Content uploaded by David Behm
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Behm on Oct 12, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE EFFECT OF AN UPPER-BODY AGONIST–
ANTAGONIST RESISTANCE TRAINING PROTOCOL ON
VOLUME LOAD AND EFFICIENCY
DANIEL W. ROBBINS,
1
WARREN B. YOUNG,
2
AND DAVID G. BEHM
3
1
School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia;
2
School of
Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia; and
3
School of Human Kinetics and
Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. JohnÕs, Newfoundland, Canada
ABSTRACT
Robbins, DW, Young, WB, and Behm, DG. The effect of an
upper-body agonist–antagonist resistance training protocol on
volume load and efficiency. J Strength Cond Res 24(10):
2632–2640, 2010—The objective of this study was to
investigate the acute effects on volume load (VL) (load 3
repetitions) of performing paired set (PS) vs. traditional set (TS)
training over 3 consecutive sets. After a familiarization session
16 trained men performed 2 testing protocols using 4 repetition
maximum loads: TS (3 sets of bench pull followed by 3 sets of
bench press performed in approximately 10 minutes) or PS (3
sets of bench pull and 3 sets of bench press performed in an
alternating manner in approximately 10 minutes). Bench pull
and bench press VL decreased significantly from set 1 to set
2 and from set 2 to set 3 under both the PS and TS conditions
(p,0.05). Bench pull and bench press VL per set were
significantly less under TS as compared to PS over all sets, with
the exception of the first set (bench pull set 1) (p,0.05).
Session totals for bench pull and bench press VL were
significantly less under TS as compared to PS (p,0.05).
Paired set was determined to be more efficient (VL/time) as
compared to TS. The data suggest that a 2-minute rest interval
between sets (TS), or a 4-minute rest interval between similar
sets (PS), may not be adequate to maintain VL. The data further
suggest that PS training may be more effective than TS training
in terms of VL maintenance and more efficient. Paired set
training would appear to be an efficient method of exercise.
Practitioners wishing to maximize work completed per unit of
time may be well advised to consider PS training.
KEY WORDS paired set, bench press, bench pull, complex
training
INTRODUCTION
Resistance training is an effective method for
developing muscular strength (4) and has been
associated with improved health and a decrease in
the risk of chronic disease and disability (22). One
of the primary variables to be considered when designing
resistance training programs is the volume of work pre-
scribed. Volume of work may be described as volume load
(VL) and be defined as the load multiplied by the number of
repetitions performed with that load. It has been suggested
that greater VL may lead to greater strength gains (9,12).
Although prescribed, VL may vary depending on the goal of
the program and philosophy of the designer, the ability to
perform that prescribed VL in less time may be beneficial to
both athletes and the general population. A number of
training schemes have been suggested to achieve greater VL
in a time-efficient manner (14–17,20). One such training
scheme aimed at increasing VL per unit of time (VL/t),
commonly prescribed by practitioners under designations
such as ‘‘super set’’ or ‘‘compound set,’’ couples agonist and
antagonist exercises in an alternating manner and may be
referred to as ‘‘paired set (PS) training’’ (17). Among a variety
of possible agonist–antagonist combinations is PS, which
couples 2 heavy traditional weight training exercises
(e.g., bench pull and bench press). Volume load/time may be
viewed as a measure of efficiency, defined as work performed
per unit of time, and may be increased by either decreasing
time (the denominator) or increasing VL (the numerator).
Peer-reviewed research investigating PS-type protocols in
an acute setting is limited (1,13,16,17), and only 2 (16,17) have
examined the efficiency of PS-type protocols over repeated
sets. The 2 multiset investigations compared a PS-type
protocol to a ‘‘traditional’’ protocol. Bench pull and bench
press VL, per set and session, were similar under both
protocols. The PS-type protocols were completed in
approximately half the time required to complete the
‘‘traditional’’ protocols. Specifically, the PS-type protocols
were completed in 10 minutes as compared to the traditional
set (TS)-type protocols, which required 20 minutes to
complete. That is, the denominator in the efficiency equation
Address correspondence to Daniel W. Robbins, drobbins@uvic.ca.
24(10)/2632–2640
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
2632
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(VL/t) was reduced under the PS protocol, thereby allowing
the researchers to conclude that the PS-type protocols enjoyed
greater efficiency as compared to the ‘‘traditional’’ protocols.
