Jonathan M Oliver1, Andreas Kreutzer2, Shane Jenke2, Melody D Phillips2, Joel B Mitchell2, Margaret T Jones3. 1. Department of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, TCU Box 297730, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA. jonathan.oliver@tcu.edu. 2. Department of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, TCU Box 297730, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA. 3. Division of Health and Human Performance, George Mason University, Manassas, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In traditional sets (TRD) repetitions are performed continuously, whereas cluster sets (CLU) allow a brief rest between groups of repetitions. We investigated the acute mechanical, metabolic, and hormonal response to CLU in men. METHODS:Twelve resistance-trained (RT) and 11 untrained (UT) men performed TRD (4 × 10 repetitions with 2 min rest) and CLU [4 × (2 × 5) with 1.5 min rest between sets 30 s rest between clusters] at 70 % 1RM back squat in random order. Seven days separated trials. Average power and time under tension (TUT) were calculated. Blood was sampled pre, sets 1, 2, and 3; immediate post-exercise, 5, 15, 30, 60 min post-exercise for blood lactate, total testosterone (TT), free testosterone (FT), growth hormone (GH), and cortisol. RESULTS:CLU produced greater average power at an increasing number of repetitions over each set with greater total volume load. TUT was shorter for RT and lower for CLU in repetitions 1, 6, 7, 8. Blood lactate was higher Set 2 through 30 min in TRD. RT had higher TT; however, the time course was similar between RT and UT. TT and FT increased immediate post-exercise and remained elevated 30 min in both conditions. GH was significantly greater during TRD with a similar pattern observed in both conditions. Cortisol was significantly lower at 30 min in CLU. CONCLUSION:CLU allowed greater total volume load, shorter TUT, greater average power, similar anabolic hormonal response, and less metabolic stress. The acute response was similar despite training status.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In traditional sets (TRD) repetitions are performed continuously, whereas cluster sets (CLU) allow a brief rest between groups of repetitions. We investigated the acute mechanical, metabolic, and hormonal response to CLU in men. METHODS: Twelve resistance-trained (RT) and 11 untrained (UT) men performed TRD (4 × 10 repetitions with 2 min rest) and CLU [4 × (2 × 5) with 1.5 min rest between sets 30 s rest between clusters] at 70 % 1RM back squat in random order. Seven days separated trials. Average power and time under tension (TUT) were calculated. Blood was sampled pre, sets 1, 2, and 3; immediate post-exercise, 5, 15, 30, 60 min post-exercise for blood lactate, total testosterone (TT), free testosterone (FT), growth hormone (GH), and cortisol. RESULTS: CLU produced greater average power at an increasing number of repetitions over each set with greater total volume load. TUT was shorter for RT and lower for CLU in repetitions 1, 6, 7, 8. Blood lactate was higher Set 2 through 30 min in TRD. RT had higher TT; however, the time course was similar between RT and UT. TT and FT increased immediate post-exercise and remained elevated 30 min in both conditions. GH was significantly greater during TRD with a similar pattern observed in both conditions. Cortisol was significantly lower at 30 min in CLU. CONCLUSION: CLU allowed greater total volume load, shorter TUT, greater average power, similar anabolic hormonal response, and less metabolic stress. The acute response was similar despite training status.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hormones; Mechanical; Metabolic; Power; Resistance training
Authors: Justin P Hardee; N Travis Triplett; Alan C Utter; Kevin A Zwetsloot; Jeffrey M Mcbride Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: M Izquierdo; J J González-Badillo; K Häkkinen; J Ibáñez; W J Kraemer; A Altadill; J Eslava; E M Gorostiaga Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Nicholas A Burd; Richard J Andrews; Daniel W D West; Jonathan P Little; Andrew J R Cochran; Amy J Hector; Joshua G A Cashaback; Martin J Gibala; James R Potvin; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Physiol Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Nicholas A Ratamess; William J Kraemer; Jeff S Volek; Carl M Maresh; Jaci L Vanheest; Matthew J Sharman; Martyn R Rubin; Duncan N French; Jason D Vescovi; Ricardo Silvestre; Disa L Hatfield; Steven J Fleck; Michael R Deschenes Journal: J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol Date: 2005-01-25 Impact factor: 4.292
Authors: Martyn R Rubin; William J Kraemer; Carl M Maresh; Jeff S Volek; Nicholas A Ratamess; Jaci L Vanheest; Ricardo Silvestre; Duncan N French; Matthew J Sharman; Daniel A Judelson; Ana L Gómez; Jason D Vescovi; Wesley C Hymer Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Timothy B Davies; Derek L Tran; Clorinda M Hogan; G Gregory Haff; Christopher Latella Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Júlio B B DE Camargo; Rafael S Zaroni; Antônio C T Júnior; Thiago P DE Oliveira; Thiago B Trindade; Charles R Lopes; Felipe A Brigatto Journal: Int J Exerc Sci Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Jonathan M Oliver; Anthony L Almada; Leighsa E Van Eck; Meena Shah; Joel B Mitchell; Margaret T Jones; Andrew R Jagim; David S Rowlands Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James J Tufano; Jenny A Conlon; Sophia Nimphius; Lee E Brown; Alex Petkovic; Justin Frick; G Gregory Haff Journal: J Hum Kinet Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.193