Cluster vs. traditional training programmes: changes in the force–velocity relationship

Abstract

This randomised controlled study examined the force-velocity relationship changes (force and velocity axis intercepts, slope and estimated maximum power) in response to 5-week training programmes differing in the set configuration. For each session, the traditional group performed 4 sets of 8 repetitions with 5 min of rest between sets and exercises, while the cluster group completed 16 sets of 2 repetitions with 1 min of rest between sets and 5 min between exercises. Both programmes were performed with the 10repetition maximum load, including bench press, parallel squat, lat pull-down and leg curl exercises. Individual force-velocity profiles were obtained for bench press and squat using a linear velocity transducer before and after the intervention, along with lactate and mechanical performance during the intervention. Results showed in bench press similar changes of the force-velocity profile after both protocols (no shift of the slope and higher force and velocity axis intercept values). For the squat, significant changes in the slope (P = 0.001) and the velocity intercept (P = 0.002) towards a velocity profile were observed after cluster but not after traditional training. These results suggest that set configuration may modulate changes of force-velocity relationship, especially for squat.

Effect of Inter-Repetition Rest vs. Traditional Strength Training on Lower Body Strength, Rate of Force Development, and Muscle Architecture

“…In the present study, there was no specific direction to the participants to move the load fast. However, several studies have shown that inter-repetition rest resistance training increase the velocity of each repetition leading to a lower metabolic demand regardless of the directions provided to the participants [4,9,10]. RFD depends on several biological attributes, including type IIx fibres [19].…”

“…Some data support that cluster training enhances power and velocity to a greater extent than traditional strength training [3,23]. Since inter-repetition rest training allows an increased repetition velocity compared to traditional training [9,10], it might result in increased explosive performance; however, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the effect of inter-repetition rest sets configuration on RFD has not been investigated yet.…”

“…The rest between repetitions may be between 15 and 40 s, depending on the training goal, i.e., hypertrophy, maximum strength, or power [8], while cluster set structure may include double or triple repetitions, either increasing the total training rest of re-distributing the total rest period between repetitions and sets [7]. Acute and long-term training studies revealed that inter-repetition rest may result in faster resynthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), lower blood lactate concentration, and an increase in the repetition velocity compared to traditional training [4,9,10]. In addition, inter-repetition rest has been reported to increase the total training volume and intensity compared to traditional resistance training [11][12][13], resulting in greater improvement in muscle strength [4,14].…”

Acute responses of muscle oxygen saturation during different cluster training configurations in resistance-trained individuals

“…Although TT has been associated with greater strength gains due to the high metabolic stress it generates [ 8 , 9 ], several studies have shown similar gains in strength [ 10 – 12 ] and lower performance decremental effects when less fatiguing protocols during training were selected [ 13 – 16 ]. Moreover, shorter set configuration causes a reduction in metabolic impact [ 17 ], a smaller impact on the cardiovascular response [ 18 ], and a higher mechanical performance during the course of exercise compared to longer set configurations [ 12 , 14 ].…”

“…Although TT has been associated with greater strength gains due to the high metabolic stress it generates [ 8 , 9 ], several studies have shown similar gains in strength [ 10 – 12 ] and lower performance decremental effects when less fatiguing protocols during training were selected [ 13 – 16 ]. Moreover, shorter set configuration causes a reduction in metabolic impact [ 17 ], a smaller impact on the cardiovascular response [ 18 ], and a higher mechanical performance during the course of exercise compared to longer set configurations [ 12 , 14 ]. However, it is important that the rest time between repetitions will be the only independent variable to evaluate, since the inclusion of other variables, such as different rest times between sets, load intensities, or numbers of repetitions per set, could affect the different adaptations caused by this type of training.…”