Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002301

Mechanical and metabolic responses to traditional and cluster set

configurations in the bench press exercise

Running head: Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations

Authors: Amador García-Ramos,1,2 Jorge M. González-Hernández,3 Ezequiel Baños-

D
Pelegrín,3 Adrián Castaño-Zambudio,3 Fernando Capelo-Ramírez,3 Daniel Boullosa,4,5
Guy Gregory Haff,6 and Pedro Jiménez-Reyes3

TE
Institutional Affiliations:
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of
Granada, Granada, Spain
2
Catholic University of the Most Holy Conception, Faculty of Education, Concepción,
EP
Chile
3
Faculty of Sport, Catholic University of San Antonio, Murcia, Spain
4
Post-Graduate Program in Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia,
Brasilia, Brazil
C

5
Sport and Exercise Science, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University,
Townsville, QLD, Australia
6
Center for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup,
C

Australia
A

Corresponding author:
Amador García-Ramos. Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport
Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. Catholic University of the Most Holy
Conception, Faculty of Education, Concepción, Chile. Ctra. de Alfacar, 18011 Granada
(Spain). Tel.: +34677815348. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 1

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to compare mechanical and metabolic responses between traditional

(TR) and cluster (CL) set configurations in the bench press exercise. In a

counterbalanced randomized order, 10 men were tested with the following protocols

(sets × repetitions [inter-repetition rest]): TR1: 3×10 [0-s], TR2: 6×5 [0-s], CL5: 3×10

[5-s], CL10: 3×10 [10-s], and CL15: 3×10 [15-s]. The number of repetitions (30), inter-

D
set rest (5 min), and resistance applied (10RM) were the same for all set configurations.

Movement velocity and blood lactate concentration were used to assess the mechanical

TE
and metabolic responses, respectively. The comparison of the first and last set of the

training session revealed a significant decrease in movement velocity for TR1 (Effect

size [ES]: -0.92), CL10 (ES: -0.85) and CL15 (ES: -1.08) (but not for TR2 [ES: -0.38]

and CL5 [ES: -0.37]); while blood lactate concentration was significantly increased for
EP
TR1 (ES: 1.11), TR2 (ES: 0.90) and CL5 (ES: 1.12) (but not for CL10 [ES: 0.03] and

CL15 [ES: -0.43]). Based on velocity loss, set configurations were ranked as follows:

TR1 (-39.3±7.3%) > CL5 (-20.2±14.7%) > CL10 (-12.9±4.9%), TR2 (-10.3±5.3%) and
C

CL15 (-10.0±2.3%). The set configurations were ranked as follows based on the lactate

concentration: TR1 (7.9±1.1 mmol·l-1) > CL5 (5.8±0.9 mmol·l-1) > TR2 (4.2±0.7
C

mmol·l-1) > CL10 (3.5±0.4 mmol·l-1) and CL15 (3.4±0.7 mmol·l-1). These results

support the use of TR2, CL10 and CL15 for the maintenance of high mechanical
A

outputs, while CL10 and CL15 produce less metabolic stress than TR2.

Key words: inter-repetition rest, intra-set rest, velocity loss, lactate, fatigue.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 2

INTRODUCTION

Variation in training stimulus is one of the basic principles that should be considered in

order to achieve continuous improvements in physical fitness and athletic performance

(18,34). A number of variables (e.g., exercise type and order, number of sets and

repetitions, loading magnitude, rest between sets, and movement velocity) are

commonly manipulated during resistance training programs in order to vary the acute

D
training stimulus and, consequently, induce specific physiological adaptations (31). One

method that can be used to manipulate the set configuration providing a useful variation

TE
in training stimulus is known as cluster (CL) training (9,33). Briefly, CL training

consists of the introduction of short rest periods between individual repetitions or

groups of repetitions performed within a training set (33). These set configurations are

effective methods for maintaining the mechanical strain, while lowering metabolic and
EP
perceptual responses when compared to traditional (TR) (i.e., continuous repetitions) set

configurations (3,5,8,10,12,20,21).

Mechanical and metabolic stimuli have been suggested to be important

C

contributors to the development of the physiological adaptations that underpin maximal

strength, power and hypertrophy (27). On one hand, it has been repeatedly observed that
C

CL sets allow for the maintenance of high mechanical outputs (i.e., force, velocity and

power) when a larger number of repetitions are performed when compared to TR set
A

configurations where no rest is allowed between repetitions (3,4,10,11,13,19). These

results have led researchers to recommend using CL sets during resistance training to

enhance movement velocity and maximal power production (33). In addition, since CL

sets allow for a higher training volume, they may also be a beneficial training tool when

attempting to increase maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy (3,15,21,33).

