Effect of cluster set configurations on power clean technique

The effect of rest redistribution on kinetic and kinematic variables during the hang pull

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of rest redistribution (RR) on kinetics and kinematics during the hang pull (HP). Twenty-one male athletes (age 29.5 ± 4.3 years, height 1.78 ± 0.07 m, body mass 75.17 ± 11.11 kg, relative one repetition maximum [1RM] power clean [PC] 1.17 ± 0.14 kg.kg-1) performed the HP using 140% of 1RM PC with 3 traditional sets of 6 repetitions (TS), 9 sets of 2 repetitions with RR [45s rest after 2 repetitions] (RR45) and 6 sets of 3 repetitions with RR [72s rest after 3 repetitions] (RR72). Peak velocity (PV) was higher during RR72 (1.18 ± 0.11 m.s-1) compared to RR45 (1.14 ± 0.11 m.s-1) for the average of 18 repetitions (p = 0.025, g = 0.36). There was a main effect for set configuration with greater peak force (PF) (p < 0.001, g = 0.14) during RR72 compared to RR45, with greater PV and impulse (p < 0.001, g = 0.19-0.36) during RR72 compared to RR45. There was also greater peak velocity maintenance (PVM) (p = 0.042, g = 0.44) for RR72 compared to RR45. There were no significant or meaningful differences (p > 0.05, g = 0.00-0.59) between configurations for any other variables. Rest redistribution protocols did not result in significantly or meaningfully greater kinetics or kinematics during the HP when compared to a TS protocol; although performing RR72 resulted in higher PF, PV, and impulse, with improved PVM compared to RR45.

Effect of resistance training programs differing in set structure on muscular hypertrophy and performance in untrained young men

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the effects on muscle hypertrophy and muscular performance of two resistance training (RT) programs that differed only in set structure: traditional set structure (TS) vs. rest redistribution set structure (RR). Methods: Thirty untrained young men were pair-matched and randomly assigned to a TS (n = 15) or an RR (n = 15) protocol based on individual baseline measures. Participants trained for 8 weeks using the same total body RT routines performed twice weekly. The TS protocol comprised four sets of 10 repetitions per exercise with 120-s interset rest, and the RR involved eight sets of five repetitions per exercise with 51-s interset rest. Participants were tested pre- and post-intervention for body composition, regional muscle thickness, upper- and lower-body muscle maximal strength [1-repetition maximum (1RM)], mean power output and velocity at 75% 1RM and muscular endurance (repetitions to failure at 70% 1RM). Results: Compared to baseline, both groups exhibited equally significantly decreased body fat mass (p < 0.05), increased fat-free mass (p < 0.001), muscle thickness (p < 0.05), upper and lower-body muscular maximal strength (p < 0.001) and endurance performance (p < 0.001). However, both groups only increase the lower-body power output (p < 0.001) but not the upper-body (p > 0.05). No significant differences existed between groups for all measurements (p > 0.05). Conclusion: These results suggest that RR and TS groups have similar effects for improving muscle hypertrophy and performance in untrained young men.

Effect of 3 Different Set Configurations on Kinematic Variables and Internal Loads During a Power Snatch Session

ABSTRACT

Nagatani, T, Kendall, KL, Guppy, SN, Poon, WCK, and Haff, GG. Effect of 3 different set configurations on kinematic variables and internal loads during a power snatch session. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): 1929-1938, 2023-The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of 3 different set configurations on kinematic variables and internal loads during multiple sets performed with the power snatch. Ten strength-power athletes with at least 6 months of training experience performing the power snatch participated in this study, which consisted of 3 experimental protocols performed in a randomized repeated-measures design. The 3 protocols involved performing the power snatch for 3 sets of 5 repetitions at an average load of 75% 1 repetition maximum with a traditional (TRAD), cluster (CLU), or ascending cluster (A-CLU) protocol, where the training load was progressively increased across the set. Kinematic variables and internal loads (heart rate, blood lactate, and rate of perceived exertion) were measured during each protocol. The athletes maintained peak velocity (PV) and peak power (PP) and exhibited lower internal loads during CLU sets when compared with TRAD sets, whereas they displayed significant decreases in PV during TRAD sets. However, there were no statistically significant differences in PV and PP responses between the TRAD and CLU protocol. The athletes exhibited a significant decrease in PV, whereas PP was increased across each set in the A-CLU protocol, with lower internal loads observed compared with the TRAD protocol. Overall, the training loads used in this study do not appear to maximize the benefits of using CLU set during 3 sets of power snatches performed for 5 repetitions. In addition, A-CLU sets may potentially be useful as a means of maximizing the power output of the athlete.

