Different Load Distributions Affect Subjective Scales and Repetitions Performed After a Single Resistance Training Session in Well-Trained Men

Enrico Gori Soares^1,2, Charles Ricardo Lopes^1,5, Gustavo Zorzi Fioravanti¹, Willy Andrade Gomes², Josinaldo Jarbas da Silva², Felipe Alves Brigatto¹, Lee Edward Brown⁴ & Paulo Henrique Marchetti^3*

¹Department of Human Movement Sciences, Methodist University of Piracicaba, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
²Research Group on Neuromechanics of the Resistance Training, Nove de Julho University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
³Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA
⁴Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA
⁵Adventist Faculty of Hortolandia, Hortolandia, SP, Brazil

Paulo Henrique Marchetti, California State University, Department of Kinesiology, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA, USA.

Keywords: Strength; Subjective Scales; Strength Methods

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the acute subjective responses to a single RT session with continuous- and grouped-sets distributions in resistance-trained men. There were three sessions in a crossover/random fashion. On the first session, all subjects were familiarized and their biceps curl 10RM load was determined. The sessions were randomized for continuous- or grouped-sets distributions. For continuous-sets, 8 sets of 10RM were performed sequentially, while for grouped-sets, they performed two blocks of 4 sets of 10RM with 12-min of rest between blocks. Two minutes of rest was given between sets. Volume load and maximal number of repetitions were measured in both distributions. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded 10 minutes after the 8th set for each distribution. Affective response was recorded before and 10 minutes after each distribution. Repetitions in reserve (RIR) were recorded after each set for each distribution. Results demonstrated a progressive reduction in the maximal number of repetitions performed during continuous-sets (P<0.05). However, for grouped-sets, there was a progressive reduction in the maximal number of repetitions performed from the 1st to the 4th set (P<0.05), and from the 5th to the 8th set (P<0.05), and a significantly greater volume load for continuous-sets vs. grouped-sets (3292±809 kgf vs. 3692±891 kgf; P<0.001, respectively). Also, there was significantly greater RPE for continuous-sets vs. groupedsets (9.37±1.06AU vs. 8.12±1.96AU; P=0.026). There were not differences in RIR between both distributions, while AR showed a reduction for both distributions (continuous-sets pre 3.31±1.92 vs. post 0.37±2.55; P=0.001), and grouped-sets (pre 3.37±1.50 vs. post 0.62±2.72; P=0.006). These findings demonstrate that grouped-sets allow more repetitions and greater volume load. However, continuous-sets distribution produces greater RPE but similar RIR when compared to groupedsets, while both distributions negatively affect AR after a RT session.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).