However, it is unclear if similar results (i.e., enhanced efficiency)
would be obtained were the testing sessions completed in
similar time periods. Enhanced efficiency under such circum-
stances could only be achieved if VL were greater under PS, as
compared to TS. Knowing that time is a crucial factor in the
retention of the general population in fitness programs and
training time for athletes, it is imperative to investigate the effect
of similar 10-minute protocols.
Rest intervals between sets of resistance exercise are
necessary to allow the exercised muscles to resynthesize in-
tramuscular phosphocreatine and adenosine triphosphate
and to remove metabolites detrimental to work production
(3). It has been suggested that a 3- to 5-minute rest interval
between resistance training sets is adequate to recover and
perform a similar amount of work in successive sets (6–8).
Under PS training, during the rest interval in which the
initially exercised muscle group is recovering, the antagonist
(to the muscle group initially exercised) musculature is
targeted. Commonly, in a training session, sets of 1 exercise
are completed before progressing to the next exercise. For the
purposes of the current research, a TS protocol refers to sets
of 1 exercise (e.g., bench pull) being completed before
performing sets of another exercise (e.g., bench press)
targeting the antagonist musculature. Assuming a similar
time to complete training sessions, when comparing PS to
TS, it is possible that under PS the initially targeted muscle
group is better able to recover during its prolonged rest
interval between like sets. This would also be the case for the
musculature exercised in the second phase of the PS. Under
PS, the exercises are performed in this alternating manner over
consecutive sets. Assuming that more complete recovery is
Figure 1. Schematic representation of TS protocol. 4RM = 4 repetition maximum; Bpull = bench pull; and Bpress = bench press.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of PS protocol. 4RM = 4 repetition maximum; Bpull = bench pull; and Bpress = bench press.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2633
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
possible over multiple sets, VL may be increased per unit of
time by concurrently training 2 muscle groups in such
a manner. That is, the numerator in the ‘‘efficiency’’ equation
(VL/t) is increased, thereby resulting in enhanced efficiency.
Commonly, athletes in a resistance training setting perform
multiple sets of isotonic (i.e., load remains unchanged)
exercises. To date, only 2 scientific studies have reported on
the efficiency of PS in which agonist–antagonist pairings of
isotonic exercises were investigated over consecutive sets, and
they compared PS-type protocols to TS-type protocols
where the TS-type protocols were designed to require
approximately twice the time to complete. Research in-
vestigating PS in terms of efficiency in which the time to
complete testing protocols is similar does not exist. To
support the conclusion that PS training is efficient (16,17),
research is necessary in which the time to complete protocols
is held constant. It is possible that this method of training
could be an efficient and efficacious method for developing
strength. The purpose of this study was to investigate the
efficacy (as measured by VL) and efficiency (VL/t)of
agonist–antagonist PSs vs. TSs involving 2 heavy resistance
exercises. It was hypothesized that PS training would provide
both greater efficacy and efficiency as compared to TS.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A within-design, randomized, counterbalanced comparison
was used to investigate whether significant differences in VL
(load 3number of repetitions) efficacy and efficiency existed
between PS and TS over 3 sets. Because of the familiarity of
movement and their widespread use as a means to develop
strength, bench pull and bench press were chosen as the
pulling and pushing exercises, respectively. A 4 repetition
maximum (4RM) load was prescribed for all sets in both
protocols and was performed to failure, which was considered
to have been reached when another repetition using proper
technique could not be performed (23). The completed
number of proper repetitions was recorded for each set and
used to calculate VL for each set of both exercises. High-
intensity loads (e.g., 4RM) performed over repeated trials
have been recommended with respect to strength de-
velopment (2,24). The TS protocol was designed to reflect
the common practice of stressing 1 muscle group via multiple
sets, before moving on to another muscle group. The PS
protocol was designed to stress the same musculature as that
stressed under the TS condition, but in an alternating
manner. The total time required to complete the testing
sessions was similar. The TS protocol involved performing
3 sets of bench pull followed by 3 sets of bench press, with a
2-minute rest interval between each set (Figure 1). The PS
protocol performed the same exercises (bench pull and
bench press), but the rest interval between like exercise sets
was twice (4 minutes) that used in the TS protocol (2
minutes), and the rest interval between unlike exercise sets
was 2 minutes. The second exercise set (bench press) was
performed in such a manner that the midpoint of the
execution of the second exercise set was 2 minutes after the
beginning of the execution of the first exercise set (Figure 2).
