ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
A comparison of acute affective responses, physiological measures and training volume between superset and traditional resistance training in untrained adults.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Different Paired-Set Configurations and Rest Intervals on Acute Volume Load, Repetitions, and Training Efficiency: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Comparison of affective responses between an online and in-person high-intensity functional training session in sports students.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- The effect of heavy-resistance core strength training on upper-body strength and power performance in national-level junior athletes-a pilot study.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the perceptive responses, physiological measures, training volume and training duration comparing a superset vs. a traditional resistance training session in untrained adults. Thirty adults (29 ± 7 years, 1.72 ± 0.1 m, 77 ± 16 kg) performed one superset resistance training session and one traditional resistance training session in a randomized-crossover design. Both sessions consisted of eight exercises with two sets and a load of ∼10-repetition maximum. The outcomes included number of repetitions, training duration, blood lactate and heart rate in addition to rate of perceived exertion (RPE), rate of perceived discomfort (RPD), session displeasure/pleasure (sPDF) and exercise enjoyment (EES) which were recorded in the middle and post-exercise. Forty-eight hours after the last session the participants reported which session they would prefer as their regular routine if they had to choose. The main findings were that the superset session led to greater RPE compared to the traditional session (
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.