The Acute Neuromuscular Responses to Cluster Set Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundCluster sets (CSs) are a popular resistance training (RT) strategy categorised by short rest periods implemented between single or groups of repetitions. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of CSs on acute intra-session neuromuscular performance is still equivocal.ObjectiveThe objective of this investigation was to determine the efficacy of a single session of CSs to attenuate losses in force, velocity and power compared to traditional set (TS) training.MethodsScreening consisted of a systematic search of EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Inclusion criteria were (1) measured one or more of mean/peak force, velocity or power; (2) implemented CSs in comparison to TSs; (3) an acute design, or part thereof; and (4) published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal. Raw data (mean ± standard deviation) were extracted from included studies and converted into standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsTwenty-five studies were used to calculate SMD ± 95% CI. Peak (SMD = 0.815, 95% CI 0.105–1.524, p = 0.024) and mean (SMD = 0.863, 95% CI 0.319–1.406, p = 0.002) velocity, peak (SMD = 0.356, 95% CI 0.057–0.655, p = 0.019) and mean (SMD = 0.692, 95% CI 0.395–0.990, p < 0.001) power, and peak force (SMD = 0.306, 95% CI − 0.028 to 0.584, p = 0.031) favoured CS. Subgroup analyses demonstrated an overall effect for CS across loads (SMD = 0.702, 95% CI 0.548–0.856, p < 0.001), included exercises (SMD = 0.664, 95% CI 0.413–0.916, p < 0.001), experience levels (SMD = 0.790, 95% CI 0.500–1.080, p < 0.001) and CS structures (SMD = 0.731, 95% CI 0.567–0.894, p < 0.001) with no difference within subgroups.ConclusionCSs are a useful strategy to attenuate the loss in velocity, power and peak force during RT and should be used to maintain neuromuscular performance, especially when kinetic outcomes are emphasised. However, it remains unclear if the benefits translate to improved performance across all RT exercises, between sexes and across the lifespan.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-019-01172-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Load-velocity Profiles Change after Training Programs with Different Set Configurations

“…The results regarding the loss of velocity suggest that RRS may reduce the loss of velocity throughout the training sessions in comparison with the TS protocol. This result is not surprising since the literature is quite consistent about the beneficial effect of more frequent pauses during RT in order to improve mechanical performance [7]. In addition, based on the relationship between the velocity loss and blood lactate and ammonia production after a resistance exercise [34], we may suggest that both training programs differ, not only in the accumulation of repetitions performed at low velocities but also in metabolic responses.…”

COVID-19 pandemic is an urgent time for older people to practice resistance exercise at home

“…However, light to moderate intensity (≤60% of maximum) should be used ( Byrne et al, 2016 ; Fragala et al, 2019 ; Radaelli et al, 2019 , Radaelli et al, 2018 ), as it provides greater muscle power production during the exercise ( Strand et al, 2019 ). In addition, a lower number of repetitions per set and longer rest interval are indicated, as it provides less reduction in performance during the subsequent sets ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Tufano et al, 2016 ). Likewise traditional resistance exercise, high-velocity exercise is important for frail individuals and should be used if possible ( Fragala et al, 2019 ).…”

“…In the cluster design, a traditional set (i.e. continuous repetitions) is organized with rest intervals between repetitions ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018 ; Tufano et al, 2017 ). For example, a continuous set of 8 repetitions can be divided into 8 (or less) blocks of 1 (or more) repetition with an interval of 30–45 s after each repetition ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018 ; Tufano et al, 2017 ).…”

“…continuous repetitions) is organized with rest intervals between repetitions ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018 ; Tufano et al, 2017 ). For example, a continuous set of 8 repetitions can be divided into 8 (or less) blocks of 1 (or more) repetition with an interval of 30–45 s after each repetition ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018 ; Tufano et al, 2017 ). Cluster training has shown greater preservation of muscle power levels during exercise ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Tufano et al, 2016 ) and also positive adaptations on functional capacity and quality of life in older individuals, which may be superior to traditional muscle power training ( Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018 ).…”

“…For example, a continuous set of 8 repetitions can be divided into 8 (or less) blocks of 1 (or more) repetition with an interval of 30–45 s after each repetition ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018 ; Tufano et al, 2017 ). Cluster training has shown greater preservation of muscle power levels during exercise ( Latella et al, 2019 ; Tufano et al, 2016 ) and also positive adaptations on functional capacity and quality of life in older individuals, which may be superior to traditional muscle power training ( Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018 ). In addition, as this training design can also provide a lower cardiovascular response during exercise ( Iglesias-Soler et al, 2015 ; Ribeiro-Torres et al, 2020 ), it also appears as an option for the older people with cardiovascular risk factors or hypertensive response to exercise.…”