Ijerph 20 02810

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368288659

Inﬂuence of Cluster Sets on Mechanical and Perceptual Variables in

Adolescent Athletes
Article in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) · February 2023
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20042810
CITATION READS
1 140
5 authors, including:
Gustavo Henrique Api Diogo Foschiera

Federal University of Technology - Paraná/Brazil (UTFPR) Instituto Federal do Paraná - IFPR
6 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Filipe Manuel Clemente Elto Legnani
860 PUBLICATIONS 11,666 CITATIONS

Federal University of Technology - Paraná/Brazil (UTFPR)
49 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Gustavo Henrique Api on 05 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Influence of Cluster Sets on Mechanical and Perceptual
Variables in Adolescent Athletes
Gustavo Api 1, * , Rosimeide Francisco dos Santos Legnani 2 , Diogo Bertella Foschiera 3 ,
Filipe Manuel Clemente 4,5 and Elto Legnani 1
1 Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Technology, Curitiba 81310-900, Paraná, Brazil
2 Department of Physical Education, Ponta Grossa State University, Ponta Grossa 84030-900, Paraná, Brazil
3 Physical Education Collegiate, Federal Institute of Paraná, Palmas 85555-000, Paraná, Brazil
4 Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial
de Nun’Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
5 Instituto de Telecomunicações, Delegação da Covilhã, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Cluster sets (CS) are effective in maintaining performance and reducing perceived effort
compared to traditional sets (TRD). However, little is known about these effects on adolescent
athletes. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of CS on the performance of mechanical
and perceptual variables in young athletes. Eleven subjects [4 boys (age = 15.5 ± 0.8 years; body
mass = 54.3 ± 7.0 kg; body height = 1.67 ± 0.04 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.62 ± 0.19 kg;
years from peak height velocity [PHV]: 0.94 ± 0.50) and 7 girls (age = 17.2 ± 1.4 years; body
mass = 54.7 ± 6.3 kg; body height = 1.63 ± 0.08 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.22 ± 0.16 kg; years
from PHV: 3.33 ± 1.00)] participated in a randomized crossover design with one traditional (TRD:
3 × 8, no intra-set and 225 s interest rest) and two clusters (CS1: 3 × 2 × 4, one 30 s intra-set and 180 s
inter-set rest; and CS2: 3 × 4 × 2, three 30 s intra-set and 90 s inter-set rest) protocols. The subjects
were assessed for a Back Squat 1RM for the first meet, then performed the three protocols on three
different days, with at least 48 h between them. During experimental sessions, a back squat exercise
was performed, and mean propulsive velocity (MPV), power (MPP), and force (MPF) were collected
to analyze performance between protocols, together with measures of countermovement jump (CMJ)
Citation: Api, G.; Legnani, R.F.d.S.; and perceptual responses through Rating of Perceived Exertion for each set (RPE-Set) and the overall
Foschiera, D.B.; Clemente, F.M.;
session (S-RPE), and Muscle Soreness (DOMS). The results showed that velocity and power decline
Legnani, E. Influence of Cluster Sets
(MVD and MPD) were favorable for CS2 (MVD: −5.61 ± 14.84%; MPD: −5.63 ± 14.91%) against TRD
on Mechanical and Perceptual
(MVD: −21.10 ± 11.88%; MPD: −20.98 ± 11.85%) (p < 0.01) and CS1 (MVD: −21.44 ± 12.13%; MPD:
Variables in Adolescent Athletes. Int.
−21.50 ± 12.20%) (p < 0.05). For RPE-Set, the scores were smaller for CS2 (RPE8: 3.23 ± 0.61; RPE16:
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20,
2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/
4.32 ± 1.42; RPE24: 4.46 ± 1.51) compared to TRD (RPE8: 4.73 ± 1.33; RPE16: 5.46 ± 1.62; RPE24:
ijerph20042810 6.23 ± 1.97) (p = 0.008), as well as for Session RPE (CS2: 4.32 ± 1.59; TRD: 5.68 ± 1.75) (p = 0.015).
There were no changes for jump height (CMJ: p = 0.985), and the difference between time points
Academic Editor: Paulina Hebisz
in CMJ (∆CMJ: p = 0.213) and muscle soreness (DOMS: p = 0.437) were identified. Our findings
Received: 24 November 2022 suggest that using CS with a greater number of intra-set rests is more efficient even with the total
Revised: 30 January 2023 rest interval equalized, presenting lower decreases in mechanical performance and lower perceptual
Accepted: 3 February 2023 effort responses.
Published: 5 February 2023
Keywords: intra-set rest; resistance training; rest redistribution; young athletes; jump performance;
back squat; rating of perceived exertion; Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
1. Introduction
conditions of the Creative Commons Resistance training is an integral part of athletic development for many individu-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// als of various ages and sports [1]. It is well established in the literature that increasing
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ strength and power capacity is an important strategy for improving sports performance [2]
4.0/). and injury prevention [3], and that higher levels of strength and power promote greater
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042810 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2810 2 of 20
tolerance to training loads [4]. Nevertheless, acute effects of resistance training sessions
could cause not only potential benefits, like post-potentiation activation, but can decrease
performance as well. Several authors have discussed these effects on agility, endurance,
power, jump height, and even in cognitive performance [5–10], which can be explained by
the accumulation of fatigue due to higher exercise effort or even the proximity to failure,
in which sets performed to failure have been shown to acutely impair jump and sprint
performance compared to sets with lower velocity loss [11].
The use of different set configurations, with a reorganization of rest intervals, as cluster
sets, appears to be a great strategy to help maintain the performance of variables such
as force, power, and velocity with less development of fatigue indicators (e.g., perceived
effort and jump performance) during the training session [12–18]. Cluster Sets (CS) are
characterized by dividing sets into blocks of fewer repetitions with the addition of short
intra-set intervals or the redistribution of intervals between repetitions [19–22]. The initial
premise is that this configuration would provide a better increase in exercise quality with
the ability to maintain or improve performance [13] and allow higher loads, leading to
greater adaptations for performance [22].
Several studies have identified that, compared to the traditional configuration, cluster
sets allow for greater maintenance of performance and less decline in power and velocity
loss during the sets [12–14,16,17,23]. Tufano et al. [23] reported velocity and power declines
to 23% on traditional sets and 1–5% in cluster sets configurations in back squat exercises
for three sets of 12 repetitions in 60%1RM, demonstrating a better efficiency for cluster sets.
Likewise, Cuevas-Aburto et al. [24] found lower mean velocity values for traditional sets
compared to cluster sets, with about a 5% difference for both back squats and bench presses,
using three sets of six repetitions against a 10RM load. In a study verifying neuromuscular
fatigue through electromyography, it was evidenced that individuals who performed the
Cluster configuration presented a reduced increase in electromyographic amplitude along
with a lower reduction in frequency [25], pointing to a lower accumulation of fatigue. There
was also less accumulation of metabolic substrates verified through the reduction in lactate,
ammonia, and cortisol concentrations [17,26–29]. González-Hernández et al. [27] verified
that besides the benefits of maintenance of performance in mechanical variables and less
metabolic accumulation during exercise, there was also an association between more ex-
tended inter-repetition interval periods and lower perceptual responses measured through
perceived effort, along with higher performance in vertical jump height. Regarding the
rating of perceived exertion, lower scores were reported when there are greater frequencies
of intra-set or inter-repetition intervals [18,30–32].
However, with more inter-repetitions or intra-set intervals, a longer session duration
could also occur [33]. Torrejón et al. [34] found that when the work-to-rest ratio is equated
with both the total volume of repetitions and the total rest intervals, the reorganization
of rest intervals, specifically configuring short intra-series intervals, does not allow for
higher movement velocities to be achieved compared to the traditional configuration. Still,
Piqueras-Sanchiz et al. [10] observed that jump height performance is less attenuated
(~10%) when greater inter-set rest interval frequencies are adopted during squat exercises
when compared to traditional sets, even with equalized work-to-rest ratio and total training
volume. Thus, the equalization of total volumes and intervals between protocols would be
necessary for an effective comparison between configuration models, considering different
formats of sets and rest interval structures. In addition, there is a research gap in using these
configurations in younger and adolescent athletes, whose beneficial effects of resistance
training using cluster sets are well-known in adult population samples consisting primarily
of male subjects [14,17,35,36]. As little is known about its effects on young athletes [33,37,38],
and as children and adolescents have a higher rate of recovery between sets of exercises
compared to adults, consequent to lower production of power [39,40], it is justified to
investigate the effects of cluster sets on this population, since the outcome concerning
fatigue and maintenance of performance, in addition to the psychophysiological responses,
may be divergent. In addition, there is an urge to address resistance training strategies
that can reduce the risk of injury in this population, by allowing a smaller accumulation
of fatigue and providing better adherence to training programs, since there are several
benefits for health and performance listed in the literature, as well for psychosocial aspects
such as self-confidence, body image, and socialization skills [41–43].
With this in mind, the main objective of this study was to compare the effect of a
traditional set protocol (TRD: no intra-set rest) and two different cluster sets protocols
(CS1: one intra-set rest; CS2: three intra-set rests) on mechanical, perceptual, and jump
performance variables in adolescent athletes. As the main hypothesis, it is expected that
CS configurations would be more efficient for minor decreases and better maintenance in
mechanical variables, and attenuate the decrease in CMJ performance with lower scores for
perceptual variables.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population
The sample size was calculated a priori using the GPower v 3.1.9.6 (Heinrich-Heine-
University, Dusseldorf, Germany) software [44], using the same parameters adopted by
Ortega-Becerra, Sánchez-Moreno, and Pareja-Blanco [25], as a repeated measures ANOVA
within factors, with Cohen’s effect size of 0.50 for comparison between protocols, error
probability α = 0.05 and β = 0.95, resulting in a sample of 12 subjects. The sample was then
selected by convenience, inviting subjects personally to one of the training practices at their
respective sporting club. The subjects competing at state and national levels, free of injuries,
from 13 to 19 years of age and with available time to participate were then selected for the
study. However, there was a sample loss of one participant for not meeting the criteria
of movement pattern execution during the squat, who, during the experimental sessions,
could not reach parallel height for most of the repetitions during the execution of the
squat and could introduce errors in the analysis; therefore, these data were then excluded
from the study. Still, the sample resulted in a high sampling power (β = 0.93). Finally,
11 adolescent athletes consisting of 4 boys (age = 15.5 ± 0.8 years; body mass = 54.3 ± 7.0 kg;
body height = 1.67 ± 4.06 m; 1RM load = 87.5 ± 13.2 kg; 1RM/body mass: 1.62 ± 0.19;
years from peak height velocity [PHV]: 0.94 ± 0.50) and 7 girls (age = 17.2 ± 1.4 years;
body mass = 54.7 ± 6.3 kg; body height = 1.63 ± 7.86 m; 1RM load = 66.6 ± 10.5 kg;
1RM/body mass: 1.22 ± 0.16; years from PHV: 3.33 ± 1.00), competing at the state or
national level in their respective sports (badminton and volleyball), participated in the
study. All participants had been practicing their respective sport three to five times a week,
with two to three strength and conditioning sessions per week.
The criteria for participation consisted of at least six months prior experience with
resistance training and being injury free for the last two months before the start of the study.
The subjects needed to be able to perform a free-weight parallel back squat, in which the
hip reached the height of the knees. Parents/guardians gave their written informed consent
authorizing the minor-aged subject to participate in the study. This study was conducted
under the approval of all ethical standards of the local University Ethics Committee and
National Ethics Commission (protocol: 5.514.698), in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.
2.2. Study Design and Context