Intra- and Inter-Day Reliability of Inertial Loads with Cluster Sets When Performed during a Quarter Squat on a Flywheel Device

The aims of this study were to (i) estimate the intra- and inter-day reliability of mean concentric (CON) and eccentric (ECC) power at different inertial loads during a flywheel quarter-squat using a cluster set approach and (ii) to determine the acute effect of internal and external attentional focus on mean power when performing the flywheel quarter squat. Twelve collegiate field sport male athletes (age 22.4 ± 3.2 years, weight 81.4 ± 10.3 kg, height 1.81 ± 0.06 m) attended four cluster set testing sessions separated by 7 days. Sessions consisted of 4 sets of 15 repetitions using 4 inertial loads (0.025, 0.050, 0.075, and 0.100 kg·m²). A cluster block consisted of 5 repetitions, including "momentum repetitions" (4 × 5 + 5 + 5). Mean power (MP), CON power, ECC power, and ECC overload were recorded for both internal and external attentional focus groups. The external instructional group attained familiarization after two flywheel sessions (ES = 0.03-0.15) with little volatility between performance measures (CV% = 3.39-9.22). The internal instructional group showed large differences in MP output from session 2 to session 3 for all loads (ES = 0.59-1.25). In conclusion, the flywheel cluster set approach is a reliable training modality for maintaining MP output during all repetitions.

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.

Muscle Architectural and Force-Velocity Curve Adaptations following 10 Weeks of Training with Weightlifting Catching and Pulling Derivatives

The aims of this study were to examine the muscle architectural, rapid force production, and force-velocity curve adaptations following 10 weeks of resistance training with either submaximal weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling (PULL) derivatives or pulling derivatives with phase-specific loading (OL). 27 resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups and completed pre- and post-intervention ultrasound, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length, CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power, and IMTP peak force and force at 100-, 150-, 200-, and 250 ms were assessed. There were no significant or meaningful differences in muscle architecture measures for any group (p > 0.05). The PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.25-0.81) improvements in all CMJ variables while the CATCH group displayed trivial effects (g = 0.00-0.21). In addition, the OL group displayed trivial and small effects for CMJ force (g = -0.12-0.04) and velocity variables (g = 0.32-0.46), respectively. The OL group displayed moderate (g = 0.48-0.73) improvements in all IMTP variables while to PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.47-0.55) improvements. The CATCH group displayed trivial-small (g = -0.39-0.15) decreases in IMTP performance. The PULL and OL groups displayed visible shifts in their force-velocity curves; however, these changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Performing weightlifting pulling derivatives with either submaximal or phase-specific loading may enhance rapid and peak force production characteristics. Strength and conditioning practitioners should load pulling derivatives based on the goals of each specific phase, but also allow their athletes ample exposure to achieve each goal.

Effect of Set-Structure on Upper-Body Muscular Hypertrophy and Performance in Recreationally-Trained Male and Female

ABSTRACT

Davies, TB, Halaki, M, Orr, R, Mitchell, L, Helms, ER, Clarke, J, and Hackett, DA. Effect of set structure on upper-body muscular hypertrophy and performance in recreationally trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2176-2185, 2022-This study explored the effect of volume-equated traditional-set and cluster-set structures on muscular hypertrophy and performance after high-load resistance training manipulating the bench press exercise. Twenty-one recreationally trained subjects (12 men and 9 women) performed a 3-week familiarization phase and were then randomized into one of two 8-week upper-body and lower-body split programs occurring over 3 and then progressing to 4 sessions per week. Subjects performed 4 sets of 5 repetitions at 85% one repetition maximum (1RM) using a traditional-set structure (TRAD, n = 10), which involved 5 minutes of interset rest only, or a cluster-set structure, which included 30-second inter-repetition rest and 3 minutes of interset rest (CLUS, n = 11). A 1RM bench press, repetitions to failure at 70% 1RM, regional muscle thickness, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry were used to estimate changes in muscular strength, local muscular endurance, regional muscular hypertrophy, and body composition, respectively. Velocity loss was assessed using a linear position transducer at the intervention midpoint. TRAD demonstrated a significantly greater velocity loss magnitude (g = 1.50) and muscle thickness of the proximal pectoralis major (g = -0.34) compared with CLUS. There were no significant differences between groups for the remaining outcomes, although a small effect size favoring TRAD was observed for the middle region of the pectoralis major (g = -0.25). It seems that the greater velocity losses during sets observed in traditional-set compared with cluster-set structures may promote superior muscular hypertrophy within specific regions of the pectoralis major in recreationally trained subjects.

