Are cluster sets an effective method to induce muscular hypertrophy in response to resistance training?

[EN] There are a plethora of studies that have analyzed the effects of different resistance training methods on muscle hypertrophy. Recent studies have pointed out some potential advantage of training using cluster sets (CS) compared with traditional sets. It is still unclear whether CS are an effective method. The objective of this review was to investigate and discuss the current knowledge about the effect of CS on muscle hypertrophy. Four studies investigating the effect of CS on muscle hypertrophy were found. These studies demonstrated that CS induced similar or lower muscle hypertrophy than traditional sets. Thus, CS may lead to muscle hypertrophy, but did not provide a superior stimulus when compared to traditional sets of equated load.[PT] Um conjunto de estudos que tem analisado o efeito de diferentes métodos de treinamento resistido na hipertrofia muscular. Estudos têm pontuado várias potenciais vantagens do treinamento usando séries em conglomerados (SC) quando comparado com séries tradicionais. Ainda não está claro se as SC é um método efetivo. O objetivo desta revisão foi investigar e discutir o conhecimento recente sobre o efeito das SC na hipertrofia muscular. Quatro estudos investigando o efeito das SC na hipertrofia muscular foram encontrados. Esses estudos demonstraram que as SC induziram similar ou menor hipertrofia muscular do que séries tradicionais. Portanto, as SC podem induzir hipertrofia, porém não fornecem um estímulo superior quando comparado às séries tradicionais com carga equiparada

Shorter sprints elicit greater cardiorespiratory and mechanical responses with less fatigue during time-matched sprint interval training (sit) sessions

The aim of this study was to compare the physiological, mechanical and perceptual responses to two sprint interval training (SIT) sessions with very short vs. long sprints, and to verify if those differences could be reflected in measures of acute fatigue. Eleven physically active men performed, after the maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max) determination, SIT5s (16×5s with 24s of recovery) and SIT20s (4×20s with 120s of recovery) in random order on a cycle ergometer. Physiological, mechanical, and perceptual responses were evaluated during and after the sessions. The countermovement jump (CMJ) height and autonomic control of heart rate (HR) were evaluated before and after the sessions. Diet was also controlled through recall questionnaires. During the training, SIT5s exhibited greater HR, VO2, power output, and total work (TW) (p.05). A faster HR recovery (HRR) and a higher CMJ height were observed after the SIT5s (p.05). Some correlations between the mechanical and physiological responses were revealed only in the SIT5s. SIT5s was demonstrated to be more efficient as exhibited by greater mechanical responses associated with a higher aerobic activity, when compared to the volume-matched SIT protocol of longer sprints. Simple monitoring tools such as HRR and CMJ could help practitioners to detect differences in acute fatigue after different SIT sessions