A randomized within-subjects cross-over study design was used to investigate the ef-
fects of three different set configurations on mechanical, perceptual, and jump performance
variables. A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted for mean propulsive
velocity (MPV), power (MPP), and force (MPF) variables in the free-weight back squat
exercise, for countermovement jump height (CMJ) before and after each protocol, for rating
of perceived exertion, and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS). Performance decline
and maintenance through the sets for mechanical variables were compared as well. The par-
ticipants were assessed in four different sessions (Figure 1). The first session occurred one
week before the first experimental intervention in the afternoon period (2:00 to 5:00 p.m.)
and was used as a familiarization session, in which anthropometric measures were collected
back squat exercise, for countermovement jump height (CMJ) before and after each
protocol, for rating of perceived exertion, and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS).
Performance decline and maintenance through the sets for mechanical variables were
compared as well. The participants were assessed in four different sessions (Figure 1). The
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, first session occurred one week before the first experimental intervention in the afternoon
20, 2810 4 of 20
period (2:00 to 5:00 pm) and was used as a familiarization session, in which
anthropometric measures were collected along with the assessment of physical variables
[countermovement
along with the assessmentjump (CMJ) and the
of physical free-weight
variables back squat one jump
[countermovement repetition
(CMJ) maximum
and the
(1RM)], and presentation and explanation of the perceptual
free-weight back squat one repetition maximum (1RM)], and presentation and explanationscales were provided with
anchorage procedures by visual and verbal examples, and were
of the perceptual scales were provided with anchorage procedures by visual and verbal used in the 1RM test for
learning purposes. In the other three sessions, the participants
examples, and were used in the 1RM test for learning purposes. In the other three ses- were randomly allocated
to onetheofparticipants
sions, the three different
were randomlyprotocols of settoconfigurations
allocated one of the three fordifferent
three sets of eight
protocols of
repetitions
set at 75%1RM
configurations for threeinsets theof free-weight backatsquat
eight repetitions 75%1RM exercise:
in the afree-weight
traditionalback set
configuration
squat exercise:protocol (TRD)set
a traditional consisting of twoprotocol
configuration inter-set(TRD)
rest intervals
consistingof 225 s in inter-set
of two between
sets (3 × 8:225 s); a cluster set design (CS1) with one intra-set
rest intervals of 225 s in between sets (3 × 8:225 s); a cluster set design (CS1) withrest interval of 30 s within
one
each set (fourth to the fifth repetition) and 180 s between sets (3 × 4:30
intra-set rest interval of 30 s within each set (fourth to the fifth repetition) and 180 s between s:4:180 s); and
another
sets (3 × cluster set design
4:30 s:4:180 s); and(CS2)
anotherconsisting
cluster of
setthree
designintra-set rest intervals
(CS2) consisting of 30intra-set
of three s within
eachintervals
rest set (second to sthird,
of 30 within fourth
eachto setfifth, and sixth
(second to seventh
to third, fourth repetitions)
to fifth, andand sixth90tos between
seventh
sets (3 × 2:30
repetitions) s:2:30
and 90 s s:2:30
between s:2:90
setss).
(3 Each
× 2:30protocol contained
s:2:30 s:2:30 a total
s:2:90 s). Eachrest interval
protocol of 450 as,
contained
onlyrest
total differing byof
interval the450rest configuration
s, only differing by between
the restand within sets.between
configuration This rest andredistribution
within sets.
was rest
This organized so that total
redistribution rest intervals
was organized weretotal
so that equalized between
rest intervals the equalized
were three experimental
between
protocols.
the three experimental protocols.
Figure1.
Figure 1. Summary
Summary of of the
the study.
study. 1st
1st day
day refers
refers to
to the
the familiarization
familiarizationsession
sessionwhile
while2nd,
2nd,3rd,
3rd,and
and4th
4th
daysrefers
days refersto
tothe
theexperimental
experimentalsessions.
sessions. Traditional
Traditional(TRD),
(TRD),Cluster
Cluster11(CS1),
(CS1),and
andCluster
Cluster22(CS2)
(CS2)set
set
configurations for the back squat exercise.
configurations for the back squat exercise.
Theparticipants
The participantsperformed
performedeach eachprotocol
protocolinina random
a random order,
order, with
with recovery
recovery criteria
criteria of
ofleast
at at least
48 h48between
h between experimental
experimental sessions
sessions (mean
(mean ± standard
± standard deviation:
deviation: 5.2 5.2 ± 3.4
± 3.4 days),
days), a
a minimum
minimum ofof
1515 points(well
points (wellrecovered)
recovered)on onthe
thetotal
totalquality
qualityofofrecovery
recoveryscale
scale(TQR),
(TQR),and and
aa muscle
muscle soreness
soreness maximum
maximum scorescore of
of 33points
points in
inaanumeric
numeric rating
rating scale
scale for
for pain
pain (NRS).
(NRS). IfIf
participants had not properly recovered, the experimental session
participants had not properly recovered, the experimental session would be postponedwould be postponed
untilthe
until the recovery
recoverycriteria
criteriawere
weremet,
met,allowing
allowingthetheparticipants
participantstotobebein
in good
good condition
conditionand and
recovered for
recovered for each
each day.
day. For
For all
all protocols,
protocols, the
the participants
participants first
first reported
reported their
their perceived
perceived
recovery and made a general warm-up with mobility exercises, a set of 10 bodyweight
squats, and a set of five submaximal CMJ; then, CMJ height was assessed before and
after the back squat exercise. For the back squat, 50% and 70%1RM warmup sets for
six and three repetitions were performed before selecting 75%1RM for the experimental
protocol. Since fluctuations in 1RM occur day-to-day, the intensity was adjusted by the best
mean propulsive velocity reached at 70%1RM using individual polynomial equations with
the velocities and weights used during the back squat 1RM assessment, similar to those
proposed by Thompson et al. [45], which were then calculated to determine the 75%1RM of
the day. The participants then executed one of the mentioned protocols, reporting a rating
squats, and a set of five submaximal CMJ; then, CMJ height was assessed before and after
the back squat exercise. For the back squat, 50% and 70%1RM warmup sets for six and
three repetitions were performed before selecting 75%1RM for the experimental protocol.
Since fluctuations in 1RM occur day-to-day, the intensity was adjusted by the best mean
propulsive velocity reached at 70%1RM using individual polynomial equations with the
velocities and weights used during the back squat 1RM assessment, similar to those
proposed by Thompson et al. [45], which were then calculated to determine the 75%1RM
of the day. The participants then executed one of the mentioned protocols, reporting a
of perceived
rating exertion
of perceived at the at
exertion end
theofend
each
of set
each ofset
eight total total
of eight repetitions (RPE8,
repetitions RPE16,
(RPE8, and
RPE16,
RPE24)
and and and
RPE24) CMJCMJheight was was
height measured again
measured rightright
again afterafter
the end of the
the end ofthird set, five
the third set, and
five
ten minutes
and later. later.
ten minutes FifteenFifteen
minutes after finishing
minutes the protocol,
after finishing the participants
the protocol, reported
the participants
the overall
reported Session
the overallRPE (S-RPE).
Session RPE For indirect
(S-RPE). Formarkers
indirectof muscleof
markers soreness, muscle pain
muscle soreness, was
muscle
assessed using a bodyweight squat, asking for the intensity of pain between
pain was assessed using a bodyweight squat, asking for the intensity of pain between 1 1 and 10 points
with
and 10 anpoints
NRS, with
similar
anto the similar
NRS, proposed by Doma
to the proposed et al.
by[5] at 24et
Doma and
al. 48
[5]hatafter the48
24 and protocol.
h after
Figure
the 2 presents
protocol. the2stages
Figure of the
presents the experimental protocols.
stages of the experimental protocols.
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Study
Study design—Traditional
design—Traditional (TRD),
(TRD), Cluster
Cluster 11 (CS1),
(CS1), and
and Cluster
Cluster 22 (CS2).
(CS2). TQR:
TQR: Total
Total Quality
Quality
Recovery Scale; DOMS: Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (pre-protocol, 24 and 48 h post protocol);
Recovery Scale; DOMS: Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (pre-protocol, 24 and 48 h post protocol);
CMJ: jump height before (CMJPre) and after (CMJ at 0′, 5′, and 10′) protocol. RPE8, 16, 24: Rating of
CMJ: jump height before (CMJPre) and after (CMJ at 00 , 50 , and 100 ) protocol. RPE8, 16, 24: Rating of
Perceived Exertion at the end of each set; S-RPE: Rating of Perceived Exertion for overall session.
Perceived Exertion at the end of each set; S-RPE: Rating of Perceived Exertion for overall session.
The study took place during a short preparatory mesocycle during the months of July
The study took place during a short preparatory mesocycle during the months of
and August for 38 days, in which the subjects were participating in their daily sports
July and August for 38 days, in which the subjects were participating in their daily sports
training and school activities. During this period, the subjects performed the experimental
training and school activities. During this period, the subjects performed the experimental
sessions
sessions onon separate
separate days
days according
according to to their
their availability
availability of of time,
time, occurring
occurring during
during morning
morning
and
and afternoon periods (10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) but respecting the adopted criteria of at
afternoon periods (10:00 am to 4:00 pm) but respecting the adopted criteria of at least
least
aa 48
48 hh interval
interval between
between protocols,
protocols, inin addition
addition to to the
the criteria
criteria ofof muscle
musclepain
painand
andrecovery.
recovery.
Although different
Although different days
days between
between subjects
subjects occurred,
occurred, short
short adaptations
adaptations from
from strength
strength were
were
controlled
controlled by a load-velocity profile, and the weight could be adjusted according to
by a load-velocity profile, and the weight could be adjusted according the
to the
mean propulsive velocity corresponding to the relative intensity, which
mean propulsive velocity corresponding to the relative intensity, which has been reportedhas been reported
as
as aa tool
tool for
for adjusting
adjusting intensity
intensity byby other studies [46–48].
other studies [46–48]. AsAs the
the study
study did
did not
not take place
take place
under
under laboratory
laboratory conditions
conditions and
and due
due toto the
the unavailability
unavailability of of athletes
athletes absent
absent from
from training,
training,
the study was carried out at the training site during their available time for
the study was carried out at the training site during their available time for the scheduled the scheduled
strength
strength conditioning
conditioning sessions.
sessions. However,
However, itit waswas notnot possible
possible to control environmental
to control environmental
conditions
conditions such as temperature and humidity, because the room did not have aa system
such as temperature and humidity, because the room did not have system to to
condition
condition the environment. In addition, the subjects had prior experience performing the
the environment. In addition, the subjects had prior experience performing the
free-weight back squat exercise in strength and and conditioning
conditioning sessions.
sessions.
2.3. Anthropometrics and Peak Height Velocity