However, CL sets have also been associated with a lower metabolic stress (5,16,21),

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 3

which may reduce hypertrophic responses to the training intervention (27). Thus, some

researchers have suggested that CL set configurations may compromise muscle

hypertrophy (3,11). In this regard, an alternative to not excessively reduce the metabolic

contribution of CL set configurations could be the use of shorter inter-repetition rest

periods (< 20 seconds) than the commonly applied (20-40 seconds) (33).

The bench press is a basic upper-body exercise commonly included in the

D
resistance training programs of athletes of different disciplines (e.g., bodybuilders, sport

athletes needing a good throwing ability, etc.) (2,30). This is because bench press

TE
training is able to induce specific gains on maximal strength, hypertrophy, power, and

muscular endurance (2). Thus, it is important to study the effect that manipulating the

set configuration in the bench press exercise may have on mechanical and metabolic

variables that influence the physiological adaptations. The 10RM load (i.e., load with
EP
which a maximum of 10 continuous repetitions can be performed) has been frequently

prescribed during hypertrophic-oriented resistance training sessions (1,29). However, to

date the effect that different set configurations conducted against the 10RM load
C

presents on the mechanical and metabolic responses also remain virtually unknown.

To address the existing gaps in the literature, the present study aimed to compare
C

mechanical and metabolic responses between different TR and CL set configurations in

the bench press exercise performed with the 10RM load. We hypothesized that all CL
A

set configurations would elicit lower mechanical (velocity loss) and metabolic (blood

lactate concentration) fatigue than the TR set configurations.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 4

METHODS

Experimental approach to the problem

A repeated-measures design was used to investigate the effect of different set

configurations on mechanical (velocity loss) and metabolic (blood lactate concentration)

markers of fatigue during multiple sets of the bench press exercise. Subjects came to the

laboratory on seven occasions, during four consecutive weeks, with at least 72 hours of

D
rest between each session. The first session was used to collect anthropometric

measures and to determine the 1RM in the bench press exercise. During the second

TE
session, the 10RM load was determined. Sessions 3-7 were used to evaluate in a

counterbalanced randomized order the two traditional (TR1: 3 sets × 10 repetitions;

TR2: 6 sets × 5 repetitions) and three cluster set configurations (CL5, CL10, and CL15:

3 sets × 10 repetitions with 5, 10, and 15 s of inter-repetition rest, respectively) (Figure

EP
1). The number of repetitions (30), the inter-set rest (5 min), and the resistance applied

(10RM load) was the same for all set configurations. Sessions were performed in the

afternoons (between 16:00-20:00 pm), at the same time of day for each subject, and
C

under similar environmental conditions (~20 ºC and ~60% humidity).

C

Insert Figure 1 about here

A

Subjects

Ten resistance-trained men volunteered to participate in this study (mean ± SD:

age = 29.4 ± 3.5 years; body mass: 78.7 ± 9.2 kg; body height = 1.80 ± 0.12 m; body

mass index = 24.3 ± 2.0 kg⋅m-2). All subjects were physically active and presented a

minimum of three years of resistance training experience including the bench press

exercise. Their 1RM in the bench press exercise was 103.1 ± 16.2 kg (1.31 ± 0.21 kg·kg

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 5

body mass-1). The subjects declared not to taking drugs, medications or dietary

supplements that influence physical performance. Subjects were instructed to avoid any

strenuous exercise during the course of the study. All subjects were informed of the

study procedures and signed a written informed consent form prior to participation. The

study protocol adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the

Institutional Review Board.

D
1RM and 10RM assessment session

TE
Height (Seca 202, Seca Ltd., Hamburg, Germany) and body mass (Tanita BC

418 segmental, Tokyo, Japan) were assessed in the first session. The bench press 1RM

was also determined in the first testing session with an incremental loading test. The

1RM determination was preceded by a standardized warm-up, which included 5 min of

EP
jogging, dynamic stretching, joint mobility exercises, and two sets of five repetitions

with 20 kg and 40 kg, respectively. The initial load was set at 50 kg for all subjects and

was progressively increased in 10 kg increments until the attained mean propulsive

C

velocity of the bar was lower than 0.50 m⋅s-1. From that moment, the load was

progressively increased in steps of 5 to 1 kg until the 1RM value was determined. The
C

magnitude of the increment was decided by the investigator after reaching a consensus

with the subject. Two repetitions were performed with light-moderate loads (mean
A

velocity ≥ 0.50 m⋅s-1), but only one repetition was performed with heavier loads (mean

velocity < 0.50 m⋅s-1). Recovery time was set to 3 min for light-moderate loads and 5

min for heavier loads.