TABLE 1. Description of subjects.
Age (y) Height (cm) Mass (kg) 4RM Bpull (kg) 4RM Bpress (kg)
Mean 6SD 23.6 64.7 186.3 612.7 88.5 615.8 78.8 69.5 86.9 613.9
4RM Bpull = 4 repetition maximum bench pull; 4RM Bpress = 4 repetition maximum bench press.
TABLE 2. Percent changes in VL from set 1 to set 2, set 2 to set 3, and set 1 to set 3 for Bpull and Bpress during PS and
TS protocols. (N= 16).*†
Variable
Set 1–set 2 Set 2–set 3 Set 1–set 3
PS TS PS TS PS TS
Bpull VL 26.5 (611.8) 227.5 (613.4) 211.3 (613.9) 210.9 (617.4) 217.3 (615.9) 234.7 (618.5)
Bpress VL 219.0 (616.2) 232.9 (611.9) 220.2 (618.4) 227.1 (620.7) 236.1 (616.4) 250.7 (616.5)
*VL = volume load; Bpull = bench pull; Bpress = bench press; PS = paired set; TS = traditional set.
†Values are given as mean% (SD).
2634
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Volume Load and Efficiency
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Subjects
Sixteen trained men with at least 1 year’s training experience
with pushing and pulling resistance exercises volunteered to
participate in the study. Participants were generally collegiate
athletes with several years of training experience, and testing
occurred during the off season (the months of April and May).
The participants’ descriptive data are displayed in Table 1.
The study was approved by the University Human Ethics
Committee Review. Before the investigation, all subjects
were briefed on the testing protocols, experimental risks,
equipment, and the nature of the study before signing an
informed consent document. All participants were asked to
refrain from any upper-body training in the 48 hours before
each training session.
Procedures
Volume load was measured during all sets of both protocols
by multiplying the load by the number of correct repetitions
achieved. Participants underwent a familiarization session to
determine their 4RM for the bench pull and bench press and
were instructed on exercise technique. To determine 4RM,
participants performed a set of 5–10 repetitions using 30–50%
of expected maximum, followed 1 minute later by a set of 3–5
repetitions using 50–70% of expected maximum. After a
2-minute rest interval, 4RM attempts were made with
approximately 2-minute rest intervals between attempts. If
an attempt was successful using correct technique, further
attempts were made using increasing increments of weight.
The last successful attempt was recorded as the participant’s
4RM in that lift. This procedure was adopted from Stone and
O’Bryant (21) with one change: rather than 1-minute rest
intervals between attempts, 2-minute rest intervals were used.
The familiarization session was performed 1 week before the
first testing session, which was performed 1 week before the
second testing session. All testing was performed at the same
time of the day, and a standardized warm-up (specific to the
testing protocol) was performed in all 3 sessions. Before
testing, participants performed progressive submaximal
exercise. Specifically, participants performed 3 sets of lifts
similar to the 2 lifts being tested, at 60, 80, and 90% of 4RM
(calculated from the previously determined 4RM). A 4-
minute rest interval was provided between like exercises.
Before the TS testing session, the warm-up sets were
executed in a successive manner—that is, 3 sets of the first
exercise followed by 3 sets of the second exercise. Before the
PS testing session, the warm-up sets were performed in an
alternating manner.
All sets of both bench pull and bench press were performed
to failure using previously determined 4RM loads. The bench
pull tests were performed on an adjustable high bench (Apex
B45 adjustable flat bench), positioned on Step1005 platforms.
Participants were instructed to lie prone on the bench and
grasp an Olympic bar placed on the floor, with a pronated
grip. The bench was adjusted so that the participant’s arms
were straight in this position. A repetition was deemed to
TABLE 3. Total VL (mean 6SD) and ES per set and session for Bpull and Bpress during PS and TS protocols. (n = 16)*
Variable
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Session
PS TS ES PS TS ES PS TS ES PS TS ES
Bpull VL (kg) 324.0
(650.6)
315.5
(660.6)
0.15 303.2‡
(659.9)
224.4
(638.6)
1.56 268.2‡
(669.8)
198.2
(645.4)
1.19 895.4‡
(6163.7)
738.1
(6102.6)
1.15
Bpress VL (kg) 380.6‡
(690.4)
334.8
(678.9)
0.54 308.3‡
(694.8)
228.4
(678.2)
0.92 241.5‡
(679.1)
168.1
(678.7)
0.93 930.4‡
(6238.8)
731.3
(6220.2)
0.87
*VL = volume load; Bpull = bench pull; Bpress = bench press; PS = paired set; TS = traditional set; ES = effect size.