For the
theanthropometric
anthropometric measures, standing
measures, and sitting
standing heightsheights
and sitting were measured through
were measured
a wall stadiometer
through (Sanny® (Sanny
a wall stadiometer ES2030,® São Paulo,
ES2030, SãoBrazil).
Paulo, For the standing
Brazil). height, subjects
For the standing height,
were barefoot
subjects were and the evaluator
barefoot positionedpositioned
and the evaluator them rightthem
in theright
middle of the
in the stadiometer
middle of the
with feet, hips, shoulders, and head touching the wall. For sitting height, the subjects were
measured while seated in a 50 cm height box, with thighs parallel to the floor, and hips,
shoulders, and head touching the wall; then, the height of the box was subtracted from the
total seated measure. Body mass was assessed via an electronic scale (Filizola® , São Paulo,
Brazil) with subjects centered in the middle of the scale, barefoot and wearing light clothes.
The maturity offset prediction equation provided by Mirwald et al. [49] was used to
identify the age at peak height velocity (PHV), taking into account the chronological age
(CA) body mass, standing and sitting height, and estimated leg length through standing
height minus sitting height. The following equations were used for boys:
Maturity offset = −9.236 + [0.0002708 × (Leg Length × Sitting Height)] +

[−0.001663 × (CA × Leg Length)] + [0.007216 × (CA × Sitting Height)] + (1)
[0.02292 × (body mass by standing height ratio × 100)];
and girls:
Maturity offset: −9.376 + [0.0001882 × (Leg Length × Sitting Height)] +

[0.0022 × (CA × Leg Length)] + [0.005841 × (CA × Sitting Height)] −
(2)
[0.002658 × (CA × Body Mass)] + [0.07693 × (body mass by standing
height ratio × 100)].
2.4. Mechanical Variables

Measures of mean propulsive force (MPF), power (MPP), and velocity (MPV) were
collected in the execution of all repetitions during the 1RM Back Squat Test and in the exper-
imental sessions by a valid and reliable linear position transducer (LPT) (Chronojump® —
Bosco System, Barcelona, Spain) [50,51], with a sampling frequency of 1000 Hertz and
resolution of 1 mm. Through the LPT, velocity, and acceleration data were calculated from
the displacement of the bar relative to time, the force was calculated as the mass lifted
multiplied by the total acceleration (gravity + bar), and the power was calculated by the
multiplication of force by velocity. In addition, the concentric phase of the motion in which
the measured acceleration was greater than the acceleration due to gravity corresponded to
the propulsive phase [52]. The sets and repetitions were compared between the variables
in the protocols. Moreover, the effects of each configuration across every set during the
protocols were assessed by a percentual decline of velocity (MVD), power (MPD), and
force (MFD):
Percent decline = [(repetitionlast − repetitionfirst )/repetitionfirst ] × 100 (3)
In addition, maintenance percentage during the set of all mechanical variables (Veloc-
ity: MVM; Power: MPM; Force: MFM) was calculated as well, with the following equation,
as proposed by Tufano et al. [23]:
Maintenanceset = 100 − [(meanset − repetitionfirst )/repetitionfirst × 100 (4)
Intraclass correlation coefficient presented excellent reliability with satisfactory coeffi-

cients of variation for MPV [ICC (95% CI): 0.983 (0.963–0.995); CV: 14%], MPP [ICC (95%
CI): 0.995 (0.988–0.998); CV: 14%] and MPF [ICC (95% CI): 1.000 (1.000–1.000); CV: 3%]
assessed through all repetitions between protocols.
2.5. Countermovement Jump

The vertical jump height was measured via flight time through CMJ using a contact
platform (Jump System PRO—Cefise® —São Paulo, Brazil) with a sampling frequency of
1000 Hertz and a mean error of ±3 milliseconds. The participants were asked to stand
upright with their hands at the waist and then perform a half squat to approximately
90 degrees of knee flexion, and without pause, perform the vertical jump. The participants
were not allowed to move their arms or raise their knees towards the chest during the jump.
As a warm-up protocol, joint mobility exercises focused on the lower limbs and lumbar
and thoracic spine were performed, followed by a set of ten bodyweight squats and five
submaximal jumps. Subsequently, after a two-minute break, the participant performed
five maximal jumps, with a ten-second interval between jumps. The average of the five
jumps was used for the analysis, due to the average value being more sensitive to identify
fatigue-induced changes [53]. This procedure was adopted in all experimental sessions
before (CMJPre), immediately after (CMJ00 ), five minutes after (CMJ50 ), and ten minutes
(CMJ100 ) after performing the experimental protocol.
For the comparison between the pre- and post-moments of the vertical jump evalua-
tion in all protocols, the calculation of the difference between the moments (∆CMJ) was
performed, returning its relative value in percentage, through the equation below:
∆CMJ = [(post − pre)/pre] × 100 (5)
Reliability in the CMJ was realized through all pre-protocol jump measures for every
experimental session, resulting in excellent reliability with a low coefficient of variation
[ICC (95% CI): 0.996 (0.991–0.999); CV: 5%].
2.6. 1RM Back Squat Test

A progressive test for back squats was standardized for each individual in all sessions
with the participants from a standing position with knees and hips fully extended, feet
parallel with slight external rotation and approximately at shoulder width, and the bar
supported on the back at the level of the acromion. Each participant performed a continuous
downward movement up to the maximum possible amplitude in which there is no pelvic
retroversion, so as not to compromise the quality of the exercise, but always reaching at least
the parallel squatting position, and then returning to the initial position. The evaluation
of the range of motion was performed by a qualified powerlifting coach, guaranteeing
the established criteria. The eccentric phase velocity was controlled, adopting an average
velocity of at least 0.4 m/s, with verbal feedback given to the participants when they did
not reach the stipulated minimum velocity. At the end of the eccentric phase, there was a
rapid transition to the concentric phase, which should be performed at the highest possible
intentional velocity. The use of belts, knee pads, or any performance-enhancing device
during the execution of the movement was not allowed.
The protocol adopted for the test was similar to that performed by Thompson et al. [45],
consisting of a general joint warm-up and then the performance of the following relative
intensities: five repetitions for 0% (body weight and a wooden stick), three repetitions
for 30% and 50%, two repetitions for 70% and 80%, and one repetition for 90%, 95%, and
100%1RM, the latter with three attempts and increments from 2.0 to 5.0 kg. The test was
terminated when the participant and the researcher agreed that a new attempt with more
weight was not possible, or when two consecutive failures occurred between attempts to
set the 1RM. An interval of three to five minutes was established between the attempts,
and the predicted 1RM value was previously defined between the trainer and participant.
2.7. Velocity-Regulated Intensity

Since strength levels have daily fluctuations influenced by fatigue and readiness
state [54,55], the relative intensity was adjusted by repetition velocity for every proto-
col. For this, data from the 1RM Back Squat test were used for a 2nd-order polynomial
regression equation to determine the predicted 1RM, adopting the repetitions with the
highest MPV of each relative intensity and the MPV in the 100%1RM trials as the minimum
velocity threshold. The function “LINEST” with adjustment to the 2nd order was used
in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft® , Redmond, WA, USA) to determine the parameters for
calculating the equation:
ax2 + bx + c = y (6)
where a, b, and c are the coefficients of the equation, and x was replaced by the mean
propulsive velocity of the best repetition at 70%1RM (vel70%), resulting in the adjusted
value of y, referring to the load equivalent to the execution velocity. Load intensity was
readjusted to determine 75%1RM from the equivalent relative intensity calculated from
the velocity.
2.8. Perceptual Variables

The following criteria developed for conducting the experimental sessions were previ-
ously collected for each protocol: the total quality recovery perceived scale (TQR) proposed
by Kentä and Hassmén [56], and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS) through NRS
similar to the scale proposed by Doma et al. [5] in the bodyweight squat. In TQR, the
participants rated their psychophysiological recovery from the previous 24 h including the
previous night’s sleep, on a scale of 6 (not recovered) to 20 (very well recovered). DOMS
was assessed using a 1–10 numeric rating scale, with 1 defined as “no pain” and 10 as
“very, very sore” and was also assessed 24 (DOMS24) and 48 (DOMS48) hours after the
experimental sessions. The participants rated perceived exertion (RPE) through CR-10 [57],
where 0 was defined as “rest” and 10 as “maximum effort”, for each set (RPE8, RPE16,
RPE24) and for the session (S-RPE). The answers were conceded individually and recorded
by the researcher in a purpose-made Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet specially elaborated for
the research.
2.9. Statistical Analysis

The data of the mechanical variables were stored in the Chronojump® software
database version 2.2.0 (Chronojump® Bosco-system, Barcelona, Spain), to be later exported
to a Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft® , Redmond, WA, USA) spreadsheet and then grouped with
the other variables for their subsequent tabulation and organization. Statistical analyses
were performed using SPSS Statistics® v.20.0 (IBM® , Armonk, NY, USA) software.
Descriptive data were reported using the means and standard deviations (SD). Data
distribution was explored using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The reliability of the variables in
each protocol was calculated by a two-way mixed effects model and average measures in
an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and the
values were interpreted according to the guidelines presented by Koo and Li [58], in which
values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.90 are
indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively. Coefficients of
variation (CV) of values equal to or less than 15% were classified as satisfactory according
to Stokes [59].
For comparison of the results of the means of each protocol, repeated measures analysis
of variance (RM-ANOVA) was performed. For comparison of mechanical variables in the
series performed between protocols (3 × 3, Protocol × Set), as well as for comparison
between repetitions (3 × 24, protocol × repetitions), and comparison for RPE-Set (3 × 3,
Protocol × Set), CMJ (3 × 4, Protocol × Time), ∆CMJ (3 × 3, Protocol × Time), and DOMS
(3 × 2, Protocol × Time), a Two-Way RM-ANOVA was performed. When the assumption
of sphericity was violated, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied. Statistical
adjustments by Bonferroni post hoc tests for the detection of differences between factors
were performed for each of these analyses.
A probability value of p ≤ 0.05 was established. Effect sizes were measured using the
Hegdes’ g [60], with the interpretation of the values proposed by Hopkins et al. [61] being:
less than 0.2 = trivial; greater than 0.2 and less than 0.6 = small; greater than 0.6 and less
than 1.2 = moderate; greater than 1.2 and less than 2.0 = large; greater than 2.0 and less
than 4.0, very large; and greater than 4.0 = nearly perfect. In addition, RM-ANOVA effect
sizes through partial eta squared (ηp 2 ) were reported.
3. Results
3.1. Criteria
For the recovery criteria, there was no difference between protocols for TQR [F(1.34:13.40)
= 0.365; p = 0.618; CS2: 16.91 ± 1.88; CS1: 17.00 ± 1.60; TRD: 17.45 ± 1.78] and DOMS
[F(2:20) = 0.48; p = 0.953; CS2:1.82 ± 0.72; CS1: 1.83 ± 0.74; TRD 1.91 ± 0.67]. However, for
the session time duration, as rest intervals were equalized between conditions since cluster
configurations may take more total duration time if they were not equalized, there was a
significant difference between protocols [F(2:20) = 4.096; p = 0.032]. However, post hoc tests
showed that CS2 (8.45 ± 0.13 min) had a significantly shorter duration compared to TRD
(8.52 ± 0.11 min).
3.2. Velocity, Power, and Force Variables