Analysis of Pacing Strategies in AMRAP, EMOM, and FOR TIME Training Models during "Cross" Modalities

Empirically, it is widely discussed in “Cross” modalities that the pacing strategy developed by an athlete or trainee has a significant impact on the endurance performance in a WOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, or FOR TIME model. We can observe at least six pacing strategies adopted during the cyclical modalities in the endurance performance in the scientific literature. However, besides these modalities, exercises of acyclical modalities of weightlifting and gymnastics are performed in the “Cross” modalities. These exercises may not allow the same pacing strategies adopted during cyclic modalities’ movements due to their motor characteristics and different intensity and level of effort imposed to perform the motor gesture. In addition to the intensity and level of effort that are generally unknown to the coach and athlete of the “Cross” modalities, another factor that can influence the adoption of a pacing strategy during a WOD in the AMRAP, EMOM, or FOR TIME model is the task endpoint knowledge, which varies according to the training model used. Thus, our objective was to evaluate situations in which these factors can influence the pacing strategies adopted in a self-regulated task with cyclic and acyclic modalities movements during an endurance workout in the AMRAP, EMOM, and FOR TIME model. Given the scarcity of studies in the scientific literature and the increasing discussion of this topic within the “Cross” modalities, this manuscript can help scientists and coaches better orient their research problems or training programs and analyze and interpret new findings more accurately.

Chronic Effects of Altering Resistance Training Set Configurations Using Cluster Sets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The acute responses to cluster set resistance training (RT) have been demonstrated. However, as compared to traditional sets, the effect of cluster sets on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of RT programs implementing cluster and traditional set configurations on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations.

METHODS

Systematic searches of Embase, Scopus, Medline and SPORTDiscus were conducted. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized or non-randomized comparative studies; (2) publication in English; (3) participants of all age groups; (4) participants free of any medical condition or injury; (5) cluster set intervention; (6) comparison intervention utilizing a traditional set configuration; (7) intervention length ≥ three weeks and (8) at least one measure of changes in strength/force/torque, power, velocity, hypertrophy or muscular endurance. Raw data (mean ± SD or range) were extracted from included studies. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. No differences between cluster and traditional set configurations were found for strength (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.21 to 0.11, p = 0.56), power output (ES = 0.02 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.20, p = 0.86), velocity (ES = 0.15 ± 0.13, 95% CI - 0.10 to 0.41, p = 0.24), hypertrophy (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.14, 95% CI - 0.32 to 0.23, p = 0.73) or endurance (ES = - 0.07 ± 0.18, 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.29, p = 0.70) adaptations. Moreover, no differences were observed when training volume, cluster set model, training status, body parts trained or exercise type were considered.

CONCLUSION

Collectively, both cluster and traditional set configurations demonstrate equal effectiveness to positively induce muscular and neuromuscular adaptation(s). However, cluster set configurations may achieve such adaptations with less fatigue development during RT which may be an important consideration across various exercise settings and stages of periodized RT programs.

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).

A Comparison of Kinetic and Kinematic Variables During the Midthigh Pull and Countermovement Shrug, Across Loads

