{"title":"Efficacy of Supersets Versus Traditional Sets in Whole-Body Multiple-Joint Resistance Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Vegard Moe Iversen, Vemund Bakken Eide, Bjørnar Jakobsen Unhjem, Marius Steiro Fimland","doi":"10.1519/JSC.0000000000004819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Iversen, VM, Eide, VB, Unhjem, BJ, and Fimland, MS. Efficacy of supersets versus traditional sets in whole-body multiple-joint resistance training: A randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1372-1378, 2024-Time constraints often hinder exercise engagement, necessitating exploration of time-efficient resistance training methods. Superset training, where 2 exercises are performed successively with minimal rest, nearly halves session duration but is metabolically demanding, possibly reducing strength gains. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded test leaders, we examined the efficacy of supersets versus traditional sets in a full-body, multiple-joint resistance training workout on maximal strength in the trained exercises. Subjects took part in a 3-week introductory training phase before baseline testing to ensure they were thoroughly familiarized. Next, they were randomized to a superset- or a traditional-set group, performing 10 weeks of heavy multiple-joint resistance training twice per week. The exercise programs consisted of leg press, bench press, lat pull-down, and seated rows. The traditional training group had a 5.2-kg higher improvement in pull-down than the superset group (p = 0.033), and a close to significant 4.8-kg higher improvement in seated rows (p = 0.073). The improvements in leg press and bench press were quite similar for both groups (p = 0.507-0.527). There were no changes between groups in body composition outcomes (0.151-0.640), but both groups increased muscle mass and reduced fat mass (p < 0.05). In conclusion, superset training of multi-joint exercises hampered maximal strength gains somewhat compared with traditional-set training. However, there were very similar improvements in body composition, and strength gains were observed for all exercises in the superset group. Thus, whole-body, multiple-joint superset resistance training could be a viable time-saving approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":17129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","volume":"38 8","pages":"1372-1378"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004819","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract: Iversen, VM, Eide, VB, Unhjem, BJ, and Fimland, MS. Efficacy of supersets versus traditional sets in whole-body multiple-joint resistance training: A randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1372-1378, 2024-Time constraints often hinder exercise engagement, necessitating exploration of time-efficient resistance training methods. Superset training, where 2 exercises are performed successively with minimal rest, nearly halves session duration but is metabolically demanding, possibly reducing strength gains. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded test leaders, we examined the efficacy of supersets versus traditional sets in a full-body, multiple-joint resistance training workout on maximal strength in the trained exercises. Subjects took part in a 3-week introductory training phase before baseline testing to ensure they were thoroughly familiarized. Next, they were randomized to a superset- or a traditional-set group, performing 10 weeks of heavy multiple-joint resistance training twice per week. The exercise programs consisted of leg press, bench press, lat pull-down, and seated rows. The traditional training group had a 5.2-kg higher improvement in pull-down than the superset group (p = 0.033), and a close to significant 4.8-kg higher improvement in seated rows (p = 0.073). The improvements in leg press and bench press were quite similar for both groups (p = 0.507-0.527). There were no changes between groups in body composition outcomes (0.151-0.640), but both groups increased muscle mass and reduced fat mass (p < 0.05). In conclusion, superset training of multi-joint exercises hampered maximal strength gains somewhat compared with traditional-set training. However, there were very similar improvements in body composition, and strength gains were observed for all exercises in the superset group. Thus, whole-body, multiple-joint superset resistance training could be a viable time-saving approach.
期刊介绍:
The editorial mission of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (JSCR) is to advance the knowledge about strength and conditioning through research. A unique aspect of this journal is that it includes recommendations for the practical use of research findings. While the journal name identifies strength and conditioning as separate entities, strength is considered a part of conditioning. This journal wishes to promote the publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts which add to our understanding of conditioning and sport through applied exercise science.