‡Statistically greater VL (p,0.05).
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2635
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
have been completed by mov-
ing the bar from the floor until it
touched the bottom of the
bench. Between repetitions the
bar was motionless on the floor
for 1–2 seconds. Hand place-
ment and tempo were self-
determined. Participants were
instructed to keep their head,
upper body, and legs flat to the
bench. When performing the
bench press, participants lay
supine on a flat bench with feet
flat on floor and head, shoulders
and buttocks flat to the bench.
A repetition was deemed to
have been completed when
the bar was moved from the
chest to a position of full elbow extension. Between
repetitions, the bar was momentarily held motionless on
the chest. Hand placement and tempo were self-determined.
Before the commencement of the 3 testing sessions,
a reliability study involving 10 of the subjects who later
participated in the study determined the test–retest (sepa-
rated by 1 week) intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and
percent total error (%TE).
Traditional Set Protocol. Before testing, participants performed
the above-described standardized warm-up. Testing com-
menced after a 4-minute rest interval. Three sets of bench pull
were followed by 3 sets of bench press, with a 2-minute rest
interval between each set. All sets were performed to failure
using a previously determined 4RM load. The load and
number of correct repetitions
completed were recorded for
each set of both exercises. All
sets of bench press were spotted
by an experienced lifter to
ensure volitional fatigue was
achieved safely and with the
confidence of the subject. The
testing session took approxi-
mately 10 minutes to complete.
Participants were given verbal
encouragement during lifts.
During the rest interval be-
tween sets, participants en-
gaged in passive rest and were
given verbal encouragement.
Paired Set Protocol. Before test-
ing, participants performed
a warm-up similar to that
performed in the TS protocol,
except that the submaximal
exercises were performed in an alternating manner, rather
than successively. Similar testing procedures to those used
in the TS protocol were implemented. However, the 3 sets
of bench pull were performed in an alternating manner
with the 3 sets of bench press. Also, although the rest
interval between like sets was 4 minutes, the rest intervals
between work performed were less. At the midpoint of the
rest interval between like sets, the other exercise
(i.e., antagonistic) was executed. The rest interval between
work performed was approximately 2 minutes. Therefore,
the testing session was completed in approximately 10
minutes. Participants were given verbal encouragement
during lifts. During the rest interval between sets,
participants engaged in passive rest and were given verbal
encouragement.
TABLE 4. Efficiency (volume load/time) calculations for session Bpull, VL, and session
Bpress VL during PS and TS protocols. (N= 16).*
Variable
PS TS
VL
(kg)
Time
(min)†
Efficiency
(kgmin
21
)
VL
(kg)
Time
(min)†
Efficiency
(kgmin
21
)
Bpull 895.4 10 89.5 738.1 10 73.8
Bpress 930.4 10 93.0 731.3 10 73.1
*VL = volume load; Bpull = bench pull; Bpress = bench press; PS = paired set; TS =
traditional set.
†The final set was initiated at 10 minutes, and therefore, the total time to complete the
sessions varied slightly (e.g., if 12 seconds was required to complete the final set, total time to
complete the session would be 10.2 minutes).
Figure 3. Completed bench pull repetitions under TS (traditional set) and PS (paired set). TS = Traditional set and
PS = Paired set.
2636
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Volume Load and Efficiency
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Statistical Analyses
The set and session totals of VL
for bench pull and bench press
in both testing protocols were
calculated. These data were
analyzed using a 2-way analysis
of variance (2 33), with re-
peated-measures and paired
t-tests to determine whether
there were significant main
effects or interactions for the
type of training (TS and PS)
and the sets (1–3). Analysis of
the data to determine if any
significant differences existed
between the 2 testing protocols
was performed to investigate
the influence of PS on the
maintenance of VL. Efficiency
(VL/t) calculations were also
made. Paired t-tests were used
to compare the percentage
changes in bench pull to those in bench press. The level of
statistical significance was set at p#0.05 for all tests. All
statistical tests were completed using Statistica version 6
(Tulsa, OK, USA). Effect size calculations were performed on
measures of VL (5).