Meechan, D, Suchomel, TJ, McMahon, JJ, and Comfort, P. A comparison of kinetic and kinematic variables during the midthigh pull and countermovement shrug, across loads. J Strength Cond Res 34(7): 1830-1841, 2020-This study compared kinetic and kinematic variables during the midthigh pull (MTP) and countermovement shrug (CMS). Eighteen men (age: 29.43 ± 3.95 years, height: 1.77 ± 0.08 m, body mass: 84.65 ± 18.79 kg, and 1 repetition maximum [1RM] power clean: 1.02 ± 0.18 kg·kg) performed the MTP and CMS at intensities of 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% 1RM, in a progressive manner. Peak force (PF), mean force (MF), peak velocity, peak barbell velocity (BV), peak power, (PP), mean power (MP), and net impulse were calculated from force-time data during the propulsion phase. During the CMS, PF and MF were maximized at 140% 1RM and was significantly greater than the MTP at all loads (p ≤ 0.001, Hedges g = 0.66-0.90); p < 0.001, g = 0.74-0.99, respectively). Peak velocity and BV were significantly and meaningfully greater during the CMS compared with the MTP across all loads (p < 0.001, g = 1.83-2.85; p < 0.001, g = 1.73-2.30, respectively). Similarly, there was a significantly and meaningfully greater PP and MP during the CMS, across all loads, compared with the MTP (p < 0.001, g = 1.45-2.22; p < 0.001, g = 1.52-1.92). Impulse during the CMS was also significantly greater across all loads (p < 0.001, g = 1.20-1.66) compared with the MTP. Results of this study demonstrate that the CMS may be a more advantageous exercise to perform to enhance force-time characteristics when compared with the MTP, due to the greater kinetics and kinematic values observed.

Training With Weightlifting Derivatives: The Effects of Force and Velocity Overload Stimuli

Suchomel, TJ, McKeever, SM, and Comfort, P. Training with weightlifting derivatives: The effects of force and velocity overload stimuli. J Strength Cond Res 34(7): 1808-1818, 2020-The purposes of this study were to compare the training effects of weightlifting movements performed with (CATCH) or without (PULL) the catch phase of clean derivatives performed at the same relative loads or training without the catch phase using a force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus (OL) on isometric and dynamic performance tasks. Twenty-seven resistance-trained men completed 10 weeks of training as part of the CATCH, PULL, or OL group. The CATCH group trained using weightlifting catching derivatives, while the PULL and OL groups used biomechanically similar pulling derivatives. The CATCH and PULL groups were prescribed the same relative loads, while the OL group was prescribed force- and velocity-specific loading that was exercise and phase specific. Preintervention and postintervention isometric midthigh pull (IMTP), relative one repetition maximum power clean (1RM PC), 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprint, and 505 change of direction on the right (505R) and left (505L) leg were examined. Statistically significant differences in preintervention to postintervention percent change were present for relative IMTP peak force, 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprints, and 505L (all p < 0.03), but not for relative 1RM PC or 505R (p > 0.05). The OL group produced the greatest improvements in each of the examined characteristics compared with the CATCH and PULL groups with generally moderate to large practical effects being present. Using a force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus with weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce superior adaptations in relative strength, sprint speed, and change of direction compared with submaximally loaded weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives.

The Effect of Training with Weightlifting Catching or Pulling Derivatives on Squat Jump and Countermovement Jump Force-Time Adaptations

The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) force-time curve characteristics following 10 weeks of training with either load-matched weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling derivatives (PULL) or pulling derivatives that included force- and velocity-specific loading (OL). Twenty-five resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups. Participants completed a 10 week, group-specific training program. SJ and CMJ height, propulsion mean force, and propulsion time were compared at baseline and after 3, 7, and 10 weeks. In addition, time-normalized SJ and CMJ force-time curves were compared between baseline and after 10 weeks. No between-group differences were present for any of the examined variables, and only trivial to small changes existed within each group. The greatest improvements in SJ and CMJ height were produced by the OL and PULL groups, respectively, while only trivial changes were present for the CATCH group. These changes were underpinned by greater propulsion forces and reduced propulsion times. The OL group displayed significantly greater relative force during the SJ and CMJ compared to the PULL and CATCH groups, respectively. Training with weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce greater vertical jump adaptations compared to training with catching derivatives.

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

Traditional sets can be fatiguing, but redistributing rest periods to be shorter and more frequent may help maintain peak vertical barbell displacement (DISP) and reduce concentric repetition duration (CRDI), peak velocity decline (PVD) and perceptual exertion (RPE) across multiple repetitions, sets and loads during clean pulls. Fifteen strength-trained men performed: 3 traditional sets of 6 clean pulls using 80% (TS80), 100% (TS100) and 120% (TS120) of power clean 1RM with 180 seconds of inter-set rest; and 3 'rest redistribution' protocols of 9 sets of 2 clean pulls using 80% (RR80), 100% (RR100) and 120% (RR120) of power clean 1RM with 45 seconds of inter-set rest. DISP was greater during RR100 (g = 0.39) and RR120 (g = 0.56) compared to TS100 and TS120, respectively. In addition, PVD was less during RR120 than TS120 (g = 1.18), while CRDI was greater during TS100 (g = 0.98) and TS120 (g = 0.89) compared to RR100 and RR120, respectively. Also, RR protocols resulted in lower RPE across the sets at all loads (g = 1.11-1.24). Therefore, RR generally resulted in lower perceptual and mechanical fatigue, evidenced by lower RPE, PVD, CRDI and greater DISP than TS, and these differences became even more exaggerated as the barbell load and the number of sets performed increased.

