{"title":"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","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":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"38","pages":"1372-1378"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\"38\",\"pages\":\"1372-1378\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004819\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004819","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of Supersets Versus Traditional Sets in Whole-Body Multiple-Joint Resistance Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
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.