Two-Way RM-ANOVA (Protocol × Set) found significant differences in the main effect
between protocols for the variables of MPV [F(2:20) = 9.04, p = 0.002; ηp 2 : 0.475], MPP
[F(2:20) = 10.205, p < 0.01, ηp 2 : 0.505], MVD [F(2:20) = 12.745, p < 0.01, η2 : 0.560], MPD
[F(2:20) = 12.567, p < 0.01, ηp 2 : 0.557], MVM [F(2:20) = 13.9, p < 0.01, ηp 2 : 0.582] and MPM
[F(2:20) = 13.651, p < 0.01, ηp 2 : 0.577], with Bonferroni’s post-hoc test showing significant
differences for all of these variables, in favor of the CS2 protocol compared to TRD (MPV:
p = 0.007; MPP: p = 0.006; MVD: p = 0.006; MPD: p = 0.006; MVM: p = 0.003; MPM: p = 0.003).
Post-hoc analyses also identified a statistically significant difference between proto-
cols CS2 × CS1, for the variables MVD, MPD (both p = 0.007), MVM, and MPM (both
p = 0.014), but identifying no differences between CS1 × TRD. There were no statistical
differences across protocols for MPF, MFD, and MFM. The mean ± SD and effect sizes for
the mechanical variables are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Data (mean ± SD) comparison between protocols for all mechanical variables and their
respective effect sizes.
Protocols (Mean ± SD) Effect Size (95% CI)

Variables CS2 CS1 TRD CS2-CS1 CS2-TRD CS1-TRD
0.48 0.99 0.66
MPV (m/s) 0.46 ± 0.08 TRD 0.43 ± 0.05 0.39 ± 0.05 (−0.42–1.39) (0.04–1.94) (−0.26–1.57)
0.37 0.64 0.34
MPP (W) 509.75 ± 127.34 TRD 467.41 ± 90.41 434.98 ± 93.82 (−0.53–1.27) (−0.27–1.56) (−0.56–1.24)
MPF (N) 1096.03 ± 145.26 1095.98 ± 149.54 1099.46 ± 150.11 0.00 −0.02 −0.02
(−0.89–0.89) (−0.91–0.87) (−0.91–0.87)
MPV Decline (%) TRD, CS1 −21.44 ± 12.13 −21.10 ± 11.88 1.12 1.11 −0.03
−5.61 ± 14.84 (0.16–2.09) (0.15–2.07) (−0.92–0.86)
MPP Decline (%) TRD, CS1 −21.50 ± 12.20 −20.98 ± 11.85 1.12 1.10 −0.04
−5.63 ± 14.91 (0.16–2.08) (0.14–2.06) (−0.93–0.85)
MPF Decline (%) 0.10 ± 0.50 −0.01 ± 1.50 0.45 ± 0.64 0.10 −0.58 −0.38
(−0.79–0.99) (−1.49–0.33) (−1.28–0.52)
TRD, CS1 90.08 ± 8.34 87.93 ± 8.54 0.81 1.03 0.24
MPV Maintenance (%) 97.74 ± 9.80 (−0.12–1.74) (0.08–1.98) (−0.65–1.14)
TRD, CS1 0.81 1.02 0.23
MPP Maintenance (%) 97.76 ± 9.82 89.98 ± 8.53 87.96 ± 8.55 (−0.12–1.74) (0.07–1.98) (−0.67–1.12)
MPF Maintenance (%) 100.12 ± 0.32 99.85 ± 1.31 100.13 ± 0.37 0.27 −0.04 −0.29
(−0.62–1.17) (−0.93–0.85) (−1.18–0.61)
CS2: Cluster set 2; CS1: Cluster set 1; TRD: Traditional set; MPV: Mean Propulsive Velocity; MPP: Mean Propulsive
Power; MPF: Mean Propulsive Force. TRD Significantly different from TRD; CS1 significantly different from CS1.
p < 0.05.
Figure 3 reports the individual measures comparisons between protocols for mean
propulsive velocity (left) and mean propulsive power (right), using the traditional protocol
(TRD) as the reference model for comparison with the Cluster 1 (CS1) and Cluster 2
(CS2) protocols.
There was also a main effect between sets for the variables MPV [F(1.26:12.63) = 11.232,
p = 0.004, ηp 2 : 0.529] and MPP [F(1.21: 12.08) = 10.437, p = 0.005, ηp 2 : 0.511], pointing to
statistically significant post hoc differences between 1st and 2nd (p = 0.032), and 1st and
3rd (p = 0.015) sets for MPV, and 1st and 2nd (p = 0.042), 1st and 3rd (p = 0.02), and 2nd and
3rd (p = 0.05) sets for MPP. No main effect was identified for any of the other mechanical
variables. In addition, no Protocol × Set interaction effect was identified for any of the
mechanical variables.
Mean Propulsive Power; MPF: Mean Propulsive Force. TRD Significantly different from TRD; CS1
significantly different from CS1. p < 0.05.
Figure 3 reports the individual measures comparisons between protocols for mean
propulsive velocity (left) and mean propulsive power (right), using the traditional
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023,protocol
20, 2810 (TRD) as the reference model for comparison with the Cluster 1 (CS1) and Cluster
10 of 20
2 (CS2) protocols.
Figure 3. Individual measures for Mean Propulsive Velocity (left) and Mean Propulsive Power (right)
Figure
for 3. Individual
Protocols measures
CS2 (Cluster for(Cluster
2), CS1 Mean Propulsive
1), and TRD Velocity (left) and
(Traditional). Mean
Data PropulsiveasPower
are expressed mean
(right)for
value forprotocol.
Protocols CS2 (Cluster 2), CS1 (Cluster 1), and TRD (Traditional). Data are expressed as
mean value for protocol.
For the comparison between protocols and repetitions, the Two Way RM-ANOVA
(ProtocolThere×was also a main
Repetitions) effect betweenshowed
(10 participants), sets fora the variables
significant MPV
main [F(1.26:12.63)
effect of Protocol=
11.232,
on MPV p =[F(2:
0.004, ηp=
18) 10.113, p = 0.001, ηp 2 : 0.529]
2: 0.529] and MPP [F(1.21: 12.08) and
= 10.437,
MPPp[F(2:18)
= 0.005, η : 0.511],ppointing
=p211.093, = 0.001,
top 2statistically
η : 0.552] andsignificant post hoc differences
post-hoc differences between 1st
between protocols CS2and 2nd (p
× TRD = 0.032),
(MPV: p = and 1stMPP:
0.009; and
3rd
p = (p = 0.015)
0.008) and sets
CS1for × MPV, and 1stp and
TRD (MPV: 2nd (p
= 0.007; = 0.042),
MPP: 1st andThere
p = 0.011). 3rd (pwas= 0.02),
alsoand 2nd
a main
and 3rd for (pRepetitions
= 0.05) sets onfor MPP. No main effect was pidentified
< 0.001, ηfor 2 0.546]
effect MPV (F(4.60:41.37) = 10.817, p : any of and
the other
MPP
[F(3.88:34.93) = 10.999,In p< 0.001, ηpno2 : 0.550] with post-hoc differences for MPV between:
mechanical variables. addition, Protocol × Set interaction effect was identified for
any ×
3rd of 8th, 14th, 15th, 16th,
the mechanical and 24th (p < 0.05); 10th × 16th (p = 0.018); and 5th, 9th, 11th
variables.
and 17thFor the× 24th (p < 0.05).between
comparison In addition, there and
protocols wererepetitions,
post-hoc differences
the Two Way for MPP between:
RM-ANOVA
3rd × 8th (p = 0.045); 11th × 8th, and 24th (p < 0.05). No significant differences
(Protocol × Repetitions) (10 participants), showed a significant main effect of Protocol were found
on
for MPF. In addition, no Protocol × Repetitions interaction was found for
MPV [F(2: 18) = 10.113, p = 0.001, ηp : 0.529] and MPP [F(2:18) = 11.093, p = 0.001, ηp : 0.552]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 MPV, MPP
11
2 ofand
20
MPF. Figures 4differences
and post-hoc and 5 shows the means
between and standard
protocols CS2 × TRDerror(MPV:
for repetitions between
p = 0.009; MPP: pprotocols
= 0.008)
for
andMPV CS1 and × TRDMPP,(MPV:
respectively.
p = 0.007; MPP: p = 0.011). There was also a main effect for
Repetitions on MPV (F(4.60:41.37) = 10.817, p < 0.001, ηp2: 0.546] and MPP [F(3.88:34.93) =
10.999, p < 0.001, ηp2: 0.550] with post-hoc differences for MPV between: 3rd × 8th, 14th,
15th, 16th, and 24th (p < 0.05); 10th × 16th (p = 0.018); and 5th, 9th, 11th and 17th × 24th (p
< 0.05). In addition, there were post-hoc differences for MPP between: 3rd × 8th (p = 0.045);
11th × 8th, and 24th (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found for MPF. In addition,
no Protocol × Repetitions interaction was found for MPV, MPP and MPF. Figures 4 and 5
shows the means and standard error for repetitions between protocols for MPV and MPP,
respectively.
Figure4.4.Mean
Figure MeanPropulsive
PropulsiveVelocity forfor
Velocity Protocols CS2CS2
Protocols (Cluster 2), CS1
(Cluster (Cluster
2), CS1 1), and
(Cluster 1),TRD
and (Tradi-
TRD
(Traditional).
tional). Data
Data are are expressed
expressed as meanas values
mean values and standard
and standard error. error.
Figure 4. Mean Propulsive Velocity for Protocols CS2 (Cluster 2), CS1 (Cluster 1), and TRD
(Traditional). Data are expressed as mean values and standard error.
Figure5.5.Mean
Figure Mean Propulsive Power
Propulsive for Protocols
Power CS2 (Cluster
for Protocols 2), CS1 (Cluster
CS2 (Cluster 2), CS1 1), and TRD
(Cluster 1),(Traditional).
and TRD
(Traditional). Data are expressed as mean values and
Data are expressed as mean values and standard error. standard error.
3.3.
3.3. Jump
Jump Variables
Variables
NoNo statistically
statistically significant differences were
significant differences were identified
identified between
betweenprotocols
protocolsfor forvertical
vertical
2 0.002] nor ∆CMJ [F(2:20) = 1.671, p = 0.213, η 2 :
jump
jumpheight
height[F(2:20) 0.015, pp == 0.985;
[F(2:20)== 0.015, 0.985; ηηpp2:: 0.002] nor ΔCMJ [F(2:20) = 1.671, p = 0.213, ηpp2:
0.143].
0.143]. However,
However, therethere were
were differences
differencesbetween
betweentimes timesfor
forCMJ
CMJ height
height [F(3:30)
[F(3:30) = 18.346,
= 18.346, p
0.001,ηηp2p: 20.647],
p<<0.001, : 0.647],with
withpost-hoc
post-hocidentifying
identifyingdifferences
differencesbetween
betweentimes CMJPre××CMJ0’
timesCMJPre CMJ0’
(p
(p==0.02), CMJPre ×
0.02),CMJPre × CMJ5’
CMJ5’ (p(p << 0.001), CMJPre ××CMJ10’
and CMJPre
0.001), and CMJ10’(p (p<<0.001).
0.001).NoNodifference
difference
between times was identified for ∆CMJ [F(1.20:12.00) = 3.588; p = 0.077,
between times was identified for ΔCMJ [F(1.20:12.00) = 3.588; p = 0.077, ηpp : 0.264]. No η 2 : 0.264]. No
2
Protocol ×
Protocol Time interaction
× Time interaction occurred
occurredfor forany
anyof ofthe
thevariables
variablesrelated
relatedtotothe
thevertical
verticaljump.
jump.
The
Thejumpjumpperformance
performance data data are
are presented
presented in in Table
Table 2.2.
Table2.2.Data
Table (mean±± SD) comparison
Data(mean between protocols
comparison between protocolsfor
forall
all jump
jumpperformance
performancevariables
variablesand
and
theirrespective
their respectiveeffect
effect sizes.
sizes.
Protocols
Protocols (Mean
(Mean ± SD)
± SD) Effect
EffectSize
Size[g,
[g,(95%
(95% CI)]
CI)]
Variables
Variables CS2CS2 CS1
CS1 TRD
TRD CS2-CS1
CS2-CS1 CS2-TRD
CS2-TRD CS1-TRD
CS1-TRD
−0.05
−0.05 −−0.09
0.09 −0.04
− 0.04
Pre Pre 32.55
32.55 ± 6.31 32.87
± 6.31 32.87
± ±6.75
6.75 33.12 ± 5.99
33.12 ± 5.99 (−0.94–0.84)
(−0.94–0.84) ((−0.98–0.80)
−0.98–0.80) (−0.93–0.85)
(−0.93–0.85)
CMJ Height (cm)
0.04
0.04 0.16
0.16 0.12
0.12
CMJ Height 00 * 0′ * 31.8631.86
± 6.14
± 6.14 31.62 ± ±6.07
31.62 30.84 ±
6.07 30.84 6.09
± 6.09 ( − 0.85–0.93) ( − 0.73–1.05) ( − 0.77–1.01)
(−0.85–0.93) (−0.73–1.05) (−0.77–1.01)
(cm) 0.02 −0.04 −0.05
50 ** 31.17 ± 6.37 31.05 ± 6.43 31.41 ± 6.69
(−0.87–0.91) (−0.93–0.85) (−0.94 −0.84)
0.02 0.03 0.01
100 ** 30.87 ± 6.22 30.73 ± 6.71 30.67 ± 6.67
(−0.87–0.91) (−0.86–0.92) (−0.88–0.90)
0.25 0.81 0.84
Pre−00 −2.08 ± 7.11 −3.52 ± 3.47 −7.13 ± 4.70
(−0.65–1.14) (−0.12–1.73) (−0.09–1.77)
0.19 0.24 0.07
∆CMJ (%) Pre−50 −4.45 ± 5.87 −5.46 ± 4.39 −5.77 ± 4.51
(−0.70–1.08) (−0.65–1.13) (−0.82–0.96)
0.29 0.52 0.25
Pre−100 −5.30 ± 4.40 −6.69 ± 4.72 −8.02 ± 5.56
(−0.60–1.19) (−0.38–1.43) (−0.65–1.14)
CS2: Cluster set configuration 2; CS1: Cluster set configuration 1; TRD: Traditional set configuration; CMJ:
countermovement jump; 00 : at the end of last set; 50 : five minutes after last set; 100 : ten minutes after last set;
∆CMJ: difference between moments; Pre-00 : difference between measures before and right after last set; Pre-50 :
difference between measures before and five minutes after last set; Pre-100 : difference between measures before
and ten minutes after the last set. Significantly different from Pre: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.

