Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2020
Acute mechanical, physiological and perceptual responses in older men to traditional-set or different cluster-set configuration resistance training protocols.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Continuous and Cluster-Set Configurations Performed to Failure on Performance and Physiological Responses in the Bench Press and Half Squat.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Trial
- Acute effects of cluster vs. traditional sets on performance and perceptual responses during upper- and lower-limb power-oriented resistance exercises in older adults.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Trial
- The effects of cluster-set resistance training on mental health and sleep quality in sedentary young women: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cardiocirculatory and Metabolic Responses to Low- and High-Load Squat Exercise in Young and Middle-Aged Individuals.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Cluster Sets to Prescribe Interval Resistance Training: A Potential Method to Optimise Resistance Training Safety, Feasibility and Efficacy in Cardiac Patients.Sports medicine - open · 2023Review
- Effect of resistance training programs differing in set structure on muscular hypertrophy and performance in untrained young men.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Study protocol: investigating the feasibility of a hybrid delivery of home-based cluster set resistance training for individuals previously treated for lung cancer.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Similar strength gains at lower perceived efforts via cluster set vs. traditional home-based online training: A 6 weeks randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Strengthening the Case for Cluster Set Resistance Training in Aged and Clinical Settings: Emerging Evidence, Proposed Benefits and Suggestions.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aims of this study were to compare mechanical outputs (i.e. power and impulse), physiological (i.e. heart rate) and perceptual (i.e. effort and fatigue) responses in older men to traditional-set or different cluster-set configuration resistance training protocols.
methodsIn a randomized cross-over design, 20 healthy old men (aged 67.2 ± 2.1 years) completed four resistance training sessions using the back squat exercise loaded with optimal power loads. Training configurations were: traditional (TRA), three sets of six repetitions with 120-s rest between each set; Cluster-set 1 (CLU1), 24 single-repetition clusters with 10 s of rest after every cluster; Cluster-set 2 (CLU2), 12 double-repetition clusters with 20-s rest after every cluster; and Cluster-set 4 (CLU4), 6 quadruple-repetition clusters with 40-s rest after every cluster.
resultsCluster-set configurations resulted in greater power outputs compared to traditional-set configuration (range 2.6-9.2%, all p [Formula: see text] 0.07 for main effect and protocol [Formula: see text] set interactions). CLU1 and CLU2 induced higher heart rate (range 7.1-10.5%, all p < 0.001 for main effect and protocol [Formula: see text] set interactions), lower rating of perceived exertion (range - 1.3 to - 3.2 AU, all p [Formula: see text] 0.006 for pairwise comparisons) and lower ratings of fatigue (range - 0.15 to - 4 AU, all p [Formula: see text] 0.012 for pairwise comparisons) compared to TRA and CLU4. Finally, an absolute preference for CLU2 was reported.
conclusionsFindings presented here support the prescription of CLU2 as an optimal resistance training configuration for trained older men using the back squat.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.