Maximal and submaximal intended velocity squat sets: Do they selectively impact mechanical performance in paired multijoint upper‐body exercise sets?

This study aimed to investigate how squat protocols performed at maximal and submaximal intended velocities during interset periods of paired upper‐body exercises that impact the mechanical performance of these multijoint upper‐body exercises. Twenty‐one young and healthy adults (seven women) completed three experimental sessions, each comprising four sets of five repetitions at 75% of their 1‐repetition maximum, with a 4‐min break between sets using the bench press and bench pull exercises. The experimental sessions differed in the protocol utilized during the interset periods: (i) Passive—no physical exercise was performed; (ii) SQfast—5 repetitions of the squat exercise at maximal intended velocity against the load associated with a mean velocity (MV) of 0.75 m s−1; and (iii) SQslow—5 repetitions of the squat exercise at submaximal velocity (intended MV of 0.50 m s−1) against the load associated with an MV of 0.75 m s−1. Level of significance was p ≤ 0.05. The main findings revealed negligible differences (effect size [ES] < 0.20) among the exercise protocols (passive vs. SQfast vs. SQslow) for all mechanical variables during the bench pull, whereas during the bench press, small differences (ES from 0.23 to 0.31) emerged favoring the passive protocol over SQfast and SQslow in terms of mean set velocity and fastest MV of the set. The absence of significant differences between the SQfast and SQslow protocols, irrespective of the particular upper‐body exercise, implies that the intended lifting velocity does not influence the potential interference effect during paired set training procedures

Impact of squat set configuration on mechanical performance in paired sets of upper-body exercises

Background Paired sets and alternative set configurations (e.g., cluster sets) are frequently employed by strength and conditioning practitioners; however, their synergistic impact remains underexplored in research. This study aimed to elucidate whether the set configuration used in a lower-body exercise affects mechanical performance during paired sets of upper-body exercises. Methods Twenty-one resistance-trained individuals (14 men and 7 women) randomly completed three experimental sessions that involved four sets of five repetitions at 75%1RM during both the bench press and bench pull exercises. The three experimental sessions varied solely in the activity conducted during the inter-set rest periods of each upper-body exercise: (i) Traditional squat – six squat repetitions without intra-set rest at 65%1RM; (ii) Rest redistribution squat – two clusters of three repetitions of the squat exercise at 65%1RM with 30 s of intra-set rest; and (iii) Passive rest – no exercise. Results The rest redistribution set configuration allowed the sets of the squat exercise to be performed at a faster velocity than the traditional set configuration (p = 0.037). However, none of the mechanical variables differed between the exercise protocols neither in the bench press (p ranged from 0.279 to 0.875) nor in the bench pull (p ranged from 0.166 to 0.478). Conclusions Although rest redistribution is an effective strategy to alleviate fatigue during the sets in which it is implemented, it does not allow subjects to perform better in subsequent sets of the training session