Traditional sets versus rest-redistribution: a laboratory-controlled study of a specific cluster set configuration at fast and slow velocities

This study investigated redistributing long inter-set rest intervals into shorter but more frequent intervals at 2 different concentric velocities. Resistance-trained men performed 4 randomised isokinetic unilateral knee extension protocols, 2 at 60°·s^-1 and 2 at 360°·s^-1. At each speed, subjects performed 40 repetitions with 285 s of rest using traditional sets (TS; 4 sets of 10 with 95 s of inter-set rest) and rest-redistribution (RR; 20 sets of 2 with 15 s inter-set rest). Before and at 2, 5, and 10 min after exercise, tensiomyography (TMG) and oxygenation (near-infrared spectroscopy; NIRS) were measured. NIRS was also measured during exercise, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded after every 10 repetitions. At both speeds, RR displayed greater peak torque, total work, and power output during latter repetitions, but there were no differences between TS or RR when averaging all 40 repetitions. The RPE was less during RR at both speeds (p < 0.05). RR increased select muscle oxygen saturation and blood flow at both speeds. There were no effects of protocol on TMG, but effect sizes favoured a quicker recovery after RR. RR was likely beneficial in maintaining performance compared with the latter parts of TS sets and limiting perceived and peripheral fatigue. Novelty Although effective at slow velocities, rest-redistribution was likely more effective during high-velocity movements in this study. Rest-redistribution maintained the ability to produce force throughout an entire range of motion. Rest-redistribution reduced RPE during both high-velocity and high-force movements.

Effect of 2- vs. 3-Minute Interrepetition Rest Period on Maximal Clean Technique and Performance

Ammar, A, Riemann, BL, Abdelkarim, O, Driss, T, and Hökelmann, A. Effect of 2- vs. 3-minute interrepetition rest period on maximal clean technique and performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(9): 2548-2556, 2020-Currently, it is widely accepted that adopting a long rest period (3-5 minutes) during maximal strength and power exercise is of importance in reducing acute fatigue and maintaining power and technique proficiency. However, despite the fact that weightlifting is an example of maximal strength exercise, only 2 minutes are officially allowed when athletes attempt 2 successive lifts. The purpose of this study was to compare 3- vs. 2-minute intermaximal repetition rest periods (IMRRPs) on performance, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), technical efficiency, and power production during 2 successive maximal repetitions of clean & jerk (C&J). Nine elite weightlifters (age: 24.4 ± 3.6 years, body mass: 77.2 ± 7.1 kg, height 176.0 ± 6.4 cm, and 1 repetition maximum C&J: 170.0 ± 5.0 kg) performed 2 separate testing sessions using 2-minute IMRRP (IMRRP-2) and 3-minute IMRRP (IMRRP-3), in a randomized order, while barbell kinematics and kinetics were recorded. Results showed that the longer IMRRP-3 minutes led to the maintenance of clean technique (from the first to the second repetition) evidenced by a 1.86% lower decline in peak vertical displacement (p = 0.03) and attenuation of increased peak horizontal displacements with a 1.74% (p = 0.03) less backward movement during the first pull, a 3.89% (p = 0.008) less forward movement during the second pull, and a 4.7% (p = 0.005) less backward movement during the catch phase. In addition, attenuation of peak velocity (2.22%; p = 0.02), peak vertical ground reaction force (1.70%; p = 0.03), and peak power (2.14%; p = 0.02) declines were shown using IMRRP-3 compared with IMRRP-2. Increasing IMRRP from 2 to 3 minutes was also shown to decrease RPE values (8.02%; p = 0.008) and to enhance supramaximal C&J performance (1.55%; p = 0.003). The results of this study suggest 3 minutes to be the most advantageous IMRRP in terms of maintaining technical efficiency, power output, reducing fatigue perception, and enhancing performance in elite weightlifters.