For the RPE-Set in the protocols, a statistically significant main effect was identified for
Protocol [F(2:20) = 7.721, p = 0.003, ηp 2 : 0.436] and Set [F(1.23:12.30) = 18.412, p = 0.001, ηp 2 :
0.648]. For the Protocol factor, the post hoc analysis only showed a difference between CS2
and TRD (p = 0.008), and for the Set factor, there was a difference between all series, where
difference between measures before and ten minutes after the last set. Significantly different from
Pre: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.

For the RPE-Set in the protocols, a statistically significant main effect was identified
for Protocol [F(2:20) = 7.721, p = 0.003, ηp2: 0.436] and Set [F(1.23:12.30) = 18.412, p = 0.001,
ηp2: 0.648]. For the Protocol factor, the post hoc analysis only showed a difference between
CS2 and TRD (p = 0.008), and for the Set factor, there was a difference between all series,
the 1st the
where set was lower
1st set wasthan
lowerthethan
2ndthe
set 2nd
(p = set
0.01)(p and 3rdand
= 0.01) set (p
3rd = set
0.003),
(p =and the and
0.003), 2nd the
set was
2nd
lower than the 3rd set (p = 0.008). There was no Protocol × Set interaction
set was lower than the 3rd set (p = 0.008). There was no Protocol × Set interaction for the for the RPE-Set
across
RPE-Set protocols. Similarly,Similarly,
across protocols. for sessionforRPE (S-RPE),
session RPE a(S-RPE),
significant differencedifference
a significant was observedwas
between protocols [F(2:20) = 7.694, p = 0.003, η 2 : 0.435], with the post-hoc favoring the CS2
observed between protocols [F(2:20) = 7.694, p = 0.003, ηp : 0.435], with the post-hoc
p 2
protocol
favoring over
the CS2theprotocol
TRD (p =over 0.015). Figure
the TRD (p 6= presents individual
0.015). Figure 6 presentsmeasures of themeasures
individual RPE-Set
scores for the sets of each protocol. Table 3 presents the data for RPE-Set
of the RPE-Set scores for the sets of each protocol. Table 3 presents the data for RPE-Set and Session-RPE
between protocolsbetween
and Session-RPE and time points with
protocols andtheir
time respective
points with effect
theirsizes.
respective effect sizes.
Figure 6. Rating of Perceived Exertion scores in arbitrary units (A.U.) for participants as individual
Figure 6. Rating of Perceived Exertion scores in arbitrary units (A.U.) for participants as individual
measures (white dots) and overall sample mean (black rectangles) in the sets of each protocol.
measures (white dots) and overall sample mean (black rectangles) in the sets of each protocol.
Table 3. Data (mean ± SD) comparison between protocols for RPE variables and their respective
Table 3. Data (mean ± SD) comparison between protocols for RPE variables and their respective
effect sizes.
effect sizes.
Protocols (Mean ± SD) Effect Size [g, (95% CI)]
Variables (Mean ± SD) TRD
CS2 TRD ProtocolsCS1 CS2-CS1 EffectCS2-TRD
Size [g, (95% CI)] CS1-TRD
Variables CS2 TRD CS1 TRD CS2-CS1
−0.93 CS2-TRD
−1.39 CS1-TRD
−0.32
RPE8 (1st Set) 3.23 ± 0.61 4.27 ± 1.40 4.73 ± 1.33
−0.93
(−1.87–0.01) −1.39
(−2.40–0.39) −0.32
(−1.22–0.57)
RPE8 (1st Set) 3.23 ± 0.61 4.27 ± 1.40 4.73 ± 1.33
(− 1.87–0.01)
−0.37 (−−0.72
2.40–0.39) (−1.22–0.57)
−0.2
RPE16 (2nd Set) * 4.32 ± 1.42 5.05 ± 2.30 5.46 ± 1.62 −0.37 −0.72 −0.2
RPE16 (2nd Set) * 4.32 ± 1.42 5.05 ± 2.30 5.46 ± 1.62 (−1.27–0.53) (−1.64–0.20) (−1.09–0.69)
(−1.27–0.53) (−1.64–0.20) (−1.09–0.69)
−0.64 −0.97 −0.13
RPE24 (3rd Set) *, ** 4.46 ± 1.51 5.91 ± 2.71 6.23 ± 1.97
(−1.55–0.28) (−1.92–0.02) (−1.02–0.76)
−0.46 −0.78 −0.29
S-RPE 4.32 ± 1.59 5.14 ± 1.85 5.68 ± 1.75
(−1.36–0.44) (−1.71–0.14) (−1.18–0.61)
CS2: Cluster set configuration 2; CS1: Cluster set configuration 1; TRD: Traditional set configuration; RPE8: Rating
of Perceived Exertion after 8th repetition; RPE16: Rating of Perceived Exertion after 16th repetition; RPE24: Rating
of Perceived Exertion after 24th repetition; S-RPE: Session Rating of Perceived Exertion. TRD Significantly different
from TRD, p < 0.01; * significantly different from 1st Set (RPE8), p < 0.01; ** significantly different from 2nd Set
(RPE16), p < 0.01.
The Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness scores were lower for CS2 (DOMS24: 3.59 ± 1.86;
DOMS48: 2.82 ± 1.60) and CS1 (DOMS24: 3.77 ± 2.07; DOMS48: 2.86 ± 1.95), compared
to TRD (DOMS24: 4.32 ± 2.00; DOMS48: 3.68 ± 2.13); however, no significant differences
were found between protocols [F(2:20) = 0.863, p = 0.437, ηp 2 : 0.079], showing small effects
sizes for comparisons between CS2 × TRD (DOMS24: 0.36; DOMS48: 0.44) and CS1 × TRD
(DOMS24: 0.26; DOMS48: 0.39), and negligible effects for CS2 × CS1 (DOMS24: 0.09;
DOMS48: 0.02). There was a significant difference between time points [F(1:10) = 9.996,
p = 0.01, ηp 2 : 0.500] where DOMS24 showed higher pain scores compared to DOMS48
(p = 0.01). There was no Protocol × Time interaction.
4. Discussion
The main hypothesis of this study was that cluster set configurations could be effec-
tive in maintaining performance in mechanical, jumping, and perceptual variables. The
hypothesis was partially confirmed since not all cluster configurations caused the same
expected effect. However, in conformity to other studies, a higher frequency of intra-set
rest intervals was shown to be more efficient in maintaining mechanical performance and
for lower ratings of perceived effort during exercise.
Our results showed that mean propulsive velocity (MPV) and mean propulsive power
(MPP) were different only for CS2 in comparison to TRD, showing no differences between
CS1 with TRD. As well, mean propulsive velocity and power presented smaller decreases
and better maintenance, especially when more intra-set rest intervals were applied on the
sets, showing that CS2 was superior to CS1 and TRD. However, CS1 was not different from
TRD. These results are in concordance with other studies, which showed that more frequent
interest rest intervals could produce better performance for these variables [18,23,24,62,63].
Similar to Tufano et al. [18,23,62], Wetmore et al. [36], and Oliver et al. [64], the results re-
garding mean or average concentric velocity in back squats favored CS configurations over
TRD, allowing the maintenance of better performance throughout the exercise. However,
in contrast to these works, our results did not show the superiority of the one intra-set rest
interval (CS1) protocol compared to the traditional configuration (TRD) for the variables
above. One possible reason is the total rest intervals were equalized, which could have
affected the results, in agreement with similar study designs of other researchers [34,65].
According to this, an increase in the number of rest periods may enhance recovery through
the maintenance of phosphocreatine (PCr) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) stores and
increased metabolite clearance (e.g., lactate accumulation) [66], which could permit a higher
substrate availability, allowing the maintenance of movement velocity across all sets [67].
However, there was only 45 s difference in inter-set rest interval between TRD and CS1
(TRD: 225 s; CS1: 180 s), possibly causing these changes to be less pronounced since there
was sufficient time in TRD to allow a similar recovery. It can be hypothesized that because
the majority of subjects in this sample were mature adolescents girls and recent research
has shown that women could be less influenced by short rest intervals in comparison to
men [68], there were smaller decreases in movement velocity in back squats (although, men
had higher movement velocity) and also lower accumulation of blood lactate, which is
related to similar ratings of velocity loss [17]. Therefore, CS1 and TRD had identical values
for MPV and MPP declines, possibly explained by this factor.
The force variables did not show differences between the protocols. Although the
load was adjusted by velocity, there were no statistical differences between conditions
and between sets, so changes in MPF did not occur since the loads were statistically
equal. Latella et al. [38] reported in a meta-analysis that, overall, studies show that CS
does not have an effect on MPF. However, it had been reported that CS might reduce
losses in peak force [23,64], explaining that the changes in MPP were mainly influenced by
movement velocity.
Unexpectedly, jump performance did not show statistically significant changes be-
tween protocols either for CMJ or ∆CMJ, as hypothesized. However, for CS2 and CS1 × TRD,
moderate effect sizes were demonstrated between conditions (CS2-TRD: 0.81; CS1-TRD:
0.84) when comparing ∆CMJ for Pre-00 . These finds were contrary to the results from
Girman et al. [26] and Varela-Olalla et al. [29]. However, different from our study, Gir-
man et al. [26] used two exercises and two circuits in their design, which could have
enhanced fatigue for the traditional configuration. On the other hand, the study by Varela-
Olalla et al. [29] was not randomized since the design required participants to reach 20%
velocity loss in the traditional configuration session, then they accounted for the same
number of repetitions for the cluster configuration, in addition to the use of half squat
exercises. Moreover, different relative intensities were used. However, similar results
were reported by Cuevas-Aburto et al. [24], in which CS and TRD configurations induced
comparable decreases in jump performance (from −6.0% to −8.1% vs. from −5.3% to
−8.0% in post ten minutes measures for both studies). Despite CS having a higher training
duration, since inter-set rest was the same between the configurations (except for RR), and
the study design accounting for bench press exercises in the same session, these results are
aligned with the present study, as similar relative intensities were used (10RM, equivalent
to 75%1RM [69]), in contrast to the studies above where smaller relative intensities were
used (~60–65%). According to the authors [18,24,26], the lack of differences in CMJ could
be due to the fast drop of metabolic fatigue after the protocol, independently of the type of
configuration. However, as shown in the present study, the ∆CMJ for Pre-00 was higher
for CS2 and CS1 compared to TRD than in Pre-50 and Pre-100 . Although not significant,
Protocol × Time interaction for CMJ and ∆CMJ were almost significant (p = 0.052 and
p = 0.057, respectively), speculating that the results might have been different if the sample
size was larger. Despite this, the adolescents present higher recovery capacity between
sets in resistance training sessions compared to adults [40], which may have produced a
faster recovery for the TRD configuration since there was sufficient time for recovery and,
therefore, did not show statistical differences when compared to CS.
Lower scores of RPE in CS2 against TRD were found in the present study between sets
and for RPE-S, but no difference was identified for CS1 with CS2 or TRD. These finds agree
with other studies, which reported comparing CS and TRD configurations [27,30,70]. In
comparison to Cuevas-Aburto et al. [24], the results regarding RPE in sets between protocols
were similar, which found higher values after the sets for TR (SQ: 6.9 ± 0.7) compared to
CL (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8) and RR (SQ: 6.2 ± 0.8). However, the average RPE-Set scores for the
present study were smaller (CS2: 4.00 ± 1.33; CS1: 5.08 ± 2.24; TRD: 5.47 ± 1.72) but with
higher SD. While the session RPE in the study, as mentioned above, was not significantly
different between the set configurations (p = 0.595), we found higher S-RPE values for
TRD compared to CS2 but not CS1. Although the RPE values for adolescents and adults
could be different, this could be explained by most participants not reaching failure during
exercise; in fact, only one participant reached failure during one set in the study. Another
reason could be related to the ability of young athletes to self-assess their perception of load
and effort, which could be unreliable [71]; nevertheless, to control for this bias, anchoring
procedures were used during the 1RM Back Squat Test, and the athletes had previous
experience reporting RPE in their daily sports training. Since the strength adaptations
between the TRD and CS configurations are similar [33], these results suggest that CS can
be used as a strategy to induce less psychophysiological fatigue.
Unexpected, DOMS were not different between the conditions. Although the order
of protocols was randomized, no significant changes were observed. These findings are
in agreement with the results of Varela-Olalla et al. [29], even though higher scores were
reported for TRD and without sample randomization, no difference between conditions
was presented. However, Merrigan et al. [31], comparing rest-redistribution and traditional
protocols across several times points (pre, post, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h) in a randomized,
counterbalanced, repeated measures design also did not find statistical differences for
muscle soreness between conditions at any time points. In the current study, when ana-
lyzing the applied protocols order instead of the structure of set configuration, a statistical
difference (p < 0.01) was found between the time points, showing higher scores for the
first protocol compared to the second and the third (p < 0.01) and the second protocol was
higher than the third one (p = 0.01). While not considered for the current study analysis,
this information helps to understand limitations, such as the influence of the repeated bout
effect [72]. Long interspersed sessions of resistance training, varying from 10 days [72] to
4 weeks [73,74], have been shown to diminish the effects of indirect markers of muscle
damage, in which scores of muscle soreness are lower for the last bout compared to the
first ones, implying that adaptation to the exercise had occurred during the subsequent
bouts. Caution must be taken when extrapolating the results of the current study since
these did not use CS configurations or similar exercise conditions. However, even with the
load adjusted for every protocol to control for these adaptations, another external factor
