Longitudinal Effects of Traditional and Rest Redistribution Set Configurations on Explosive-Strength and Strength-Endurance Manifestations

Abstract

Janicijevic, D, Gonz ález-Hern ández, JM, Jim énez-Reyes, P, M árquez, G, and García-Ramos, A. Longitudinal effects of traditional and rest redistribution set configurations on explosive-strength and strength-endurance manifestations. J Strength Cond Res 37(5): 980-986, 2023-This study aimed to compare the long-term effects of resistance training programs based on traditional and rest redistribution set configurations on explosive-strength and strength-endurance performance of lower-body and upper-body muscles. Thirty physically active men were randomly assigned to a traditional group (TRG: 6 sets of 5 repetitions with 3 minutes of interset rest) or a rest redistribution group (RRG: 30 sets of 1 repetition with 31 seconds of interrepetition rest). The training program lasted 6 weeks (2 sessions•wk 21 ), and in each training session, the squat and bench press exercises were performed with maximal concentric effort against approximately the 75% of the 1 repetition maximum. Before and after training, explosive-strength performance (peak velocity reached at submaximal loads during the countermovement jump and bench press throw) and strengthendurance performance (mean set velocity of 10 repetitions using both traditional and cluster sets in the squat and bench press) were assessed. Significant improvements in all dependent variables were observed after training for both the TRG (p # 0.004; effect size [ES] 5 0.63-3.06) and RRG (p # 0.001; ES 5 0.58-3.23). The magnitude of the changes was comparable for both groups with the only exception of the larger improvements observed in the RRG for the bench press mean set velocity using both traditional (ES 5 0.77) and cluster (ES 5 0.82) set configurations. Traditional and rest redistribution set configurations are equally effective to improve lower-body explosive strength, lower-body strength endurance, and upper-body explosive strength, whereas rest redistribution set configurations could induce greater adaptations in upper-body strength endurance.

Effect of resistance training programs differing in set structure on muscular hypertrophy and performance in untrained young men

“…It is worth noting that RR may perform better in other types of endurance tests. For instance, Janicijevic et al (2022) conducted a muscular endurance test using a two set structure (TS and RR) before and after the intervention for the TS and RR groups, respectively. The participants completed ten repetitions of the bench press or back squat with a load of approximately 75% of 1RM.…”

Time-Saving Versus Time-Efficient Training Terminology, Methods, and Prescription

“…As outlined by Tufano et al (56), “rest redistribution” could be considered a form of time-efficient training. The strategy of rest redistribution is to redistribute overall interset rest time and provide more frequent rest periods (29,56). In their study, Tufano et al (56) implemented rest redistribution methodology by prescribing increased sets, fewer repetitions per set, and brief interset rest periods (approximately 15 seconds).…”

“…Further research is suggested with multi-joint movements involving both concentric and eccentric components, and invoking use of the stretch-shortening cycle. More recent research by Janicijevic et al (29) shows promise in the potential of rest redistribution programming to improve lower- and upper-body explosive strength and strength endurance when measured by prescribing exercises for the squat and bench press at 75% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) completed in 30 sets of 1 rep with 31 seconds of interest rest ( p ≤ 0.001; ES = 0.58–3.23). Ultimately, time is not necessarily “saved” with rest redistribution because training time, in theory, remains the same as that for a traditional workout.…”