Traditional 3- to 5-Minute Interset Rest Periods May Not Be Necessary When Performing Fewer Repetitions Per Set: Using Clean Pulls as an Example

Effects of Upper-Body and Lower-Body Conditioning Activities on Postactivation Performance Enhancement During Sprinting and Jumping Tasks in Female Soccer Players

ABSTRACT

Santos da Silva, V, Nakamura, FY, Gantois, P, Nogueira Gouveia, JN, Peña, J, Beato, M, and Abade, E. Effects of upper-body and lower-body conditioning activities on postactivation performance enhancement during sprinting and jumping tasks in female soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 342-349, 2024-This study aimed to investigate the postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) effects of "specific" (half-back squat) and "nonspecific" (bench press) conditioning activities on sprinting and jumping performances in female soccer players. Fourteen players (mean ± SD : age = 22.3 ± 4.0 years; body mass = 60.2 ± 7.8 kg; height = 164.1 ± 4.2 cm) competing at national level (first League) participated in this within-subject crossover study. The players performed a warm-up protocol including 3 sets of 3 repetitions of half-back-squat or bench press exercises at 90% 1RM or a warm-up protocol without lifting weights (i.e., control condition). Forty-meter shuttle sprints (20 + 20 m with change of direction [COD-180°]), countermovement jump (CMJ), and horizontal jump (HJ) performances were recorded 6 minutes after the conditioning activities protocols or the control condition. Nonsignificant large positive effects were found for the HJ after the half-back-squat (ES = 1.68; p > 0.05) and bench press (ES = 1.68; p > 0.05) protocols. Although nonsignificant, HJ changes ( Δ = 0.07 m) were greater than the smallest worthwhile change (0.02 m) and standard error of measurement (0.03 m) after both conditioning activities. Moreover, no significant changes were found for sprint and CMJ performance after neither half-back-squat nor bench press protocols ( p > 0.05). In conclusion, both specific and nonspecific conditioning activities using heavy loads (i.e., 90% 1RM) may be suitable to enhance individual HJ. Finally, both conditioning activities are potentially ineffective for increasing sprint and CMJ performance in the context of this study.

The Effects of Set Structure Manipulation on Chronic Adaptations to Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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).