may have contributed, such as training load derived from sport-specific training, sleep, or
psychological stress.
Some limitations could be drawn from the current research. The present study was
not performed in laboratory conditions with the back squat exercise performed in a Smith
Squat Machine, which could prevent changes in movement pattern derived from horizontal
displacement, and thus unfortunately losing internal validity; however, the study was
performed with athletes’ practicing their current daily activities on their respective sports
modalities and using free-weight back squats in strength and conditioning sessions, which
could have influenced the results since they are in their real conditions, enhancing external
validity and being able to extrapolate for real-world training settings. Although recovery
criteria were adopted to prevent the influence of external factors beyond the protocols, the
rest days varied between the subjects due to muscle pain impairment that was possibly
accumulated from their specific sports training, which was not controlled or monitored.
In addition, some athletes had scheduled friendly matches which caused the need to
postpone some experimental sessions. Exercise volume and intensity on the court, as well
nutrition status, were not controlled, which could have impaired recovery between days. In
addition, three subjects performed the protocols in the morning period, while the remaining
participants performed in the afternoon, so the exercise and jump performance may have
been influenced by circadian rhythms. It would be advisable to monitor sports practice
training loads, and control for covariates, as well as to establish a more reliable margin
of rest days; despite this, these limitations reflect the challenges of researching real-world
settings in a sports training context. Therefore, more robust designs may be implemented
with repeated measures for the same conditions or between-subjects designs to increase
comprehension of these results.
Regarding the sample size, although it was calculated a priori, resulting in a high
power (0.93) even with only 11 subjects, sample or data loss is still a problem. As for MPV
and MPP, the results from the interaction analysis for CMJ and ∆CMJ should be different
if the sample size were bigger. CMJ and ∆CMJ presented almost significant differences
for Protocol × Time interaction, as well as a tendency for a significant main effect in Time
for ∆CMJ. Since one subject’s data were excluded from repetitions due to failure before
completing the last set in the CS1 protocol, the analysis for Protocol × Repetitions interac-
tions for MPV and MPP would be different. The authors did an imputation method for the
missing value to verify if it would occur differently from the actual analysis. The criteria
for imputation must be respected, although there is no reference cut-off value regarding the
margin of acceptance of missing values in the literature [75], the rule of thumb is that when
the rate of missing information is below 5%, single-imputation inferences may be fairly
accurate [76]. However, in contrast, Bennett [77] affirms that statistical analysis may be
biased if missing data are greater than 10%. However, the current missing value analyses
were 9.1% for between-subjects data (1 out of 11 subjects) and 0.1% for within-subjects
data (1 out of a total of 72 repetitions). Considering this information and under these
conditions, a simulation for a more optimistic scenario was used to compare the results.
If a missing value was imputed (single imputation from the subjects mean), the Proto-
col × Repetitions interaction would be statistically significant for MPV [F(7.47:74.67) = 2.254,
p = 0.036, ηp 2 = 0.184, Observed Power: 0.819] and MPP [F(7.14:71.42) = 2.202, p = 0.043,
ηp 2 = 0.180, Observed Power: 0.794), but no difference for MPF [F(2.58:25.79) = 0.922,
p = 0.432, ηp 2 = 0.084, Observed Power: 0.211) would be observed.
This research accounted for comparing these variables between matured boys and
girls, which could confound the results since there is evidence for differences between the
sexes [68]. However, regarding the level of strength and training experience, although the
athletes had a large variation in relative strength (range: 1.0 to 1.8 BW/Kg in back squats)
and all had more than 6 months of resistance training experience, there is evidence that
there are no statistical differences influenced by these factors [33,38,66].
Nonetheless, when considering the literature reviewed by the authors of this study, the
present study was the first to compare the acute effects of different CS and TRD protocols
for the free-weight back squat exercise on adolescent athletes. Several strengths must
be highlighted in the research. When equalizing total rest intervals, no major changes
occurred between CS1 and TRD, as more frequent intra-set rest intervals (CS2) were needed
to decrease the losses in velocity and power [64,78], as well as for smaller RPE scores [65].
Although no statistical difference for CMJ performance were observed, CS resulted in lower
decrements on ∆CMJ when comparing pre- to immediate post-measures, as shown by the
moderate effect sizes. Therefore, CS configurations seem to be effective in acutely reducing
mechanical fatigue during back squats for velocity and power, allowing better maintenance
and reducing perceived effort for the entire set. When taking into account specific sport
performances (e.g., jump height), CS may not be a superior strategy to TRD; however, more
research is needed to elucidate this question. Likewise, no difference has been identified for
DOMS, and although not significant, CS2 showed smaller mean scores compared to TRD.
Future studies should investigate CS configurations concerning different lengths of intra-set
and inter-set rest intervals, training volumes, load intensities, and exercises for adolescents
in a wide range of sports and verify the influence of fatigue for sport-specific variables,
controlling for external factors such as training load and carrying out longitudinal analyses
for strength, power, and endurance adaptations.
Practical applications for training periodization could be drawn from these inferences.
The use of CS seems to be a good strategy for the maintenance of technical proficiency,
allowing a better movement quality with lower fatigue [15]. These set configurations
could be important for a preparatory period in which the aim is to enhance work capacity
without decreases in technical performance. The same is true for the special preparation
period where power development is the main objective, and where CS could allow better
power performance compared to more traditional methods, even when long rests are
prescribed [79]. These findings could also be applied in competition periods when low
levels of fatigue are desired. Overall, CS may be effective in helping to diminish internal
training loads considering the total load added from specific sports training (e.g., TRIMP,
Session-RPE).
5. Conclusions
As presented by the current study, CS with more frequent intra-set rest intervals
seems to be an effective strategy to promote better maintenance of mechanical variables
across all sets for back squat exercises in adolescent athletes, as well as inducing lower
ratings of perceived effort compared to TRD. However, no differences were shown in jump
performance and muscle soreness. Strength and Conditioning coaches could apply these
configurations to manage fatigue across the training session, decreasing internal loads and
increasing velocity and power performance in back squats without compromising total
training time.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.A. and E.L.; methodology, G.A. and E.L.; software,
G.A.; validation, G.A., E.L. and F.M.C.; formal analysis, G.A.; investigation, G.A.; resources, G.A. and
E.L.; data curation, G.A.; writing—original draft preparation, G.A., F.M.C. and E.L.; writing—review
and editing, F.M.C., D.B.F. and R.F.d.S.L.; visualization, G.A.; supervision, E.L., R.F.d.S.L. and D.B.F.;
project administration, G.A. and E.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: Filipe Manuel Clemente and this work are funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e
Tecnologia/Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior through national funds, and when
applicable, co-funded by EU funds under the project UIDB/50008/2020.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Federal
University of Technology of Paraná (protocol code: 5.514.698; date of approval: 7 July 2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data of the present study are available on request due to privacy
and ethical restrictions.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the athletes, coaches and administration staff
for their contribution to the research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Mota, T.; Silva, R.; Clemente, F. Holistic Soccer Profile by Position: A Theoretical Framework. Hum. Mov. 2023, 24, 1–17. [CrossRef]
2. Stone, M.H.; Hornsby, W.G.; Suarez, D.G.; Duca, M.; Pierce, K.C. Training Specificity for Athletes: Emphasis on Strength-Power
Training: A Narrative Review. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2022, 7, 102. [CrossRef]
3. Lauersen, J.B.; Andersen, T.E.; Andersen, L.B. Strength Training as Superior, Dose-Dependent and Safe Prevention of Acute and
Overuse Sports Injuries: A Systematic Review, Qualitative Analysis and Meta-Analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 1557–1563.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Malone, S.; Owen, A.; Newton, M.; Mendes, B.; Collins, K.D.; Gabbett, T.J. The Acute:Chonic Workload Ratio in Relation to Injury
Risk in Professional Soccer. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 561–565. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Doma, K.; Connor, J.; Gahreman, D.; Boullosa, D.; Ahtiainen, J.P.; Nagata, A. Resistance Training Acutely Impairs Agility and
Spike-Specific Performance Measures in Collegiate Female Volleyball Players Returning from the off-Season. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2020, 17, 6488. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Conceição, M.; Cadore, E.L.; González-Izal, M.; Izquierdo, M.; Liedtke, G.V.; Wilhelm, E.N.; Pinto, R.S.; Reistenbach Goltz, F.;
Dornelles Schneider, C.; Ferrari, R.; et al. Strength Training Prior to Endurance Exercise: Impact on the Neuromuscular System,
Endurance Performance and Cardiorespiratory Responses. J. Hum. Kinet. 2014, 44, 171–181. [CrossRef]
7. Doma, K.; Deakin, G.B.; Bentley, D.J. Implications of Impaired Endurance Performance Following Single Bouts of Resistance
Training: An Alternate Concurrent Training Perspective. Sport. Med. 2017, 47, 2187–2200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Costa, B.D.d.V.; Ferreira, M.E.C.; Gantois, P.; Kassiano, W.; Paes, S.T.; de Lima-Júnior, D.; Cyrino, E.S.; Fortes, L.d.S. Acute Effect
of Drop-Set, Traditional, and Pyramidal Systems in Resistance Training on Neuromuscular Performance in Trained Adults. J.
strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 991–996. [CrossRef]
9. Chow, Z.S.; Moreland, A.T.; Macpherson, H.; Teo, W.P. The Central Mechanisms of Resistance Training and Its Effects on Cognitive
Function. Sport. Med. 2021, 51, 2483–2506. [CrossRef]
10. Piqueras-Sanchiz, F.; Cornejo-Daza, P.J.; Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J.; Bachero-Mena, B.; Sánchez-Moreno, M.; Martín-Rodríguez, S.;
García-García, Ó.; Pareja-Blanco, F. Acute Mechanical, Neuromuscular, and Metabolic Responses to Different Set Configurations
in Resistance Training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 2983–2991. [CrossRef]
11. Held, S.; Rappelt, L.; Deutsch, J.-P.; Donath, L. Jump and Sprint Performance Directly and 24 h After Velocity- vs. Failure-Based
Training. Int. J. Sports Med. 2022. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. García-Ramos, A.; Padial, P.; Haff, G.G.; Argüelles-Cienfuegos, J.; García-Ramos, M.; Conde-Pipó, J.; Feriche, B. Effect of Different
Interrepetition Rest Periods on Barbell Velocity Loss during the Ballistic Bench Press Exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29,
2388–2396. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Haff, G.G.; Whitley, A.; McCoy, L.B.; O’Bryant, H.S.; Kilgore, J.L.; Haff, E.E.; Pierce, K.; Stone, M.H. Effects of Different Set
Configurations on Barbell Velocity and Displacement During a Clean Pull. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2003, 17, 95–103. [CrossRef]
14. Hardee, J.P.; Travis Triplett, N.; Utter, A.C.; Zwetsloot, K.A.; McBride, J.M. Effect of Interrepetition Rest on Power Output in the
Power Clean. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 883–889. [CrossRef]
15. Hardee, J.P.; Lawrence, M.M.; Zwetsloot, K.A.; Triplett, N.T.; Utter, A.C.; McBride, J.M. Effect of Cluster Set Configurations on
Power Clean Technique. J. Sports Sci. 2013, 31, 488–496. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Moir, G.L.; Graham, B.W.; Davis, S.E.; Guers, J.J.; Witmer, C.A. Effect of Cluster Set Configurations on Mechanical Variables
during the Deadlift Exercise. J. Hum. Kinet. 2013, 39, 15–23. [CrossRef]
17. Mora-Custodio, R.; Rodríguez-Rosell, D.; Yáñez-García, J.M.; Sánchez-Moreno, M.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; González-Badillo, J.J. Effect
of Different Inter-Repetition Rest Intervals across Four Load Intensities on Velocity Loss and Blood Lactate Concentration during
Full Squat Exercise. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 2856–2864. [CrossRef]
18. Tufano, J.J.; Conlon, J.A.; Nimphius, S.; Oliver, J.M.; Kreutzer, A.; Haff, G.G. Different Cluster Sets Result in Similar Metabolic,
Endocrine, and Perceptual Responses in Trained Men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 33, 346–354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Haff, G.G.; Hobbs, R.T.; Haff, E.E.; Sands, W.A.; Pierce, K.C.; Stone, M.H. Cluster Training: A Novel Method for Introducing
Training Program Variation. Strength Cond. J. 2008, 30, 67–76. [CrossRef]
