Efficacy of Supersets Versus Traditional Sets in Whole-Body Multiple-Joint Resistance Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Vegard Moe Iversen, Vemund Bakken Eide, Bjørnar Jakobsen Unhjem, Marius Steiro Fimland
{"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.

超级组与传统组在全身多关节阻力训练中的功效:随机对照试验
摘要:Iversen、VM、Eide、VB、Unhjem、BJ 和 Fimland、MS。在全身多关节阻力训练中,超组训练与传统组训练的效果对比:随机对照试验。J Strength Cond Res 38(8):1372-1378,2024-时间限制往往会阻碍锻炼的参与度,因此有必要探索节省时间的阻力训练方法。超级组训练,即在最少休息时间内连续进行两项练习,可将训练时间缩短近一半,但对新陈代谢要求较高,可能会降低力量收益。在一项采用盲法的随机对照试验中,我们研究了在全身多关节阻力训练中,超组训练与传统组训练对训练动作最大力量的影响。在基线测试之前,受试者参加了为期 3 周的入门训练,以确保他们已经完全熟悉。接下来,他们被随机分配到超组或传统组,进行为期 10 周的每周两次重型多关节阻力训练。训练项目包括腿部推举、卧推、腹肌下拉和坐姿划船。传统训练组在下拉方面比超组提高了 5.2 千克(P = 0.033),在坐姿划船方面提高了 4.8 千克(P = 0.073),接近显著水平。两组在腿部推举和卧推方面的进步非常相似(p = 0.507-0.527)。在身体成分结果(0.151-0.640)方面,组间没有变化,但两组都增加了肌肉量,减少了脂肪量(p < 0.05)。总之,与传统的成组训练相比,多关节超成组训练在一定程度上阻碍了最大力量的增加。不过,超组训练对身体成分的改善非常相似,而且在超组训练中,所有练习的力量都有提高。因此,全身多关节超组阻力训练可能是一种节省时间的可行方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信