Acute effects of shorter but more frequent rest periods on mechanical and perceptual fatigue during a weightlifting derivative at different loads in strength-trained men

Influence of Cluster Sets on Mechanical and Perceptual Variables in Adolescent Athletes

Cluster sets (CS) are effective in maintaining performance and reducing perceived effort compared to traditional sets (TRD). However, little is known about these effects on adolescent athletes. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of CS on the performance of mechanical and perceptual variables in young athletes. Eleven subjects [4 boys (age = 15.5 ± 0.8 years; body mass = 54.3 ± 7.0 kg; body height = 1.67 ± 0.04 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.62 ± 0.19 kg; years from peak height velocity [PHV]: 0.94 ± 0.50) and 7 girls (age = 17.2 ± 1.4 years; body mass = 54.7 ± 6.3 kg; body height = 1.63 ± 0.08 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.22 ± 0.16 kg; years from PHV: 3.33 ± 1.00)] participated in a randomized crossover design with one traditional (TRD: 3 × 8, no intra-set and 225 s interest rest) and two clusters (CS1: 3 × 2 × 4, one 30 s intra-set and 180 s inter-set rest; and CS2: 3 × 4 × 2, three 30 s intra-set and 90 s inter-set rest) protocols. The subjects were assessed for a Back Squat 1RM for the first meet, then performed the three protocols on three different days, with at least 48 h between them. During experimental sessions, a back squat exercise was performed, and mean propulsive velocity (MPV), power (MPP), and force (MPF) were collected to analyze performance between protocols, together with measures of countermovement jump (CMJ) and perceptual responses through Rating of Perceived Exertion for each set (RPE-Set) and the overall session (S-RPE), and Muscle Soreness (DOMS). The results showed that velocity and power decline (MVD and MPD) were favorable for CS2 (MVD: -5.61 ± 14.84%; MPD: -5.63 ± 14.91%) against TRD (MVD: -21.10 ± 11.88%; MPD: -20.98 ± 11.85%) (p < 0.01) and CS1 (MVD: -21.44 ± 12.13%; MPD: -21.50 ± 12.20%) (p < 0.05). For RPE-Set, the scores were smaller for CS2 (RPE8: 3.23 ± 0.61; RPE16: 4.32 ± 1.42; RPE24: 4.46 ± 1.51) compared to TRD (RPE8: 4.73 ± 1.33; RPE16: 5.46 ± 1.62; RPE24: 6.23 ± 1.97) (p = 0.008), as well as for Session RPE (CS2: 4.32 ± 1.59; TRD: 5.68 ± 1.75) (p = 0.015). There were no changes for jump height (CMJ: p = 0.985), and the difference between time points in CMJ (ΔCMJ: p = 0.213) and muscle soreness (DOMS: p = 0.437) were identified. Our findings suggest that using CS with a greater number of intra-set rests is more efficient even with the total rest interval equalized, presenting lower decreases in mechanical performance and lower perceptual effort responses.

Velocity-Based Resistance Training Monitoring: Influence of Lifting Straps, Reference Repetitions, and Variable Selection in Resistance-Trained Men

BACKGROUND

Using lifting straps during pulling exercises (such as deadlift) may increase absolute velocity performance. However, it remains unclear whether lifting straps could also reduce the degree of relative fatigue measured by velocity decline and maintenance in a training set.

HYPOTHESIS

There will be less mean velocity decline (MVD) and greater mean velocity maintenance (MVM) for deadlifts performed with (DLw) compared with without (DLn) lifting straps, and an underestimation of MVD and MVM when using the first compared with the fastest repetition as a reference repetition.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized cross over design.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

A total of 16 resistance-trained men performed a familiarization session, 2 1-repetition maximum [1RM] sessions (1 with and 1 without lifting straps), and 3 randomly applied experimental sessions consisting of 4 sets of 4 repetitions: (1) DLw against the 80% of DLn 1RM (DLwn), (2) DLn against the 80% of the DLn 1RM (DLnn), and (3) DLw against the 80% of the DLw 1RM (DLww). MVD and MVM were calculated using the first and the fastest repetition as the reference repetition.

RESULTS

MVD was significantly lower during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLww (P < 0.01), whereas MVM was greater during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLwn (P < 0.01) with no differences between DLwn and DLnn for both MVD and MVM (P > 0.05). The second repetition of the set was generally the fastest (54.1%) and lower MVD and higher MVM were observed when the first repetition was used as the reference repetition (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lifting straps were not effective at reducing MVD and increasing MVM when the same absolute loads were lifted. Furthermore, using the first repetition as the reference repetition underestimated MVD, and overestimated MVM.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The fastest repetition should be used as the reference repetition to avoid inducing excessive fatigue when the first repetition is not the fastest.

Efficacy of Rest Redistribution During Squats: Considerations for Strength and Sex

ABSTRACT

Boffey, D, Clark, NW, and Fukuda, DH. Efficacy of rest redistribution during squats: Considerations for strength and sex. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 586-595, 2021-This study examined the kinematic, perceptual, and heart rate responses to rest redistribution (RR) and traditional sets (TS) during the barbell back squat for men and women possessing a wide range of strength levels. Forty-five resistance-trained subjects (30 men and 15 women) performed 40 repetitions of the barbell squat with 65% 1RM load with TS (4 × 10 repetitions, 3-minute rest) or RR (10 × 4 repetitions, 1-minute rest), in a randomized order on days separated by ≥72 hours. The significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 for all statistical analyses. The mean velocity (MV) maintenance was significantly higher for RR compared with TS (87.70 ± 4.50% vs. 84.07 ± 4.48%, respectively; p < 0.01, d = 0.35). Rating of perceived exertion (active muscles) was significantly lower for RR compared with TS (5.38 ± 1.42 vs. 6.08 ± 1.43, respectively; p = 0.02, d = -0.35). Rating of perceived exertion (overall) was also significantly lower for RR compared with TS (5.60 ± 1.40 vs. 6.48 ± 1.49, respectively; p = 0.02, d = -0.37). The relative strength ratio (relative strength ratio; squat 1RM: body mass) was significantly correlated with the difference in MV maintenance between RR and TS (r = -0.34, p = 0.02). No sex-based differences (p > 0.05) were found for any dependent variables. Rest redistribution produced significantly higher mean HR (143.25 ± 21.11 vs. 135.05 ± 20.74, p < 0.01) and minimum HR (102.77 ± 19.58 vs. 95.97 ± 22.17, p < 0.01). Subjects were better able to maintain velocity with RR compared with TS, while experiencing less perceived effort. Rest redistribution can be recommended for both men and women, but very strong individuals may not improve their velocity maintenance with RR to the same extent as less strong individuals.