The Effectiveness of Cluster vs. Rest-Redistribution Set Configurations to Maintain Movement Velocity During...

Alternative set structures such as cluster sets (CS) and rest-redistribution (RR) are often used as a more effective method for preserving movement velocity during resistance training than traditional sets (TS). However, only a limited number of studies have directly compared CS and RR, and their relative effectiveness has not been comprehensively synthesized. The aim of this present study was to systematically synthesize the existing literature examining acute effects of CS and RR on movement velocity during resistance training, compare CS and RR using Bayesian network meta-analyses, and examine potential moderators of these effects using Bayesian network meta-regressions.

Two databases (PubMed and Web of Science) were searched for peer-reviewed English-language literature. Studies were included when they compared at least one acute mechanical response (mean, mean propulsive or peak velocity) between TS and CS, TS and RR, or CS and RR structures. RR structures were further categorized into intra-set rest-redistribution (intraRR) and inter-set rest-redistribution (interRR) based on how rest was redistributed. Random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted where possible. Posterior standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) were computed, and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores were used to rank conditions.

Thirty-seven studies were included. CS, intraRR and interRR were all more effective than TS in preserving mean velocity during resistance training [SMD (95% CrI) = 0.60 (0.42-0.80), 0.41 (0.08-0.75) and 0.42 (0.26-0.61), respectively]. Both CS and intraRR allowed for greater peak velocity when compared to TS [SMD (95% CrI) = 0.48 (0.20-0.76) and 0.39 (0.04-0.73), respectively], whereas the CrI for interRR compared with TS crossed zero (- 0.11 to 0.43). Direct comparisons among alternative set structures revealed no clear evidence of meaningful differences in both mean and peak velocity. However, based on SUCRA scores, CS had the highest probability of being the most effective for preserving mean and peak velocity (SUCRA = 99.7 and 95.6%, respectively), followed by intraRR (SUCRA = 46.9 and 65.1%) and interRR (SUCRA = 46.3 and 26.9%). Meta-regressions indicated that exercise type and relative training intensity did not moderate the differences between TS and the alternative set structures.

Overall, alternative set structures are generally more effective than TS for preserving mean and peak velocity during resistance training. Although the magnitude of this positive effect varies slightly across the alternative set structures examined, the differences between CS, intraRR and interRR appear to be small and may not be practically meaningful. These findings suggest that alternative set structures can be used to effectively maintain movement velocity during resistance training, with the choice among them best guided by practical considerations and training context.

The original protocol was prospectively registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9uqyx ).