The effects of cluster sets resistance training on delayed potentiation of lower limb power output in male collegiate athletes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2076784/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The effects of cluster sets resistance training on delayed potentiation of lower limb power output in male collegiate athletes

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2076784/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the delayed potentiation (DLP) effects induced by cluster sets (CS) versus traditional sets (TS) resistance training.

Methods: Sixteen male collegiate athletes were recruited for the study in a crossover design. All the subjects performed a CS (30 s interval between reps, 4 minutes interval between sets) and a TS (no rest between reps, 4 minutes interval between sets) resistance training sessions (3 sets of 3 repetitions of barbell back squat at 85% 1RM) in random order separated by 72 hours. Countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-meter sprint and T-test performance were evaluated at baseline and 6 hours after the resistance training sessions.

Results: 6 hours after the resistance training sessions, both the CS and TS significantly improved the CMJ height (CS: ES = 0.48, P < 0.001; TS: ES = 0.23, P = 0.006), CMJ take-off velocity (CS: ES = 0.56, P < 0.001; TS: ES = 0.38, P = 0.004), CMJ push-off impulse (CS: ES = 0.38, P < 0.001; TS: ES = 0.26, P = 0.006), 20-meter sprint (CS: ES = 0.85, P < 0.001; TS: ES = 0.58, P = 0.006) and T-test (CS: ES = 0.99, P < 0.001; TS: ES = 0.73, P = 0.003) performance compared with baseline values. Following the CS, CMJ height (ES = 0.25, P = 0.007), CMJ peak power (ES = 0.2, P = 0.034) and 20-meter sprint performance (ES = 0.31, P = 0.019) were significantly better compared with that following TS.

Conclusions: Both TS and CS configurations could induce DLP at 6 hours following the training. CS is a better strategy to induce DLP compared with TS training.

Countermovement jump

power

speed

Power determines athletes' performance in many sports (1). Post-activation Performance enhancement (PAPE) is the phenomenon that athlete’s power output increased significantly in a few minutes(2, 3), generally 4 to 11 min (4–6), after the voluntary resistance training activity (4).

However, the small time window for PAPE limited the potential use in practice. Studies showed another window of potentiation occurring at 6 to 48 h following a low-volume resistance training stimulus, which is termed delayed potentiation (DLP) (7). Cook et al. (8) demonstrated that a high intensity bench press and back squat training session could increase the peak power output and speed performance at 6 hours after training. Tsoukos et al. (9) showed that a 40% 1RM barbell squat jumping session improved countermovement jump (CMJ) height, rate of force development (RFD), and reactive strength index (RSI) at 24 hours after training and the DLP effects still presented at 48h following training.

The net effects of the fatigue and potentiation induced by a resistance training stimulus might determine the magnitude and time course of PAPE and DLP (10). If the training induced fatigue, which compromise the performance, could be decreased while the potentiation effects of training stimulus could be kept, a greater DLP should be expected. Cluster sets (CS) resistance training could be a promising strategy to perform a high quality training while decrease the training induced fatigue (11). In a CS, all the repetitions were divided into small clusters of repetitions separated by brief rest periods. Compared with traditional sets (TS) training, CS could improve training quality (12), decrease fatigue by allowing better recovery of ATP and CP storage and metabolite clearance (13, 14).

CS resistance training could induce greater PAPE effects compared with TS. Nickerson et al. (15) reported that the speed performance at 10 minutes after high intensity resistance training with CS configuration was significantly better compared with TS configuration. Dello Iacono et al. (16) showed greater PAPE effect of CMJ height following the CS configuration squat jump versus the TS configuration.

Given the potential similar neuromuscular mechanisms of PAPE and DLP effects, CS resistance training might be a better method to induce DLP compared with TS. However, the effects of CS versus TS resistance training on DLP of power output remain unknown in literature. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to compare the DLP effects of power output and speed performance induced by CS versus TS resistance training. We hypothesized that the resistance training with CS configuration could induce greater DLP effects than TS.

