Janicijevic, Danica; González-Hernández, Jorge M.; Jiménez-Reyes, Pedro; Márquez, Gonzalo; García-Ramos, Amador

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 37(5):p 980-986, May 2023. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004376

PURPOSE:

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.

PROCEDURES:

- 30 physically active men were randomly assigned to either:

1. Traditional group (TRG) using six sets of five repetitions and 3:00 rest between sets.

2. Rest redistribution group (RRG) using 30 sets of one repetition and only :31 rest

between sets.

- Training lasted six weeks @ two sessions/week.

- The squat and bench press were performed with maximal concentric effort against

approximately the 75% of the 1-RM.

- Pre- and post-training program explosive-strength (peak velocity reached at

submaximal loads during the countermovement jump and bench press throw) and

strength-endurance (mean set velocity of 10 repetitions using both traditional and

cluster sets in the squat and bench press) were assessed.

CONCLUSIONS:

· Significant improvements in all dependent variables were observed after training for both the TRG and RRG.

· The magnitude of the changes was comparable for both groups, the only exception being larger improvements in the RRG for the bench press mean set velocity using both traditional and cluster 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.

· Rest redistribution set configurations could induce greater adaptations in upper-body strength endurance.

IN PLAIN ENGLISH:

The similar results in some metrics were simply due to the fact both groups were exerting maximally against resistance as opposed to not exerting against resistance, regardless of the set configuration.

The overall fatigue of the six sets of five reps with a 3:00 rest between sets using 75% of a 1-RM plan depends on the subjects’ genetic makeup. Those possessing a greater quantity of the more fatigable type IIX motor units (stronger) may create experience greater total fatigue compared to those with fewer type IIX and more intermediate type IIA along with type I (weaker). Either way, the longer 3:00 rest periods allowed for a greater replenishment of ATP as compared to if only a :31 recovery was used like the 30 sets of one rep group.

Regarding the 30 sets of one rep with only a :31 rest between sets, the one rep performed (in most cases) will not result in maximum fatigue. Because minimal fatigue occurred from performing only one rep (compared to six reps), less ATP was used, thus allowing for a greater pool of it to be available even though only :31 rest was allowed. However, over the length of completion of 30 sets some fatigue would gradually increase by virtue of the entire event being a series of maximal efforts with less recovery time between them. More of a Granny Smith apple to Pink Lady apple comparison, and to some extent, an apple to pear comparison.