- Koefoed N, Lerche M, Jensen B et al (2018) Peak power output in loaded jump squat exercise is affected by set structure. Int J Exerc Sci 11:776–784Google Scholar
- Pincivero DM, Coelho AJ, Campy RM (2004) Gender differences in perceived exertion during fatiguing knee extensions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:109–117. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000106183.23941.54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Winter DA (1990) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 165–189Google Scholar