Subjects

Sixteen male subjects (Mean ± SD: Body mass: 76.25 ± 8.29 kg; Body height: 1.78 ± 0.05 m; Age: 22 ± 2.16 years; Age range: 20–27 years; Back squat repetition maximum: 146.1 ± 22.08 kg) volunteered to participate the study. All subjects were active elite collegiate athletes who had at least two years of resistance training experience and could perform squats, vertical jump and sprint proficiently, the sports of subjects included soccer, basketball and sprint. Subjects were required to refrain from physical activity, replicate sleep patterns and eating habits 72 hours before the start of the research and during the whole research period. Caffeine ingestion and nutritional supplementation were also avoided from the week before familiarization and during the research period. Detailed experimental procedures and the possible risks were explained to the subjects. Written informed consent was obtained before participation. The study was approved by Beijing Sport University Review Board for Human Subjects, and complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Design

A randomized crossover design separated by 72 hours was used to compare the DLP effects induced by a TS or CS configured barbell squat session. All subjects visited the laboratory on five different occasions throughout a 20-day period. Following the familiarization phase, the baseline values for CMJ height, CMJ peak power (PP), CMJ take-off velocity (TOV), CMJ push-off impulse (POI), 1 RM of barbell back squat, 20-meter sprint and T-test performance were obtained in the third visit. Then, the CS and TS resistance training sessions were performed in random order. 6 hours after the resistance training session, the same tests with the second visit were repeated (Fig. 1).

Methodology

Familiarization phase

Due to the subjects were active elite collegiate athletes who kept regular training (3–4 times per week) and could performed jump and sprint proficiently, the familiarization phase was consisted in two sessions. In the first session, subjects visited the laboratory in the afternoon (15:00–17:00, the same time with the experimental interventions) and performed an 8-minute standardized warm-up routine (5-minute running and 3-minute dynamic stretching of hip and ankle mobility). The warm-up routine was the same during the whole study. Then they practice 3 sets of 5 reps of the barbell back squat with a light load (≤ 50% 1RM) on a Smith machine. Subsequently, detailed procedures and correct techniques for all the tests were explained. All subjects familiarized the test protocols and procedures by performing a series of CMJ, 20-meter sprint and T-test (3 reps of technique practices and 3 reps of maximal efforts) with a 2–3 minutes recovery. In the second session, subjects repeated the first session protocol.

Resistance training protocol

The training sessions comprised 3 sets of 3 repetitions of barbell back squat at 85% 1RM performed either followed a TS (no rest between reps, 4 minutes interval between sets) or CS (30 s interval between reps, 4 minutes interval between sets) configuration on a Smith machine (Technogym Equipment, Italy) (15). The order of CS or TS was determined by random draw with a 72-hour washout period between the two trials. 6 hours after resistance training, CMJ test, 20-meter sprint test and T-test were performed. Each test was repeated for three times. The best trial was recorded for statistical analysis.

CMJ test

CMJ was assessed by using a calibrated force-plate (Kistler, 9286BA, Switzerland). Subjects stood on the force-plate with feet shoulder width apart and hands placed on the hips to avoid any influence of arm movements. Subjects then squatted down to a self-selected height before beginning an explosive upward motion. Verbal encouragement was provided during the jumps(16). CMJ height, PP, TOV, and POI were calculated in MARS software (Version 3.0.1, Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland). Subjects completed 3 trials of each jump, with 1-minute rest between trials.

20-meter sprint test

The 20-meter sprint test began with a 5 min warm-up of light drills followed by 50% and 80% intensity efforts over a 20-meter distance. Subjects started in a 2-point stance and then completed 3 maximal 20-meter sprint trials with a walk-back recovery (2 minutes) between consecutive sprints. All tests were conducted in a competitive manner. The time of 20-meter sprint was collected by an automated light gate system (SMARTSPEED™, Fusion Sport Inc., Australia).