Velocity Drives Greater Power Observed During Back Squat Using Cluster Sets

This investigation compared the kinetics and kinematics of cluster sets (CLU) and traditional sets (TRD) during back squat in trained (RT) and untrained (UT) men. Twenty-four participants (RT = 12, 25 ± 1 year, 179.1 ± 2.2 cm, 84.6 ± 2.1 kg; UT = 12, 25 ± 1 year, 180.1 ± 1.8 cm, 85.4 ± 3.8 kg) performed TRD (4 × 10, 120-second rest) and CLU (4 × (2 × 5) 30 seconds between clusters; 90 seconds between sets) with 70% one repetition maximum, randomly. Kinematics and kinetics were sampled through force plate and linear position transducers. Resistance-trained produced greater overall force, velocity, and power; however, similar patterns were observed in all variables when comparing conditions. Cluster sets produced significantly greater force in isolated repetitions in sets 1-3, while consistently producing greater force due to a required reduction in load during set 4 resulting in greater total volume load (CLU, 3302.4 ± 102.7 kg; TRD, 3274.8 ± 102.8 kg). Velocity loss was lessened in CLU resulting in significantly higher velocities in sets 2 through 4. Furthermore, higher velocities were produced by CLU during later repetitions of each set. Cluster sets produced greater power output for an increasing number of repetitions in each set (set 1, 5 repetitions; sets 2 and 3, 6 repetitions; set 4, 8 repetitions), and the difference between conditions increased over subsequent sets. Time under tension increased over each set and was greater in TRD. This study demonstrates greater power output is driven by greater velocity when back squatting during CLU; therefore, velocity may be a useful measure by which to assess power.

Weightlifting pulling derivatives: rationale for implementation and application

This review article examines previous weightlifting literature and provides a rationale for the use of weightlifting pulling derivatives that eliminate the catch phase for athletes who are not competitive weightlifters. Practitioners should emphasize the completion of the triple extension movement during the second pull phase that is characteristic of weightlifting movements as this is likely to have the greatest transference to athletic performance that is dependent on hip, knee, and ankle extension. The clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull are weightlifting pulling derivatives that can be used in the teaching progression of the full weightlifting movements and are thus less complex with regard to exercise technique. Previous literature suggests that the clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull may provide a training stimulus that is as good as, if not better than, weightlifting movements that include the catch phase. Weightlifting pulling derivatives can be implemented throughout the training year, but an emphasis and de-emphasis should be used in order to meet the goals of particular training phases. When implementing weightlifting pulling derivatives, athletes must make a maximum effort, understand that pulling derivatives can be used for both technique work and building strength-power characteristics, and be coached with proper exercise technique. Future research should consider examining the effect of various loads on kinetic and kinematic characteristics of weightlifting pulling derivatives, training with full weightlifting movements as compared to training with weightlifting pulling derivatives, and how kinetic and kinematic variables vary between derivatives of the snatch.

Performance of maximum number of repetitions with cluster-set configuration

PURPOSE

To analyze performance during the execution of a maximum number of repetitions (MNR) in a cluster-set configuration.

METHOD

Nine judokas performed 2 sessions of parallel squats with a load corresponding to 4-repetition maximum (4RM) with a traditional-training (TT) and cluster-training (CT) set configuration. The TT consisted of 3 sets of repetitions leading to failure and 3 min of rest between sets. In the CT the MNR was performed with a rest interval between repetitions (45.44 ± 11.89 s). The work-to-rest ratio was similar for CT and TT.

RESULTS

MNR in CT was 45.5 ± 32 repetitions and was 9.33 ± 1.87 times the volume in TT. There was a tendency for the average mean propulsive velocity (MPV) to be higher in CT (0.39 ± 0.04 vs 0.36 ± 0.04 m/s for CT and TT, respectively, P = .054, standardized mean difference [d] = 0.57). The average MPV was higher in CT for a similar number of repetitions (0.44 ± 0.08 vs 0.36 ± 0.04 m/s for CT and TT, respectively, P = .006, d = 1.33). The number of repetitions in TT was correlated with absolute 4RM load (r = -.719, P = .031) but not in CT (r = -.273, P = .477).

CONCLUSIONS

A cluster-set configuration allows for a higher number of repetitions and improved sustainability of mechanical performance. CT, unlike TT, was not affected by absolute load, suggesting an improvement of training volume with high absolute loads.