Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38802885›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2024

Impact of squat set configuration on mechanical performance in paired sets of upper-body exercises.

Danica Janicijevic, Sergio Miras-Moreno, Maria Dolores Morenas-Aguilar, Sara Chacon-Ventura, Jonathon Weakley, Amador García-Ramos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Danica JanicijevicFaculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.
Sergio Miras-MorenoDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Camino de Alfacar, 21, Granada, 18071, Spain.
Maria Dolores Morenas-AguilarDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Camino de Alfacar, 21, Granada, 18071, Spain.
Sara Chacon-VenturaDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Camino de Alfacar, 21, Granada, 18071, Spain.
Jonathon WeakleySchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Amador García-RamosDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Camino de Alfacar, 21, Granada, 18071, Spain. amagr@ugr.es.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 12250410237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPaired sets and alternative set configurations (e.g., cluster sets) are frequently employed by strength and conditioning practitioners; however, their synergistic impact remains underexplored in research. This study aimed to elucidate whether the set configuration used in a lower-body exercise affects mechanical performance during paired sets of upper-body exercises.

methodsTwenty-one resistance-trained individuals (14 men and 7 women) randomly completed three experimental sessions that involved four sets of five repetitions at 75%1RM during both the bench press and bench pull exercises. The three experimental sessions varied solely in the activity conducted during the inter-set rest periods of each upper-body exercise: (i) Traditional squat - six squat repetitions without intra-set rest at 65%1RM; (ii) Rest redistribution squat - two clusters of three repetitions of the squat exercise at 65%1RM with 30 s of intra-set rest; and (iii) Passive rest - no exercise.

resultsThe rest redistribution set configuration allowed the sets of the squat exercise to be performed at a faster velocity than the traditional set configuration (p = 0.037). However, none of the mechanical variables differed between the exercise protocols neither in the bench press (p ranged from 0.279 to 0.875) nor in the bench pull (p ranged from 0.166 to 0.478).

conclusionsAlthough rest redistribution is an effective strategy to alleviate fatigue during the sets in which it is implemented, it does not allow subjects to perform better in subsequent sets of the training session.

Indexed as

EfficiencyResistance trainingRest redistributionSupersetVelocity-based training

Identifiers

PMID38802885
PMCPMC11131196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.