T-test

For the T-test, 4 cones were arranged in a T shape. One of them was placed 9.14 m from the starting cone and the other two cones were placed 4.57 m from both sides of the second cone. All times were recorded by an automated light gate system (SMARTSPEED™, Fusion Sport Inc., Australia). All subjects were required to sprint 9.14 m forward from the starting line to the first cone and touched the tip with their right hand, then shuffled 4.57 m to the left to the second cone and touched the tip with their left hand, and shuffled 9.14 m to the right to reach the third cone and touched the tip with their right hand, then shuffled 4.57 m to the left to the middle cone and touch the tip with their left hand, then they finally ran backward to the starting line. The timing started with a sound signal and stopped when the subject passed the timing gate when returning. If the subject did not touch the designated cone, or crossed his legs while shuffling, or did not face forward during the whole testing period, the trial was considered unsuccessful.

1 RM of barbell back squat

Prior to the test, subjects completed a brief warm-up protocol of submaximal squats at 50, 70, 80, and 90% of self-estimated 1RM (10, 6, 3 and 1 repetitions, respectively) with 2 min rest between sets. Then, the load was increased within 4–5 trials separated at least 3 minutes until the 1RM obtained (17). Squat depth was standardized to parallel (descend to reach a 90° knee angle) for each subject individually. All subjects reached their 1RM within the maximum 5 trials.

Statistical Analysis

Data are presented as mean ± SD. All variables were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with repeated measures. Post-hoc comparisons were performed using Tukey-adjusted P values. All statistics were performed in GraphPad software (version 9.2; GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, USA). The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Effect-size (ES) were described in terms of the Cohen's d (d) that was classified as small (between 0.1–0.3), moderate (0.5–0.7), large (0.7–0.9), and very large (> 0.9).

The CMJ height at 6 hours following two training configurations was shown in Fig. 2. The CMJ height after resistance training (TS: 48.35 ± 8.05 cm; CS: 50.44 ± 8.35 cm) improved significantly (TS: P = 0.006, 95%CI = 0.54–3.16 cm, ES = 0.23; CS: P < 0.001, 95%CI = 2.03–5.86 cm, ES = 0.48) compared with the baseline (46.5 ± 7.92 cm). Additionally, the performance following CS was significantly better than that following TS (P = 0.007, 95%CI = 0.59–3.6 cm, ES = 0.25).

The 20-meter sprint performance at 6 hours following two training configurations was shown in Fig. 3. The 20-meter sprint performance after resistance training (TS: 3.007 ± 0.122 s; CS: 2.967 ± 0.139 s) improved significantly (TS: P = 0.006, 95%CI = 0.02–0.12 s, ES = 0.58; CS: P < 0.001, 95%CI = 0.07–0.15 s, ES = 0.85) compared with the baseline (3.078 ± 0.122 s). Additionally, the performance following CS was significantly better than that following TS (P = 0.019, 95%CI = 0.01–0.07 s, ES = 0.31).

The T-test performance at 6 hours following two training configurations was shown in Fig. 4. The T-test performance after resistance training (TS: 9.921 ± 0.64 s; CS: 9.805 ± 0.535 s) improved significantly (TS: P = 0.003, 95%CI = 0.17–0.78 s, ES = 0.73; CS: P < 0.001, 95%CI = 0.31–0.87 s, ES = 0.99) compared with the baseline (10.39 ± 0.647 s). There was no statistical difference between the performance following TS and CS.

Other biomechanical parameters of CMJ were shown in Table 1. The CMJ PP after CS resistance training improved significantly compared with the baseline (P < 0.001, 95%CI = 1–3.5 W/kg, ES = 0.3) and TS (P = 0.034, 95%CI = 0.14–3.61 W/kg, ES = 0.2). There was no significant difference for CMJ PP between TS and baseline. The CMJ TOV after resistance training improved significantly (TS: P = 0.004, 95%CI = 0.04–0.18 m/s, ES = 0.38; CS: P < 0.001, 95%CI = 0.08–0.23 m/s, ES = 0.56) compared with the baseline. The CMJ POI after resistance training improved significantly (TS: P = 0.006, 95%CI = 1.88–10.76 Ns, ES = 0.26; CS: P < 0.001, 95%CI = 4.23–15.22 Ns, ES = 0.38) compared with the baseline. There was no significant difference for both CMJ TOV and CMJ POI between TS and CS.

