Trial reportEuropean journal of sport science2026
Acute Responses and Chronic Adaptations to Cluster Versus Traditional Set Resistance Training in Males and Females.
Trial report in European journal of sport science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared acute and chronic adaptations to cluster set (CS) and traditional set (TS) structures during a 6-week linear periodised resistance training programme in the back squat. Thirty-six resistance-trained females and males were randomly assigned to the CS or the TS group. Acute responses were assessed using objective (blood lactate, mean propulsive velocity, velocity loss [VL], countermovement jump [CMJ] height and modified reactive strength index) and subjective measures (rating of perceived exertion [RPE], delayed onset muscle soreness and the short recovery and stress scale). Chronic adaptations included one-repetition maximum (1RM), relative isometric peak force, muscle endurance, CMJ height, velocity at 70% 1RM (v70) and load-velocity (L-V) profiling. CS displayed higher barbell velocities and lower acute fatigue, reflected by VL (g = -0.56 to -2.16), lactate (g = -0.51 to -1.86) and RPE (g = -0.91). TS did not demonstrate lower fatigue in any acute measure. Both protocols elicited comparable improvements in 1RM (CS: g = 0.28; TS: g = 0.23), muscle endurance (CS: g = 0.48; TS: g = 0.50) and v70 (CS: g = 1.18; TS: g = 1.32), with no significant improvements in CMJ height or isometric peak force. Post-intervention L-V profiling revealed distinct adaptations, with CS demonstrating a shallower slope, indicating higher velocities at heavier loads. Sex differences were minimal; females displayed lower lactate and RPE, while longitudinal adaptations were similar. In conclusion, both protocols improved muscle strength and endurance. Collectively, CS provided superior fatigue management, better preservation of barbell velocity and unique L-V profile adaptations.
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.