The 10RM load was determined in the second session for being used in all the

remaining testing sessions. The warm-up that preceded the 10RM determination was

identical for the different set configurations. This warm-up consisted on 5 min of

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 6

jogging, dynamic stretching, and joint mobilization exercises, followed by three sets of

ten, five, and two repetitions of the bench press exercise against relative loads of

30%1RM, 60%1RM, and 80%1RM, respectively. Afterwards, subjects performed as

many repetitions as possible with the 75%1RM load to identify whether this load

corresponded to their 10RM. Subjects rested for 2 min within the warm-up sets and 5

min between the last set of the warm-up and the initiation of the 10RM load

D
determination. If subjects were able to perform more or less than 10 repetitions with the

75%1RM load, they performed another attempt after 5 min of rest with a different load.

TE
All repetitions were performed at the maximum intended velocity. The test was

considered to be properly performed when the last repetition was lifted at a mean

velocity lower than 0.20 m·s-1 (7).

The bench press exercise was performed in all testing sessions using the
EP
standard five-point body contact position technique (head, upper back, and buttocks

firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor) (28). Subjects self-selected the grip

width, which was measured and kept constant throughout all testing sessions. They
C

initiated the task holding the barbell of the Smith machine (Multipower Fitness Line,

Peroga, Spain) with their elbows fully extended. From this position, subjects descended
C

the barbell at a moderate velocity until contacting with their chest at the height of the

intermammary line. After maintaining this static position for 2 s, subjects performed a
A

purely concentric action at the maximum possible velocity to regain the initial barbell

position. The Smith machine was used to enhance the accuracy of the linear encoder

during the measurement of the barbell's velocity by restricting its displacement to a

vertical direction.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 7

Set configurations

Two TR and three CL set configurations were analyzed in the present study (see

Figure 1). The two TR set configurations differed in the level of effort (TR1: repetitions

to muscle failure; TR2: half the maximum possible number of repetitions). The only

difference between CL5, CL10 and CL15 was the duration of the rest period between

repetitions. The total number of repetitions performed in each session (30 repetitions),

D
the inter-set rest (5 min) and the resistance applied (10RM) was identical for the five set

configurations. The barbell rested on the supports of the Smith machine during the

TE
inter-repetition rest periods. A timer was used to monitor the duration of the inter-

repetition rest periods. Subjects were instructed to perform all repetitions at the

maximum possible velocity and they received verbal feedback immediately after

performing each repetition to encourage them to give maximal effort.

EP
Markers of fatigue

- Movement velocity. The reduction in the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) of

the barbell was used as a measure of mechanical fatigue (24). The MPV of all
C

repetitions was recorded by a linear encoder (Chronojump, Barcelona, Spain), which

recorded the displacement of the barbell at a sampling rate of 1,000 Hz. The software
C

automatically calculated the MPV as the average velocity from the first positive

velocity until the velocity of the bar becomes lower than gravity (25).
A

- Blood lactate concentration. The blood lactate concentration was used as a

measure of metabolic fatigue. Blood lactate measurements (0.3µL) were obtained from

the fingertip during the first 15 s after the completion of each set. A portable lactate

analyzer (Lactate Scout, SensLab GmbH, Leipzig, Germany) was used for lactate

measurements. The Lactate Scout analyzer has shown an acceptable reliability and

accuracy compared to other brands of portable analyzers (32).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 8

Statistical analyses

Data are presented as means ± standard deviations. The normal distribution of

the data was confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk test (P > 0.05). The homogeneity of

variances was assessed by the Mauchly's sphericity test and the Greenhouse-Geisser

correction was applied when the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated.

D
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the MPV attained at the first

repetition of the session to compare physical readiness among the five set

TE
configurations. A series of repeated-measures ANOVAs were also conducted to

examine the differences in movement velocity and blood lactate concentration between

the different sets conducted within the same training session as well as between the five

set configurations. MPV and blood lactate concentration were averaged between the
EP
training sets and the averaged values were considered to compare the different set

configurations. When significant F values were obtained, pairwise differences between

means were tested using least significant difference post hoc procedures. The
C

standardized mean differences (SMD) with the corresponding 90% confidence interval

was also calculated to quantify the effect of the number of sets on both movement
C

velocity and blood lactate concentration. The criteria for interpreting the magnitude of

the SMD were: trivial (< 0.2), small (0.2–0.6), moderate (0.6–1.2), large (1.2–2.0), and
A

extremely large (> 2.0) (14). Statistical tests were performed using the software package

SPSS (version 22.0: SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 9

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed for the MPV attained at the first repetition of

the session between the five set configurations (P = 0.073). The average MPV

associated with the 10RM load (61.2 ± 11.2 kg) was 0.58 ± 0.05 m·s-1.