Table 1

Biomechanical parameters of countermovement jump.
	CMJ PP (W/kg)	CMJ TOV (m/s)	CMJ POI (Ns)
Baseline	62.18 ± 8.34	3.06 ± 0.26	227.5 ± 23.84
TS	62.55 ± 10.01	3.16 ± 0.27*	233.8 ± 24.96*
CS	64.42 ± 8.92*‡	3.21 ± 0.28*	237.3 ± 26.99*
Values are expressed as Mean ± SD. CMJ, countermovement jump. PP, peak power. TOV, take-off velocity. POI, push-off impulse. * Statistical difference to Baseline. ‡ Statistical difference to TS.

To our knowledge, it was the first study to demonstrate that CS was a better resistance training strategy to induce DLP of lower limb power and speed performance compared with TS configuration.

The results showed that both TS and CS resistance session could induce DLP effects of CMJ height, take-off velocity and push-off impulse at 6 hours after the training. It was in consistent with the previous studies which showed DLP effects at 6 hours following TS resistance training (7, 18). Cook et al. demonstrated significant improvement of CMJ performance, bench press, squat, and 40-meter sprint at 6 hours following TS high intensity low volume resistance training in elite rugby athletes (8). Saez et al. also found that high intensity resistance training could elevate the depth jump height at 6 hours after training (19). The current study first observed that the CS resistance training could also induce DLP effects at 6 hours following the training session. It might follow the similar mechanisms with TS resistance training induced DLP effects which was the net balance of resistance training induced positive performance potentiation and the fatigue induced negative performance compromise (10).

The study demonstrated significant higher DLP effects of CMJ height and peak power at 6 hours following CS versus TS training. Meanwhile, larger effect sizes of CMJ take-off velocity and push-off impulse were observed under CS versus baseline than TS. The net balance between fatigue and facilitation induced by training stimulus determined the occurrence and magnitude of PAPE or DLP (10, 20). Many studies showed that only the high intensity low volume resistance training could induce DLP effects (8, 18) whereas no DLP effects were observed following exhaustive resistance training (21). It might be due to the high-level fatigue outweighs the potentiation at the test point. It was reported that an appropriate training volume (reps × sets × % 1RM between 760 to 1190) was required to induce DLP effect when the high intensity (≥ 80% 1RM) load was applied (10). Although the same training volume (765) for both groups was applied in the current study, CS showed greater DLP effects. Resistance training with CS configuration was proved to induce less fatigue compared with TS by the same training volume (13, 22). It might explain that better DLP effects observed in the study. The changes of anabolic and catabolic hormones, such as testosterone and cortisol, were widely used to evaluate the balance of fatigue and recovery in elite athletes (23, 24). Hormone variation could partially explain the DLP effects. It was reported that the level of testosterone could predict the acute performance change in elite athletes (23). Both serum testosterone and cortisol level elevated at 6 hours following training compared with non-training control when DLP effects were observed (8). Due to the resource limitation, the study didn’t observe the hormonal variation. Future studies were recommended to investigate the endocrinal responses to CS or TS to clarify the mechanisms of resistance training induced DLP effects.

However, some studies failed to observe strength training induced DLP effects of CMJ performance at 6 hours after exercise (19, 21, 25). Training volume (reps × sets × % 1RM) differences employed in these studies might be able to explain the ambiguous results. Large training volume (more than 1000) was used in Saez's and Ekstrand's studies (19, 21). More time was needed to recover from the high-volume training. It might be the reason that the studies didn’t show the DLP effect at 6 hours after training, which was in contrast with the current study (training volume: 765). In addition, the strength level of subjects might also play a role. Gonzalez et al. failed to show the DLP effect in the subjects with relative low strength level (squat 1RM < 1.5 times body weight) although a proper training volume (960) was employed. It was reported that a minimum squat 1RM of 1.9 times body weight was needed to induce the occurrence of DLP effects (25).