20. Lawton, T.W.; Cronin, J.B.; Lindsell, R.P. Effect of Interrepetition Rest Intervals on Weight Training Repetition Power Output. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 2006, 20, 172–176. [CrossRef]
21. Verkhoshansky, Y.V.; Siff, M.C. Supertraining, 6th ed.; Self Published: Roma, Italy, 2009.
22. Tufano, J.J.; Brown, L.E.; Haff, G.G. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Different Cluster Set Structures: A Systematic Review. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 848–867. [CrossRef]
23. Tufano, J.J.; Conlon, J.A.; Nimphius, S.; Brown, L.E.; Seitz, L.B.; Williamson, B.D.; Haff, G.G. Maintenance of Velocity and Power
With Cluster Sets During High-Volume Back Squats. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2016, 11, 885–892. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Cuevas-Aburto, J.; Jukic, I.; Chirosa-Ríos, L.J.; González-Hernández, J.M.; Janicijevic, D.; Barboza-González, P.; Guede-Rojas, F.;
García-Ramos, A. Effect of Traditional, Cluster, and Rest Redistribution Set Configurations on Neuromuscular and Perceptual
Responses During Strength-Oriented Resistance Training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 1490–1497. [CrossRef]
25. Ortega-Becerra, M.; Sánchez-Moreno, M.; Pareja-Blanco, F. Effects of Cluster Set Configuration on Mechanical Performance and
Neuromuscular Activity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 310–317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Girman, J.C.; Jones, M.T.; Matthews, T.D.; Wood, R.J. Acute Effects of a Cluster-Set Protocol on Hormonal, Metabolic and
Performance Measures in Resistance-Trained Males. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 151–159. [CrossRef]
27. González-Hernández, J.M.; García-Ramos, A.; Castaño-Zambudio, A.; Capelo-Ramírez, F.; Marquez, G.; Boullosa, D.; Jiménez-
Reyes, P. Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Acute Responses to Different Set Configurations in Full Squat. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 2020, 34, 1581–1590. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Nicholson, G.; Ispoglou, T.; Bissas, A. The Impact of Repetition Mechanics on the Adaptations Resulting from Strength-,
Hypertrophy- and Cluster-Type Resistance Training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2016, 116, 1875–1888. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Varela-Olalla, D.; Romero-Caballero, A.; Del Campo-Vecino, J.; Balsalobre-Fernández, C. A Cluster Set Protocol in the Half Squat
Exercise Reduces Mechanical Fatigue and Lactate Concentrations in Comparison with a Traditional Set Configuratio. Sports 2020,
8, 45. [CrossRef]
30. Mayo, X.; Iglesias-Soler, E.; Fernández-Del-Olmo, M. Effects of Set Configuration of Resistance Exercise on Perceived Exertion.
Percept. Mot. Skills 2014, 119, 825–837. [CrossRef]
31. Merrigan, J.J.; Jones, M.T.; Malecek, J.; Padecky, J.; Omcirk, D.; Xu, N.; Peñailillo, L.; Tufano, J.J. Comparison of Traditional and
Rest-Redistribution Sets on Indirect Markers of Muscle Damage Following Eccentric Exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36,
1810–1818. [CrossRef]
32. Vasconcelos, G.C.; Costa, B.D.D.V.; Damorim, I.R.; Santos, T.M.; Cyrino, E.S.; De Lima-Junior, D.; Fortes, L.S. Do Traditional and
Cluster-Set Resistance Training Systems Alter the Pleasure and Effort Perception in Trained Men? J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2019, 19,
823–828. [CrossRef]
33. Davies, T.B.; Tran, D.L.; Hogan, C.M.; Haff, G.G.; Latella, C. Chronic Effects of Altering Resistance Training Set Configurations
Using Cluster Sets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sport. Med. 2021, 51, 707–736. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Torrejón, A.; Janicijevic, D.; Haff, G.G.; García-Ramos, A. Acute Effects of Different Set Configurations during a Strength-Oriented
Resistance Training Session on Barbell Velocity and the Force–Velocity Relationship in Resistance-Trained Males and Females.
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2019, 119, 1409–1417. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Wagle, J.; Taber, C.; Carroll, K.; Cunanan, A.; Sams, M.; Wetmore, A.; Bingham, G.; DeWeese, B.; Sato, K.; Stuart, C.; et al.
Repetition-to-Repetition Differences Using Cluster and Accentuated Eccentric Loading in the Back Squat. Sports 2018, 6, 59.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Wetmore, A.B.; Wagle, J.P.; Sams, M.L.; Taber, C.B.; DeWeese, B.H.; Sato, K.; Stone, M.H. Cluster Set Loading In The Back
Squat:Kinetic And Kinematic Implications. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, S19–S25. [CrossRef]
37. Jukic, I.; Van Hooren, B.; Ramos, A.G.; Helms, E.R.; McGuigan, M.R.; Tufano, J.J. The Effects of Set Structure Manipulation on
Chronic Adaptations to Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sport. Med. 2021, 51, 1061–1086. [CrossRef]
38. Latella, C.; Teo, W.P.; Drinkwater, E.J.; Kendall, K.; Haff, G.G. The Acute Neuromuscular Responses to Cluster Set Resistance
Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sport. Med. 2019, 49, 1861–1877. [CrossRef]
39. Falk, B.; Dotan, R. Child-Adult Differences in the Recovery from High-Intensity Exercise. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2006, 34, 107–112.
[CrossRef]
40. Tibana, R.A.; Prestes, J.; da Cunha Nascimento, D.; Martins, O.V. Higher Muscle Performance in Adolescents Compared with
Adults after a Resistance Training Session with Different Rest Intervals. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 1027–1032. [CrossRef]
41. Lloyd, R.S.; Faigenbaum, A.D.; Stone, M.H.; Oliver, J.L.; Jeffreys, I.; Moody, J.A.; Brewer, C.; Pierce, K.C.; McCambridge, T.M.;
Howard, R.; et al. Position Statement on Youth Resistance Training: The 2014 International Consensus. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014, 48,
42. Barahona-Fuentes, G.; Ojeda, Á.H.; Chirosa-Ríos, L. Effects of Training with Different Modes of Strength Intervention on
Psychosocial Disorders in Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9477.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Gualdi-Russo, E.; Rinaldo, N.; Zaccagni, L. Physical Activity and Body Image Perception in Adolescents: A Systematic Review.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral,
and Biomedical Sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [CrossRef]
45. Thompson, S.W.; Rogerson, D.; Ruddock, A.; Greig, L.; Dorrell, H.F.; Barnes, A. A Novel Approach to 1rm Prediction Using the
Load-Velocity Profile: A Comparison of Models. Sports 2021, 9, 88. [CrossRef]
46. González-Badillo, J.J.; Sánchez-Medina, L. Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading Intensity in Resistance Training. Int. J.
Sports Med. 2010, 31, 347–352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Sánchez-Medina, L.; Pallarés, J.; Pérez, C.; Morán-Navarro, R.; González-Badillo, J. Estimation of Relative Load From Bar Velocity
in the Full Back Squat Exercise. Sport. Med. Int. Open 2017, 01, E80–E88. [CrossRef]
48. Jiménez-Reyes, P.; Castaño-Zambudio, A.; Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V.; González-Hernández, J.M.; Capelo-Ramírez, F.; Martínez-
Aranda, L.M.; González-Badillo, J.J. Differences between Adjusted vs. Non-Adjusted Loads in Velocity-Based Training: Conse-
quences for Strength Training Control and Programming. PeerJ 2021, 9, e10942. [CrossRef]
49. Mirwald, R.L.; Baxter-Jones, A.D.G.; Bailey, D.A.; Beunen, G.P. An Assessment of Maturity from Anthropometric Measurements.
Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2002, 34, 689–694. [CrossRef]
50. Pérez-Castilla, A.; Piepoli, A.; Garrido-Blanca, G.; Delgado-García, G.; Balsalobre-Fernández, C.; García-Ramos, A. Precision
of 7 Commercially Available Devices for Predicting Bench-Press 1-Repetition Maximum from the Individual Load–Velocity
Relationship. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2019, 14, 1442–1446. [CrossRef]
51. Vivancos, A.; Zambudio, A.; Ramírez, F.; Del Águila, A.; Castrillón, F.; Pardo, P. Reliability and Validity of a Linear Position
Transducer for Strength Assessment. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014, 48, A5. [CrossRef]
52. Sanchez-Medina, L.; Perez, C.E.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int. J. Sports
Med. 2010, 31, 123–129. [CrossRef]
53. Claudino, J.G.; Cronin, J.; Mezêncio, B.; McMaster, D.T.; McGuigan, M.; Tricoli, V.; Amadio, A.C.; Serrão, J.C. The Coun-
termovement Jump to Monitor Neuromuscular Status: A Meta-Analysis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 397–402. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
54. Zatsiorsky, V.M.; Kraemer, W.J.; Fry, A.C. Science and Practice of Strength Training, 3rd ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA,
2021.
55. Helms, E.R.; Cronin, J.; Storey, A.; Zourdos, M.C. Application of the Repetitions in Reserve- Based Rating of Perceived Exertion
Scale for Resistance Training. Strength Cond. J. 2016, 38, 42–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Kenttä, G.; Hassmén, P. Overtraining and Recovery. A Conceptual Model. Sport. Med. 1998, 26, 1–16. [CrossRef]
57. Foster, C.; Florhaug, J.A.; Franklin, J.; Gottschall, L.; Hrov, L.A.; Suzanne, P.; Doleshal, A.; Dodge, C. A New Approach to
Monitoring Exercise Training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2001, 15, 109–115. [PubMed]
58. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr.
Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [CrossRef]
59. Stokes, M. Reliability and Repeatability of Methods for Measuring Muscle in Physiotherapy. Physiother. Theory Pract. 1985, 1,
71–76. [CrossRef]
60. Hedges, L.V.; Olkin, I. Estimation of a Single Effect Size: Parametric and Nonparametric Methods. In Statistical Methods for
Meta-Analysis; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985; pp. 76–104.
61. Hopkins, W.G.; Marshall, S.W.; Batterham, A.M.; Hanin, J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise
Science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–12. [CrossRef]
62. Tufano, J.J.; Halaj, M.; Kampmiller, T.; Novosad, A.; Buzgo, G. Cluster Sets vs. Traditional Sets: Levelling out the Playing Field
Using a Power-Based Threshold. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208035. [CrossRef]
63. Jukic, I.; Helms, E.R.; McGuigan, M.R.; García-Ramos, A. Using Cluster and Rest Redistribution Set Structures as Alternatives to
Resistance Training Prescription Method Based on Velocity Loss Thresholds. PeerJ 2022, 10, e13195. [CrossRef]
64. Oliver, J.M.; Kreutzer, A.; Jenke, S.C.; Phillips, M.D.; Mitchell, J.B.; Jones, M.T. Velocity Drives Greater Power Observed During
Back Squat Using Cluster Sets. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 30, 235–243. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Jukic, I.; Tufano, J.J. Shorter but More Frequent Rest Periods: No Effect on Velocity and Power Compared to Traditional Sets Not
Performed to Failure. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 66, 257–268. [CrossRef]
66. Oliver, J.M.; Kreutzer, A.; Jenke, S.; Phillips, M.D.; Mitchell, J.B.; Jones, M.T. Acute Response to Cluster Sets in Trained and
Untrained Men. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2015, 115, 2383–2393. [CrossRef]
67. Gorostiaga, E.M.; Navarro-Amézqueta, I.; Calbet, J.A.L.; Hellsten, Y.; Cusso, R.; Guerrero, M.; Granados, C.; González-Izal, M.;
Ibañez, J.; Izquierdo, M. Energy Metabolism during Repeated Sets of Leg Press Exercise Leading to Failure or Not. PLoS ONE
2012, 7, e40621. [CrossRef]
68. Mochizuki, Y.; Saito, M.; Homma, H.; Inoguchi, T.; Naito, T.; Sakamaki-Sunaga, M.; Kikuchi, N. Does Resistance Exercise Lifting
Velocity Change with Different Rest Intervals? J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2022. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Lander, J. Maximum Based on Reps. NSCA J. 1985, 6, 60–61.
70. Jukic, I.; Tufano, J.J. Acute Effects of Shorter but More Frequent Rest Periods on Mechanical and Perceptual Fatigue during a
Weightlifting Derivative at Different Loads in Strength-Trained Men. Sport. Biomech. 2022, 21, 1122–1135. [CrossRef]
71. Bourdon, P.C.; Cardinale, M.; Murray, A.; Gastin, P.; Kellmann, M.; Varley, M.C.; Gabbett, T.J.; Coutts, A.J.; Burgess, D.J.; Gregson,
W.; et al. Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 161–170. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
72. Doma, K.; Schumann, M.; Leicht, A.S.; Heilbronn, B.E.; Damas, F.; Burt, D. The Repeated Bout Effect of Traditional Resistance
Exercises on Running Performance across 3 Bouts. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2017, 42, 978–985. [CrossRef]
73. Chen, T.C.; Chen, H.L.; Lin, M.J.; Wu, C.J.; Nosaka, K. Muscle Damage Responses of the Elbow Flexors to Four Maximal Eccentric
Exercise Bouts Performed Every 4 Weeks. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 106, 267–275. [CrossRef]
74. Coratella, G.; Chemello, A.; Schena, F. Muscle Damage and Repeated Bout Effect Induced by Enhanced Eccentric Squats. J. Sports
Med. Phys. Fitness 2015, 56, 1540–1546.
75. Dong, Y.; Peng, C.Y.J. Principled Missing Data Methods for Researchers. Springerplus 2013, 2, 222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Schafer, J.L. Multiple Imputation: A Primer. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 1999, 8, 3–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Bennett, D.A. How Can I Deal with Missing Data in My Study? Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2001, 25, 464–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Tufano, J.J.; Conlon, J.A.; Nimphius, S.; Brown, L.E.; Banyard, H.G.; Williamson, B.D.; Bishop, L.G.; Hopper, A.J.; Haff, G.G.
Cluster Sets Permit Greater Mechanical Stress Without Decreasing Relative Velocity. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12,
79. Morales-Artacho, A.J.; Padial, P.; García-Ramos, A.; Pérez-Castilla, A.; Feriche, B. Influence of a Cluster Set Configuration on the
Adaptations to Short-Term Power Training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 930–937. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
View publication stats

