Effects of Resistance Training Techniques on Metabolic Responses in Trained Males.

This study investigated the effects of biset, drop-set and traditional resistance training (RT) techniques on metabolic responses in resistance-trained males. Fifteen trained males (age 29.7 ± 6.1 years; body mass 83.4 ± 7.6 kg; RT experience 11.4 ± 6.7 years; one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell bench press: body mass ratio 1.4 ± 0.1 a.u.) were assigned to three experimental conditions, in a randomized crossover design. The experimental conditions were bi-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM in barbell bench press followed by 10 repetitions at 60%1RM in incline bench press), drop-set (3×10 repetitions at 70%1RM followed by 10 repetitions at 50%1RM in barbell bench press) and traditional RT (3×20 at 60%1RM in barbell bench press). A portable gas analyzer was used to assess energy expenditure and maximal oxygen uptake during the experimental protocols. Blood lactate levels were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 5 minutes after the training session. There were no differences for total training volume (p = 0.999). Post hoc comparisons revealed that bi-set elicited higher aerobic energy expenditure (p = 0.003 vs. drop-set; p < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) and aerobic oxygen consumption (p = 0.034 vs. drop-set; p < 0.001 vs. traditional RT) than other RT schemes. There were no differences regarding anaerobic EE between-conditions (p > 0.05). There was a main effect of time and condition for blood lactate levels (p < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher blood lactate levels than traditional RT (p = 0.009). The results suggest that RT techniques may have a potential role in optimizing metabolic responses in resistance-trained males.

Effects of Different Weekly Set Volumes on Strength and Perceptual Responses in Athletes.

This study investigated the effects of different resistance training (RT) volumes quantified by weekly sets at high intensity (load and effort) on dynamic strength adaptations and psychophysiological responses in trained individuals. Twenty-four athletes were randomly allocated to three groups that performed three (3 S, n=8), six (6 S, n=8), and nine (9 S, n=8) weekly sets, respectively, three times a week on the barbell back squat and bench press during an 8-week period. While all groups showcased strength gains (p<0.05), post hoc comparisons revealed that 6 S and 9 S elicited greater strength adaptations than 3 S in barbell back squat (p=0.027 and p=0.004, respectively) and bench press (p=0.001 and p=0.044, respectively). There were no differences between 6 S and 9 S conditions for back squat (p=0.999) and bench press (p=0.378). Although a time effect was observed for Session-RPE (p=0.014) and Total Quality Recovery scale (p=0.020), psychophysiological responses were similar among groups. Our findings suggest that performing six and nine weekly sets at high intensities led to greater strength gains compared to three weekly sets in strength-trained individuals, despite similar psychophysiological responses.

Drop-Set Resistance Training versus Pyramidal and Traditional Sets Elicits Greater Psychophysiological Responses in Men.

We compared the effects of resistance training (ResisT) to pyramidal and traditional weightlifting sets on men's psychophysiological responses. In a randomized crossover design, 24 resistance-trained males performed drop-set, descending pyramid, and traditional ResisT in the barbell back squat, 45° leg press, and seated knee extension. We assessed participants' rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and feelings of pleasure/displeasure (FPD) at the end of each set and at 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes post-session. No differences were detected across ResisT Methods in total training volume (p = 0.180). Post hoc comparisons revealed that drop-set training elicited higher RPE (M 8.8 SD 0.7 arbitrary units) and lower FPD (M -1.4 SD 1.5 arbitrary units) values compared to descending pyramid (M Set RPE 8.0 SD 0.9 arbitrary units and M Set FPD 0.4 SD 1.6 arbitrary units) and traditional set (M Set RPE 7.5 SD 1.1 arbitrary units and M Set FPD 1.3 SD 1.2 arbitrary units) schemes (p < 0.05). In addition, drop-set training elicited higher session RPE (M 8.1 SD 0.8 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD (M 0.2 SD 1.4 arbitrary units) values than descending pyramid and traditional ResisT (p < 0.001). Similarly, descending pyramid training elicited higher session RPE (M 6.6 SD 0.9 arbitrary units) and lower session FPD (M 1.2 SD 1.4 arbitrary units) than traditional set (M Session RPE 5.9 SD 0.8 arbitrary units and M Session FPD 1.5 SD 1.2 arbitrary units) training (p = 0.015). No differences were found in the temporality of post-session metrics, suggesting that testing 10 and 15 minutes post-ResisT was sufficient to assess session RPE (p = 0.480) and session FPD (p = 0.855), respectively. In conclusion, even with similar total training volume, drop-set training elicited more pronounced psychophysiological responses than either pyramidal or traditional ResisT in resistance-trained males.

Muscular Adaptations and Psychophysiological Responses in Resistance Training Systems.

Purpose: We investigated the effect of drop-set (DS) and rest-pause (RP) systems compared to traditional (TRAD) resistance training on muscular adaptations and psychophysiological responses. Methods: Twenty-seven trained men (age: 23.4 ± 3.4 years; resistance training experience: 5.1 ± 1.7 years) were assigned to experimental groups (DS: n = 9, 3 × 10 repetitions at 75% with 6 additional repetitions at 55% 1RM; RP: n = 9, 3 × 16 repetitions at 75% 1RM; TRAD: n = 9, 4 × 12 repetitions at 70% 1RM) and performed lower-limb training sessions twice a week for 8 weeks. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) and localized muscular endurance (LME) tests were performed in 45° leg press at baseline and post intervention. Session-RPE was assessed 15 min after the end of each training session. Results: A significant time vs. group interaction was observed for 1RM (p = .012) and LME (p < .0001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that RP elicited greater gains in muscular strength than DS (p = .044) but not TRAD (p = .116); and DS elicited greater LME than RP (p < .001) and TRAD (p = .001). No statistical differences were observed in Session-RPE and training strain between conditions; however, RP promoted higher training monotony (p = .036) than DS and TRAD. Conclusions: The DS and RP systems have a potential role in training programs aiming to promote muscle strength and localized muscular endurance adaptations, respectively. However, RP may promote higher training monotony than DS and TRAD, even though the other psychophysiological responses are similar.