Movement velocity

D
The two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs conducted on MPV values revealed

significant main effects for repetition in all set configurations (MPV decreased with the

TE
number of repetitions), the main effects of set were only significant for TR1, CL10 and

CL15 (MPV decreased with the number of sets), while the interaction repetition × set

never reached statistical significance (Table 1). The standardized mean differences are

detailed in Figure 2.
EP
Insert Table 1 about here

Insert Figure 2 about here

C

The velocity loss (%) significantly differed between the set configurations (P <
C

0.001) (Figure 3), with the overall velocity loss being significantly higher for TR1 (-

39.3±7.3%) in comparison with all other set configurations (Figure 4). Although
A

statistical significance was not reached (P range: 0.065–0.112), the velocity loss was

more accentuated for CL5 (-20.2±14.7%) than for TR2 (-10.3±5.3%; ES = 0.98), CL10

(-12.9±4.9%; ES = 0.75), and CL15 (-10.0±2.3%; ES = 1.19) set configurations.

Insert Figure 3 about here

Insert Figure 4 about here

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 10

Blood lactate concentration

Significant differences in blood lactate concentration between the training sets

were observed for TR1 (P = 0.006), TR2 (P = 0.049) and CL5 (P = 0.021), but no

significant differences were observed for CL10 (P = 0.737) and CL15 (P = 0.348). The

standardized mean differences are detailed in Figure 5.

D
Insert Figure 5 about here

TE
Blood lactate concentrations significantly differed between the set

configurations (F = 64.4, P < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the set

configurations could be ranked as follows based on the blood lactate concentration: TR1

> CL5 > TR2 > CL10 and CL15 (Figure 6).
EP
Insert Figure 6 about here
C

DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to explore the mechanical and metabolic responses to
C

different set configurations conducted in the bench press exercise with a 10RM load.

Our main finding was that TR1 (3 sets × 10 repetitions with no rest between repetitions)
A

and CL5 (3 sets × 10 repetitions with 5 s between repetitions) were the two set

configurations associated with the highest mechanical and metabolic markers of fatigue

(i.e., velocity loss and lactate concentration, respectively). No significant differences in

velocity loss were observed between TR2 (6 sets × 5 repetitions with no rest between

repetitions), CL10 (3 sets × 10 repetitions with 10 s between repetitions), and CL15 (3

sets × 10 repetitions with 10 s between repetitions). However, blood lactate

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 11

concentration was higher for TR2 compared to CL10 and CL15. These results support

the use of TR2, CL10 and CL15 for the maintenance of high mechanical outputs.

Finally, while ensuring high mechanical outputs, sport professional can decide based on

the desired degree of metabolic stress between TR2 (higher metabolic stress) or CL10

and CL15 (lower metabolic stress).

There is increasing evidence suggesting that training to muscular failure (i.e.,

D
our TR1 protocol) is not the most effective approach for enhancing markers of athletic

performance (17,23). For instance, Pareja-Blanco et al. (23) revealed greater

TE
improvements in countermovement jump height performance after training with a lower

level of effort (i.e., leaving a greater number of repetitions in reserve). On the other

hand, while training to failure has been postulated as one of the most effective methods

to increase muscle hypertrophy (27), it has been shown that when the total volume is
EP
controlled between groups the performance of only half the maximum possible number

of repetitions per set (i.e., level of effort reduced by a 50%) can induce comparable

maximal strength and hypertrophic adaptations than failure training (17).

C

The results presented in the previous paragraph highlight the necessity of

exploring the effects of other set configurations beyond the repetitions to failure
C

protocol. Since mechanical and metabolic stimuli mediate the adaptations induced by

resistance training (26), in the present study we explored the effect of the inclusion of
A

different rest periods between single repetitions (i.e., CL training) and leaving half the

maximum number of repetitions in reserve on mechanical and metabolic responses.