In the current study, the greater DLP effect of 20-meter sprint was also observed after CS resistance training compared with TS training. Nickerson et al. (15) compared the PAPE effects of 20-meter sprint performance induced by TS vs. CS resistance training. The study showed significant greater PAPE effect of 20-meter sprint induced by CS compared with TS. No study was found to investigate the DLP effect induced by CS vs. TS resistance training. The small time window of PAPE limited the application potential in training and competition. The DLP effect of 20-meter sprint showed in the current study allowed ample time to apply the CS resistance training before competition as a preparation strategy.

The change of direction (COD) ability was highly correlated with the strength and power (1). In the current study, significant greater power performance was observed following the resistance training either in CS or TS configuration. That was why the T-test performance variation was in consistent with the CMJ and 20-meter sprint change. However, we did not observe a significant difference of T-test performance between CS and TS configuration, but larger effect size was observed under CS versus baseline than TS. It might be due to the other factors that were also critical to COD performance, such as balance, acceleration and deceleration ability, and COD techniques (26), which were not affected by acute resistance training stimulus.

All subjects recruited in the current study were active elite collegiate athletes in track and field or team sports, who maintained regular resistance training at least 2 years. Their sports training routine included sprints, plyometric and other speed and power exercises. For elite athletes who routinely performed strength and power training, the extensive familiarization phase was not necessary for reliably performed the CMJ tests(27). In the current study, the subjects had practiced the correct techniques of squat and all the tests (CMJ, 20-meter sprint, T-test and barbell back squat) repeatedly during the two familiarization sessions to avoid the learning effects.

Some limitations in the current study need to be addressed. Firstly, hormone and EMG indicators was not measured to show the physiology and biochemistry mechanism of CS resistance training induced DLP effects. Secondly, only a single time point was investigated in the current study. Further studies were recommended to include physiological and biochemical measurements at multiple time points to clarify the biological mechanisms and time course of CS induced DLP effects.

Practical Applications

Coaches and athletes should include a barbell back squats session with CS configuration (85% 1RM, 3 sets of 3 reps, 30 s interval between reps, 4 minutes interval between sets) 6 hours before competition. It is recommended to be used as a pre-competition priming strategy.

Both TS and CS resistance training session could induce DLP effects of power and speed performance at 6 hours following the training. CS is a better resistance training strategy to induce DLP effects compared with TS training.

DLP

Delayed potentiation

Cluster sets

Traditional sets

PAPE

Post-activation Performance enhancement

CMJ

Countermovement jump

COD

Change of direction

peak power

TOV

take-off velocity

POI

push-off impulse

Effect size

Repetitions maximum.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the subjects for volunteering their time and effort to participate in this study.

