Upper-lower body super-sets vs. traditional sets for inducing chronic athletic performance improvements

Abstract

Background: To promote chronic adaptations, resistance training needs the manipulation of different variables, among them, the order of the exercises and sets. Specifically, for velocity-based training, paired exercises alternating upper and/or lower-body muscle groups appear to be a good choice to promote neuromuscular adaptations.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effect of two velocity-based training programs only differing in the set configuration on muscle strength, muscular endurance and jump performance.

Methods: Moderately strength-trained men were allocated into a traditional (TS, n= 8) or alternating sets (AS, n= 9) configuration group to perform a 6-week velocity-based training program using the full squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. The TS group completed all sets of the full squat (SQ) exercise before performing the bench press (BP) sets, whereas the AS group completed the first set of each exercise in an alternating manner. Training frequency, relative load, number of sets, percentage of velocity loss (%VL) within the set and inter-set rest were matched for both groups. Countermovement jump height (CMJ), load (kg)-velocity relationship, predicted 1RM, and muscular endurance for each exercise were evaluated at pre- and post-training.

Results: The TS and AS groups obtained similar and non-significant improvements in CMJ (3.01 ± 4.84% and 3.77 ± 6.12%, respectively). Both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in muscle strength variables in SQ (6.19-11.55% vs. 6.90-011.76%; p = 0.033-0.044, for TS and AS, respectively), BP (6.19-13.87% and 3.99-9.58%; p = 0.036-0.049, for TS and AS group, respectively), and muscular endurance in BP (7.29 ± 7.76% and 7.72 ± 9.73%; p = 0.033, for the TS and AS group, respectively). However, the AS group showed a greater improvement in muscular endurance in SQ than the TS group (10.19 ± 15.23% vs. 2.76 ± 7.39%; p = 0.047, respectively). Total training time per session was significantly shorter (p = 0.000) for AS compared to TS group.

Conclusions: Training programs performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate loads and %VL induce similar jump and strength improvements, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional approach.

Keywords: Athletic performance; Muscle strength; Resistance training; Set configuration; Velocity-based training.