When compared with TR1 (i.e, repetitions to failure) all set configurations reduced the

mechanical (velocity loss) and metabolic (blood lactate concentration) markers of

fatigue. Therefore, all the analyzed set configurations could be implemented to elicit a

variation in training stimulus within a resistance training program.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 12

The comparison between the three CL set configurations revealed a larger

velocity loss coupled with a higher blood lactate concentration for CL5 compared to

CL10 and CL15. These results are consistent with previous studies that have found that

12 seconds of inter-repetition rest are more effective than 6 seconds to minimize the

velocity loss (4). On the other hand, no significant differences were observed between

the CL10 and CL15 set configurations. One of the proposed mechanisms of the higher

D
velocities with CL training is that the recovery periods allow a partial re-synthesis of the

ATP and phosphocreatine within the working muscles (33). Therefore, since CL10 and

TE
CL15 set configurations promote similar effects, the CL10 set configuration may be

recommended because it requires a shorter session time. Finally, it should be noted that

while blood lactate concentration was stable across the different training sets,

movement velocity decreased across each set completed for both CL10 and CL15. Since
EP
metabolic fatigue was not increased across the series of sets, further studies are needed

to elucidate which are the mechanisms responsible of the decrease in movement

velocity as a consequence of the increment in the number of set during CL training.

C

Finally, it is worth noting that the TR2 set configuration was associated with the

same level of mechanical fatigue (i.e., velocity loss) as the CL10 and CL15 set
C

configurations, and even lower than the mechanical fatigues levels noted for the CL5 set

configuration. This result could support previous studies that have recommended the
A

performance of only a half of the maximum number of repetitions per set to elicit an

optimal training stimulus (6,22). Unlike the similar mechanical fatigue, the TR2 set

configuration promoted higher metabolic stress than the CL10 and CL15 set

configurations. Therefore, under the assumption that the lower metabolic stress induced

by CL set configurations may be detrimental to the induction of hypertrophic

adaptations (5,21), TR2 could be recommended over CL10 and CL15 set configurations

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 13

to not reduce the stimulus on muscle mass. However, the longer session duration of

TR2 could also be considered as a potential limitation. Longitudinal training studies are

needed to check the effects of the different set configurations examined in the present

study on maximal strength, power and muscle hypertrophy.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

D
The implementation of different CL set configurations was effective to reduce the

mechanical (velocity loss) and metabolic (blood lactate concentration) measures of

TE
fatigue compared to the commonly applied set configuration of repetitions to failure

with the 10RM load. The CL10 protocol could be recommended over CL5 (it presents a

more accentuated reduction in mechanical and metabolic fatigue) and CL15 (similar

mechanical and metabolic responses are obtained with a lower session duration).
EP
Finally, it should be noted that the TR2 set configuration, in which only a half of the

maximum number of repetitions per set were performed without inter-repetition rest

periods, elicited similar mechanical responses than the CL10 and CL15 set
C

configurations, while the degree of metabolic stress was slightly higher. Therefore,

since TR2, CL10 and CL15 are effective to maintain high mechanical outputs, sport
C

professional should decide between these set configurations in function of the desired

metabolic stress (TR2: higher metabolic stress; CL10 and CL15: lower metabolic
A

stress). However, it is probable that CL10 and CL15 set configurations allow the

performance of more than 10 repetitions within a set before a meaningful decrease in

movement velocity occurs, so the benefits of these CL set configurations could be

increased by allowing a higher number of high quality repetitions.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 14

REFERENCES

1. Ahtiainen, J, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kraemer, W, and Häkkinen, K. Short vs.

long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on

muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men. J Strength Cond

Res 19: 572–582, 2005.

2. Castillo, F., Valverde, T., Morales, A, Pérez-Guerra, A., de León, F, and García-

D
Manso, JM. Maximum power, optimal load and optimal power spectrum for

power training in upper-body (bench press). Rev Andal Med Deporte 5: 18–27,

TE
2012.

3. García-Ramos, A, Nebot, V, Padial, P, Valverde-Esteve, T, Pablos-Monzó, A,

and Feriche, B. Effects of short inter-repetition rest periods on power output

losses during the half squat exercise. Isokinet Exerc Sci 24: 323–330, 2016.
EP
4. García-Ramos, A, Padial, P, Haff, GG, Argüelles-Cienfuegos, J, García-Ramos,

M, Conde-Pipó, J, and Feriche, B. Effect of different interrepetition rest periods

on barbell velocity loss during the ballistic bench press exercise. J Strength Cond
C

Res 29: 2388–96, 2015.

5. Girman, JC, Jones, MT, Matthews, TD, and Wood, RJ. Acute effects of a cluster-
C

set protocol on hormonal, metabolic and performance measures in resistance-

trained males. Eur J Sport Sci 14: 151–159, 2014.

