Trial reportAging clinical and experimental research2026
Acute effects of cluster vs. traditional sets on performance and perceptual responses during upper- and lower-limb power-oriented resistance exercises in older adults.
Trial report in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPower training is critical for maintaining muscle function and independence in older adults, but excessive fatigue during traditional sets (TRAD) can reduce effectiveness and adherence. Cluster sets (CS) may help counteract these issues; however, most evidence comes from athletes, and acute responses to CS versus TRAD across exercises in older adults remain poorly understood, limiting guidance for optimal prescription.
methodsThirty apparently healthy, resistance-trained older adults (19 males, 11 females; 69.3 ± 6.6 years) performed chest press (CP) and leg press (LP) at 70% one-repetition maximum (1RM) at maximal concentric velocity. Participants performed CS (4 × (2 × 5), 30s intra-set rest, 150s between sets; 570s total rest) and TRAD (4 × 10, 180s rest between sets; 540s total rest) on separate occasions in randomized order. Mean concentric velocity (MCV), velocity loss (VL), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and estimated repetitions to failure (ERF) were measured.
resultsMCV was higher in CS than TRAD for CP (p < 0.001) and LP (p = 0.005). VL was lower in CS than TRAD for CP (p < 0.001) and LP (p = 0.003), although CP exceeded 30% VL in both conditions, whereas LP remained below 20% VL. No differences were observed in RPE, whereas ERF was higher in CS for CP (p = 0.015) and LP (p = 0.045).
conclusionCS maintained better exercise performance in older adults, accompanied by perception that they could perform more repetitions compared to TRAD. However, the CS implemented did not significantly reduce perceived exertion. TRIALS REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) under the identifier: ACTRN12622001573741.
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.