Authors’ contributions

BY, ZW, and YW have given substantial contributions to the conception or the design of the manuscript, ZW collected, analyzed and interpreted all the data. CHZ and FC were contributors in designing the testing and training procedures. All authors have participated in drafting the manuscript, BY and YW revised it critically. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by Beijing Sport University Review Board for Human Subjects, and complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Nimphius S, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Relationship between strength, power, speed, and change of direction performance of female softball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(4):885–95.
Boullosa D, Beato M, Dello Iacono A, Cuenca-Fernández F, Doma K, Schumann M, et al. A New Taxonomy for Postactivation Potentiation in Sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;15(8):1197–200.
Prieske O, Behrens M, Chaabene H, Granacher U, Maffiuletti NA. Time to Differentiate Postactivation "Potentiation" from "Performance Enhancement" in the Strength and Conditioning Community. Sports Med. 2020;50(9):1559–65.
Seitz LB, Haff GG. Factors Modulating Post-Activation Potentiation of Jump, Sprint, Throw, and Upper-Body Ballistic Performances: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2016;46(2):231–40.
Kilduff LP, Bevan HR, Kingsley MIC, Owen NJ, Bennett MA, Bunce PJ, et al. Postactivation potentiation in professional rugby players: optimal recovery. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1134–8.
Wilson JM, Duncan NM, Marin PJ, Brown LE, Loenneke JP, Wilson SM, et al. Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: effects of conditioning activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(3):854–9.
Fry AC, Stone MH, Thrush JT. SJ. F. Precompetition training sessions enhance competitive performance of high anxiety junior weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 1995;9(1):37–42.
Cook CJ, Kilduff LP, Crewther BT, Beaven M, West DJ. Morning based strength training improves afternoon physical performance in rugby union players. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(3):317–21.
Tsoukos A, Veligekas P, Brown LE, Terzis G, Bogdanis GC. Delayed Effects of a Low-Volume, Power-Type Resistance Exercise Session on Explosive Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(3):643–50.
Harrison PW, James LP, McGuigan MR, Jenkins DG, Kelly VG. Resistance Priming to Enhance Neuromuscular Performance in Sport: Evidence, Potential Mechanisms and Directions for Future Research. Sports Med. 2019;49(10):1499–514.
Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, O'Bryant HS, Kilgore JL, Haff EE, et al. Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):95–103.
Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, Brown LE, Seitz LB, Williamson BD, et al. Maintenance of Velocity and Power With Cluster Sets During High-Volume Back Squats. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(7):885–92.
Tufano JJ, Brown LE, Haff GG. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Different Cluster Set Structures: A Systematic Review. J Strength Conditioning Res. 2017;31(3):848.
Haff GG, Hobbs RT, Haff EE, Sands WA, Pierce KC, Stone MH. Cluster Training: A Novel Method for Introducing Training Program Variation. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2008;17(1):67–76.
Nickerson BS, Mangine GT, Williams TD, Martinez IA. Effect of cluster set warm-up configurations on sprint performance in collegiate male soccer players. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme. 2018;43(6):625–30.
Dello Iacono A, Beato M, Halperin I. The Effects of Cluster-Set and Traditional-Set Postactivation Potentiation Protocols on Vertical Jump Performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019:1–6.
Dæhlin TE, Haugen OC, Haugerud S, Hollan I, Raastad T, Rønnestad BR. Improvement of Ice Hockey Players' On-Ice Sprint With Combined Plyometric and Strength Training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(7):893–900.
González-García J, Giráldez-Costas V, Ruiz-Moreno C, Gutiérrez-Hellín J, Romero-Moraleda B. Delayed potentiation effects on neuromuscular performance after optimal load and high load resistance priming sessions using velocity loss. European journal of sport science. 2020:1–11.
Saez Saez de Villarreal E, González-Badillo JJ, Izquierdo M. Optimal warm-up stimuli of muscle activation to enhance short and long-term acute jumping performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;100(4):393–401.
Tillin NA, Bishop D. Factors modulating post-activation potentiation and its effect on performance of subsequent explosive activities. Sports Med (Auckland NZ). 2009;39(2):147–66.
Ekstrand LG, Battaglini CL, McMurray RG, Shields EW. Assessing explosive power production using the backward overhead shot throw and the effects of morning resistance exercise on afternoon performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(1):101–6.
Latella C, Teo WP, Drinkwater EJ, Kendall K, Haff GG. The Acute Neuromuscular Responses to Cluster Set Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2019;49(12):1861–77.
Crewther BT, Cook CJ, Gaviglio CM, Kilduff LP, Drawer S. Baseline strength can influence the ability of salivary free testosterone to predict squat and sprinting performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(1):261–8.
Martínez AC, Seco Calvo J, Tur Marí JA, Abecia Inchaurregui LC, Orella EE, Biescas AP. Testosterone and cortisol changes in professional basketball players through a season competition. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(4):1102–8.
González-Badillo JJ, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Ribas J, López-López C, Mora-Custodio R, et al. Short-term Recovery Following Resistance Exercise Leading or not to Failure. Int J Sports Med. 2016;37(4):295–304.
Sariati D, Hammami R, Chtara M, Zagatto A, Boullosa D, Clark CCT, et al. Change-of-Direction Performance in Elite Soccer Players: Preliminary Analysis According to Their Playing Positions. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;17(22).
Nibali ML, Tombleson T, Brady PH, Wagner P. Influence of Familiarization and Competitive Level on the Reliability of Countermovement Vertical Jump Kinetic and Kinematic Variables. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(10):2827–35.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The effects of cluster sets resistance training on delayed potentiation of lower limb power output in male collegiate athletes

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Practical Applications

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1