A

6. González-Badillo, JJ, Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L, Ribas, J, López-

López, C, Mora-Custodio, R, Yañez-García, JM, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Short-

term recovery following resistance exercise leading or not to failure. Int J Sports

Med 37: 295–304, 2016.

7. González-Badillo, JJ and Sánchez-Medina, L. Movement velocity as a measure

of loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347–352, 2010.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 15

8. González-Hernádez, J, García-Ramos, A, Capelo-Ramírez, F, Castaño-

Zambudio, A, Marquez, G, Boullosa, D, and Jiménez-Reyes, P. Mechanical,

metabolic, and perceptual acute responses to different set configurations in full

squat. J Strength Cond Res, 2017. Epub ahead of print.

9. Haff, GG, Hobbs, RT, Haff, EE, Sands, WA, Pierce, KC, and Stone, MH. Cluster

training: a novel method for introducing training program variation. Strength

D
Cond J 30: 67–76, 2008.

10. Haff, GG, Whitley, A, McCoy, LB, O’Bryant, HS, Kilgore, JL, Haff, EE, Pierce,

TE
K, and Stone, MH. Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and

displacement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 17: 95–103, 2003.

11. Hansen, KT, Cronin, JB, and Newton, MJ. The effect of cluster loading on force,

velocity, and power during ballistic jump squat training. Int J Sports Physiol
EP
Perform 6: 455–468, 2011.

12. Hardee, JP, Lawrence, MM, Utter, AC, Triplett, NT, Zwetsloot, KA, and

McBride, JM. Effect of inter-repetition rest on ratings of perceived exertion

C

during multiple sets of the power clean. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 3141–3147,

2012.
C

13. Hardee, JP, Travis Triplett, N, Utter, AC, Zwetsloot, KA, and Mcbride, JM.

Effect of interrepetition rest on power output in the power clean. J Strength Cond
A

Res 26: 883–889, 2012.

14. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J. Progressive

statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports

Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.

15. Iglesias-Soler, E, Carballeira, E, Sánchez-Otero, T, Mayo, X, and Fernández-Del-

Olmo, M. Performance of maximum number of repetitions with cluster-set

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 16

configuration. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 637–642, 2014.

16. Iglesias-Soler, E, Carballeira, E, Sánchez-Otero, T, Mayo, X, Jiménez, A, and

Chapman, ML. Acute effects of distribution of rest between repetitions. Int J

Sports Med 33: 351–358, 2012.

17. Izquierdo, M, Ibañez, J, González-Badillo, JJ, Häkkinen, K, Ratamess, NA,

Kraemer, WJ, French, DN, Eslava, J, Altadill, A, Asiain, X, and Gorostiaga, EM.

D
Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on

hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. J Appl Physiol 100:

TE
1647–56, 2006.

18. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance training:

progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674–688, 2004.

19. Lawton, TW, Cronin, JB, and Lindsell, RP. Effect of interrepetition rest intervals
EP
on weight training repetition power output. J Strength Cond Res 20: 172–176,

2006.

20. Mayo, X, Iglesias-Soler, E, and Fernández-Del-Olmo, M. Effects of set

C

configuration of resistance exercise on perceived exertion. Percept Mot Skills

119: 825–837, 2014.

C

21. Oliver, JM, Kreutzer, A, Jenke, S, Phillips, MD, Mitchell, JB, and Jones, MT.

Acute response to cluster sets in trained and untrained men. Eur J Appl Physiol
A

115: 2383–2393, 2015.

22. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L, Ribas-Serna, J,

López-López, C, Mora-Custodio, R, Yañez-García, JM, and González-Badillo,

JJ. Acute and delayed response to resistance exercise leading or not leading to

muscle failure. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging, 2016. Epub ahead of print.

23. Pareja-Blanco, F, Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Sánchez-Medina, L, Sanchis-Moysi, J,

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 17

Dorado, C, Mora-Custodio, R, Yáñez-García, JM, Morales-Alamo, D, Pérez-

Suárez, I, Calbet, JAL, and González-Badillo, JJ. Effects of velocity loss during

resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle

adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sport 27: 724–735, 2017.

24. Sánchez-Medina, L and González-Badillo, JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of

neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:

D
1725–1734, 2011.

25. Sanchez-Medina, L, Perez, CE, and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ. Importance of the

TE
propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 31: 123–129, 2010.

26. Schoenfeld, BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to

resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2857–2872, 2010.

