This is the slidedeck from research conducted by Ivan Jukic, James Tufano and myself. We looked at the effect of rep redistribution on bar speed, power output and RPE.

1. Effects of different set structures on
RPE, velocity and power decrement
during a back squat exercise
Ivan Jukić, Mike Young & James J.
Tufano

2. Introduction
Total Rest: 120 seconds
Total Repetitions: 24
Total Rest: 240 seconds
Total Repetitions: 24
Total Rest: 120 seconds
Total Repetitions: 24
Tufano, Brown & Haff (2017).

3. • Traditional Sets: no intra-set rest
↓ ↓ ↓ ATP and PCr
↑ ↑ ↑ Glycolysis and Lactate
• Cluster Sets: added intra-set rest
↓ ATP and PCr
↑ Glycolysis and Lactate
↑ Fatigue
↓ Velocity
↔ Velocity
↑ Total Training Time

4. Methods and Subjects (N = 26)
Sport
Background
Age Body Mass 1RM : BM
Amateur WL and
TnF athletes
28 ± 5.44 y 84.6 ± 10.5 kg 1.82 ± 0.33
1RM
RR TSHFRR
7 days of rest
5-7 days of rest
o PUSH - Wearable Inertial Sensor (PUSH Inc.,
Toronto, Canada)
o The PUSH band’s sampling rate was 200 Hz
o Eccentric velocity “under control”
o Concentric velocity “as fast as possible”
o Squat depth – self-selected after 90°
o Data were collected, exported and analysed with
the PUSH portal Internet Cloud and SPSS

5. Total Rest: 540 seconds
Total Repetitions: 30
Set Duration: M = 6 sec
Load: 70% 1RM
Total Rest: 480 seconds
Total Repetitions: 30
Set Duration: M = 24 sec
Load: 70% 1RM
Total Rest: 480 seconds
Total Repetitions: 30
Set Duration: M = 40 sec
Load: 70% 1RM

6. Mean Velocity (across 30 repetitions)
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0 10 20 30
Mean Velocity TS
17.10%
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0 6 12 18 24 30
Mean Velocity RR
14.10%
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0 6 12 18 24 30
Mean Velocity HFRR
0.99%
MVD % ANOVA Cohen’s d
HFRR vs RR F = 4.91, p < .05 0.61
HFRR vs TS F = 7.5, p < .05 0.81
RR vs TS F = 0.19, p > .05 0.12
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MeanVelocity(m/s)
HFRR RR TS

7. 0
2
4
6
8
10
HFRR RR TS
Rating of perceived exertion (RPE)
*
**
Significantly less than TS* (p < .05), RR** and TS** (p < .001)

8. -60.00
-40.00
-20.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
Velocitydecrement(%)
Participants (1-26)
Velocity decrement for HFRR,
RR and TS set structure
HFRR RR TS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
VelocityMaintenance(%)
Participants (1-26)
Velocity maintenance for
HFRR, RR and TS set
structure
RRHFRR TS

9. Summary
HFRR set structure has the potential to:
- Prevent velocity (power) decrement during
high volume resistance training ✔
- Allow increases in training volume while
keeping the ”quality” of the repetitions high ✔
- Increase the resistance training safetyness
due to lower perceptual responses by athletes
✔
- Bring all of the above while not extending the
total time allocated for training ✔