Ivan Jukic1, Bas Van Hooren2, Amador García Ramos3,4, Eric R Helms5, Michael R McGuigan5, James J Tufano6. 1. Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. ivan.jukic@aut.ac.nz. 2. Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 4. Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica de La Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile. 5. Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acute effects of resistance training (RT) set structure alteration are well established; however, less is known about their effects on chronic training adaptations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesise the available evidence on the effectiveness of traditional (TS), cluster (CS) and rest redistribution (RR) set structures in promoting chronic RT adaptations, and provide an overview of the factors which might differentially influence the magnitude of specific training adaptations between set structure types. METHODS: This review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines encompassing the literature search of five databases. Studies in English that compared muscular strength, endurance, and/or hypertrophy adaptations, as well as vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts in the slopes of force-velocity profiles between TS and CS or RR set structures (i.e., alternative set structures) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, none had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Pooled results revealed that none of the set structures were more effective at inducing strength (standardised mean difference (SMD) = - 0.06) or hypertrophy (SMD = - 0.03). TS were more effective at improving muscular endurance compared to alternative set structures (SMD = - 0.38), whereas alternative set structures tended to be more effective for vertical jump performance gains (SMD = 0.13), but this effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). Greater velocity and power outputs at submaximal loads (SMD = 0.18) were observed when using alternative set structures compared to TS. In addition, alternative set structures promoted greater shifts of the slope of force-velocity profiles towards more velocity dominant profiles compared to TS (SMD = 0.28). Sub-group analyses controlling for each alternative set structure independently showed mixed results likely caused by the relatively small number of studies available for some outcomes. CONCLUSION: Modifying TS to an alternative set structure (CS or RR) has a negligible impact on strength and hypertrophy. Using CS and RR can lead to greater vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts to more velocity dominant force-velocity profiles compared to training using TS. However, TS may provide more favourable effects on muscle endurance when compared to CS and RR. These findings demonstrate that altering TS to alternative set structures may influence the magnitude of specific muscular adaptations indicating set structure manipulation is an important consideration for RT program design. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
BACKGROUND: The acute effects of resistance training (RT) set structure alteration are well established; however, less is known about their effects on chronic training adaptations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesise the available evidence on the effectiveness of traditional (TS), cluster (CS) and rest redistribution (RR) set structures in promoting chronic RT adaptations, and provide an overview of the factors which might differentially influence the magnitude of specific training adaptations between set structure types. METHODS: This review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines encompassing the literature search of five databases. Studies in English that compared muscular strength, endurance, and/or hypertrophy adaptations, as well as vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts in the slopes of force-velocity profiles between TS and CS or RR set structures (i.e., alternative set structures) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, none had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Pooled results revealed that none of the set structures were more effective at inducing strength (standardised mean difference (SMD) = - 0.06) or hypertrophy (SMD = - 0.03). TS were more effective at improving muscular endurance compared to alternative set structures (SMD = - 0.38), whereas alternative set structures tended to be more effective for vertical jump performance gains (SMD = 0.13), but this effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). Greater velocity and power outputs at submaximal loads (SMD = 0.18) were observed when using alternative set structures compared to TS. In addition, alternative set structures promoted greater shifts of the slope of force-velocity profiles towards more velocity dominant profiles compared to TS (SMD = 0.28). Sub-group analyses controlling for each alternative set structure independently showed mixed results likely caused by the relatively small number of studies available for some outcomes. CONCLUSION: Modifying TS to an alternative set structure (CS or RR) has a negligible impact on strength and hypertrophy. Using CS and RR can lead to greater vertical jump performance, velocity and power at submaximal loads and shifts to more velocity dominant force-velocity profiles compared to training using TS. However, TS may provide more favourable effects on muscle endurance when compared to CS and RR. These findings demonstrate that altering TS to alternative set structures may influence the magnitude of specific muscular adaptations indicating set structure manipulation is an important consideration for RT program design. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42019138954) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
Authors: Jozo Grgic; Bruno Lazinica; Pavle Mikulic; James W Krieger; Brad Jon Schoenfeld Journal: Eur J Sport Sci Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.050
Authors: Jozo Grgic; Brad J Schoenfeld; Timothy B Davies; Bruno Lazinica; James W Krieger; Zeljko Pedisic Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Ivan Jukic; Alejandro Pérez Castilla; Amador García Ramos; Bas Van Hooren; Michael R McGuigan; Eric R Helms Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 11.928