27. Schoenfeld, BJ. Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in

EP
hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training. Sports Med 43: 179–194, 2013.

28. Schoenfeld, BJ, Contreras, B, Vigotsky, AD, and Peterson, M. Differential

effects of heavy versus moderate loads on measures of strength and hypertrophy

C

in resistance-trained men. J Sport Sci Med 15: 715–722, 2016.

29. Schoenfeld, BJ, Pope, ZK, Benik, FM, Hester, GM, Sellers, J, Nooner, JL,
C

Schnaiter, JA, Bond-Williams, KE, Carter, AS, Ross, CL, Just, BL, Henselmans,

M, and Krieger, JW. Longer interset rest periods enhance muscle strength and
A

hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1805–1812,

2016.

30. Soriano, MA, Suchomel, TJ, and Marín, PJ. The optimal load for maximal power

production during upper-body resistance exercises: a meta-analysis. Sports Med

47: 757–768, 2017.

31. Spiering, B, Kraemer, W, Anderson, J, Armstrong, L, Nindl, B, Volek, J, and

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 18

Maresh, CM. Resistance exercise biology: manipulation of resistance exercise

programme variables determines the responses of cellular and molecular

signalling pathways. Sports Med 38: 527–540, 2008.

32. Tanner, RK, Fuller, KL, and Ross, MLR. Evaluation of three portable blood

lactate analysers: Lactate Pro, Lactate Scout and Lactate Plus. Eur J Appl Physiol

109: 551–559, 2010.

D
33. Tufano, JJ, Brown, LE, and Haff, GG. Theoretical and practical aspects of

different cluster set structures: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 31: 848–

TE
867, 2017.

34. Williams, TD, Tolusso, DV, Fedewa, MV, and Esco, MR. Comparison of

periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: A meta-

analysis. Sports Med, 2017. Epub ahead of print.

EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 19

FIGURE LEGENDS

Figure 1. Traditional (TR; no rest between repetitions) and cluster set configurations

(CL; a rest period was introduced between individual repetitions) analyzed in the

present study. Session time was calculated considering an average repetition duration of

3 seconds. R, repetition.

D
Figure 2. Forest plot with standardized mean differences and 90% confidence intervals

(CI) for the difference in the averaged mean propulsive velocity (MPV) of the set

TE
between: Set 2 vs. Set 1 (upper panel), Set 3 vs. Set 1 (middle panel), and Set 3 vs. Set 2

(lower panel). Sets × repetitions [inter-repetition rest]: TR1 = 3 × 10 [0 s]; TR2 = 6 × 5

[0 s]; CL5 = 3 × 10 [5 s]; CL10 = 3 × 10 [10 s]; CL15 = 3 × 10 [15 s].

EP
Figure 3. Velocity loss observed for the five set configurations analyzed. Results are

presented as percent change from the first repetition of each testing session. Sets ×

repetitions [inter-repetition rest]: TR1 = 3 × 10 [0 s]; TR2 = 6 × 5 [0 s]; CL5 = 3 × 10 [5

C

s]; CL10 = 3 × 10 [10 s]; CL15 = 3 × 10 [15 s].

C

Figure 4. Comparison of the velocity loss between the different set configurations.

Results are presented as percent change from the first repetition of each testing session.
A

a, significantly different from TR1; b, significantly different from TR2; c, significantly

different from CL5; d, significantly different from CL10; e, significantly different from

CL15. Sets × repetitions [inter-repetition rest]: TR1 = 3 × 10 [0 s]; TR2 = 6 × 5 [0 s];

CL5 = 3 × 10 [5 s]; CL10 = 3 × 10 [10 s]; CL15 = 3 × 10 [15 s].

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 Traditional vs. Cluster Set Configurations 20

Figure 5. Forest plot with standardized mean differences and 90% confidence intervals

(CI) for the difference in blood lactate concentration between: Set 2 vs. Set 1 (upper

panel), Set 3 vs. Set 1 (middle panel), and Set 3 vs. Set 2 (lower panel). Sets ×

repetitions [inter-repetition rest]: TR1 = 3 × 10 [0 s]; TR2 = 6 × 5 [0 s]; CL5 = 3 × 10 [5

s]; CL10 = 3 × 10 [10 s]; CL15 = 3 × 10 [15 s].