Ijerph 20 02810

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijerph 20 02810

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijerph 20 02810

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Inﬂuence of Cluster Sets on Mechanical and Perceptual Variables in

Gustavo Henrique Api Diogo Foschiera

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Filipe Manuel Clemente Elto Legnani

860 PUBLICATIONS 11,666 CITATIONS

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.2. Study Design and Context

2.3. Anthropometrics and Peak Height Velocity

Maturity offset = −9.236 + [0.0002708 × (Leg Length × Sitting Height)] +

Maturity offset: −9.376 + [0.0001882 × (Leg Length × Sitting Height)] +

2.4. Mechanical Variables

Percent decline = [(repetitionlast − repetitionfirst )/repetitionfirst ] × 100 (3)

Maintenanceset = 100 − [(meanset − repetitionfirst )/repetitionfirst × 100 (4)

Intraclass correlation coefficient presented excellent reliability with satisfactory coeffi-

2.5. Countermovement Jump

∆CMJ = [(post − pre)/pre] × 100 (5)

2.6. 1RM Back Squat Test

2.7. Velocity-Regulated Intensity

2.8. Perceptual Variables

2.9. Statistical Analysis

3.2. Velocity, Power, and Force Variables

Protocols (Mean ± SD) Effect Size (95% CI)

significantly different from CS1. p < 0.05.

3.4. Perceptual Variables

3.4. Perceptual Variables

View publication stats

You might also like