D
Figure 6. Comparison of blood lactate concentration between the different set

configurations. Blood lactate concentration was averaged among the different sets to be

TE
compared through a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. a, significantly different

from TR1; b, significantly different from TR2; c, significantly different from CL5; d,

significantly different from CL10; e, significantly different from CL15. Sets ×

repetitions [inter-repetition rest]: TR1 = 3 × 10 [0 s]; TR2 = 6 × 5 [0 s]; CL5 = 3 × 10 [5

EP
s]; CL10 = 3 × 10 [10 s]; CL15 = 3 × 10 [15 s].
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 1. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs examining the effect of the number of

sets and repetitions on movement velocity during each set configuration.

Protocol Set Repetition Interaction

F P F P F P
TR1 7.36 0.005 174.0 <0.001 1.63 0.059
TR2 1.73 0.148 81.7 <0.001 0.32 0.998
CL5 1.42 0.268 29.5 <0.001 0.48 0.965
CL10 9.63 0.001 18.1 <0.001 0.17 1.000
CL15 11.7 0.001 89.7 <0.001 0.73 0.781
F, Snedecor's F; P, P-value. Sets × repetitions [inter-repetition rest]: TR1 = 3 × 10 [0 s];

D
TR2 = 6 × 5 [0 s]; CL5 = 3 × 10 [5 s]; CL10 = 3 × 10 [10 s]; CL15 = 3 × 10 [15 s].

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Figure 1

Inter-set rest: Session time:

TR1 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 3 sets
5 min 11.5 min

Inter-set rest: Session time:

TR2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 6 sets
5 min 26.5 min

D
Inter-set rest: Session time:

TE
CL5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 3 sets
5 min 12.75 min

5 s of inter-repetition rest

EP
Inter-set rest: Session time:
CL10 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 3 sets
5 min 15 min

10 s of inter-repetition rest
C Inter-set rest: Session time:
CL15 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 3 sets
5 min 18.25 min
C
15 s of inter-repetition rest
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Figure 2

Set 2 vs. Set 1

TR1 -0.52 (-1.31, 0.27)

TR2 -0.31 (-1.09, 0.48)

CL5 -0.07 (-0.85, 0.70)

CL10 -0.12 (-0.90, 0.66)

-0.12 (-0.90, 0.66)

CL15

-2 -1 0 1 2

Set 3 vs. Set 1

D
-0.92 (-1.74, -0.10)
TR1

TE
-0.38 (-1.16, 0.40)
TR2
-0.37 (-1.16, 0.41)
CL5
-0.85 (-1.66, -0.04)
EP
CL10
-1.08 (-1.91, -0.24)
CL15
C

-2 -1 0 1 2
C

Set 3 vs. Set 2

-0.52 (-1.31, 0.27)
A

TR1
-0.09 (-0.86, 0.69)
TR2
CL5 -0.29 (-1.07, 0.49)

CL10 -0.76 (-1.56, 0.05)

-0.83 (-1.64, -0.02)

CL15

-2 -1 0 1 2

Standardized mean differences (90% CI)

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Figure 3

10 TR1 TR2 CL5 CL10 CL15

0
-10

D
Velocity loss (%)

-20

TE
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
EP
C
-80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Figure 4

TR1 TR2 CL5 CL10 CL15

0.0

-10.0
Velocity loss (%)

D
a
-20.0 a

TE
-30.0
EP a
-40.0

-50.0 b,c,d,e
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Figure 5

Set 2 vs. Set 1

0.67 (-0.13, 1.46)
TR1
0.58 (-0.21, 1.38)
TR2
CL5 1.03 (0.20, 1.85)

CL10 -0.28 (-1.06, 0.50)

0.03 (-0.75, 0.80)

CL15

-2 -1 0 1 2

D
Set 3 vs. Set 1

TE
1.11 (0.28, 1.95)
TR1
0.90 (0.09, 1.72)
TR2
EP 1.12 (0.29, 1.96)
CL5
0.03 (-0.74, 0.81)
CL10
-0.43 (-1.22, 0.35)
CL15
C
-2 -1 0 1 2
C

Set 3 vs. Set 2

A

0.66 (-0.14, 1.46)

TR1
0.31 (-0.47, 1.09)
TR2
0.26 (-0.52, 1.05)
CL5
0.41 (-0.38, 1.19)
CL10
-0.41 (-1.20, 0.37)
CL15

-2 -1 0 1 2

Standardized mean differences (90% CI)

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Figure 6

Blood lactate concentration (mmol·l-1)

10.0
b,c,d,e

8.0
a,b,d,e
6.0

D
a,c,d,e
a,b,c a,b,c

TE
4.0

2.0
EP
TR1 TR2 CL5 CL10 CL15
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association