The reliability study determined ICCs and %TE for set and
session VL over 3 sets for bench pull ranged between 0.75
(4.2%) and 0.83 (9.5%), and the same for bench press ranged
between 0.82 (6.4%) and 0.96 (13.7%). Paired sample t-tests
revealed no significant (p#0.001) differences between the
2 testing occasions.
RESULTS
Independent analysis of testing protocols found that both
bench pull and bench press VL decreased significantly from
set 1 to set 2 and from set 2 to set 3 under the PS and TS
conditions (p,0.05). The percent changes, from set to set, in
bench pull and bench press are shown in Table 2. Bench pull
and bench press VL per set were significantly less under TS
as compared to PS over all sets, with the exception of the first
set (bench pull set 1). Furthermore, session totals for bench
pull and bench press VL were significantly less under TS as
compared to PS. Volume load data and effect sizes for bench
pull and bench press are shown in Table 3. Paired set training
was determined to be more efficient. Efficiency calculations
are shown in Table 4. Under the PS condition, the percent
decreases in bench press were significantly greater than those
observed in bench pull from set 1 to sets 2 and 3. Under the
TS condition, the percent decreases in bench press were
significantly greater than those observed in bench pull from
sets 1 and 2 to set 3.
DISCUSSION
The most important findings of this study were (a)
significantly greater bench pull and bench press VL observed
under the PS as compared to the TS protocol, suggesting
greater efficiency under the PS protocol, and (b) the apparent
cumulative effects of fatigue, generated by antagonist work,
on agonist performance. Although PS-type protocols have
been previously reported to enjoy enhanced efficiency (16,17),
this was achieved by manipulating the time to complete
testing sessions, rather than observing significant increases in
VL using similar timelines, as is the case in the current
research. The significantly lower VL observed in the first set
of bench press under TS as compared to PS would seem to
suggest that antagonist work may have a cumulative fatiguing
effect on subsequent agonist performance. To the best of the
researchers’ knowledge, similar findings have not been
previously reported. Previous multiset investigations into
PS-type training (16,17) did not report differences in
performance measures of the first set of the second exercise.
Regardless of level of performance, volume of work prescribed
is a primary variable to be considered in the design of strength
and conditioning programs. The ability to perform a prescribed
VL in reduced time will be beneficial to athletes and the general
population. It has been suggested that PS-type training protocols
are time efficient, thereby allowing for greater training density
(16,17). In the present study, bench pull and bench press VL
were significantly less per set, and for the session, under TS as
compared to PS. Efficiency calculations (see Table 4) de-
termined PS training to have greater efficiency as compared to
TS training. These findings would seem to support the
hypothesis that with respect to PS training, efficiency is
enhanced in both the bench pull and bench press exercises.
Figure 4. Completed bench press repetitions under TS (traditional set) and PS (paired set). TS = Traditional set
and PS = Paired set.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2637
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
The observed set-to-set significant reductions in VL in
bench pull and bench press under TS would seem to indicate
that a 2-minute rest interval is inadequate with respect to
maintaining VL. This is perhaps not surprising because
investigations into TS-type training protocols have reported
an inability to maintain VL using a similar load (i.e., 4RM) and
a longer rest interval (i.e., 4 minutes) in both the bench pull
and bench press (16,17). A 4-minute rest interval between
similar exercise sets under the PS protocol was also
inadequate in terms of VL maintenance. This is also in
agreement with previously reported findings (16,17). It would
appear that under either training design implemented in the
current research, the prescribed rest interval did not allow for
a level of physiological recovery (e.g., resynthesis of
intramuscular phosphocreatine and adenosine triphosphate
and removal of detrimental metabolites) adequate to return
the body to a state in which a similar amount of work could
be performed in subsequent sets. It has been suggested that
the rest interval necessary to maintain VL is dependent on
the magnitude of the load and, specifically, that submaximal
(i.e., ,90% of 1RM) loads performed to failure require longer
rest intervals as compared to maximal (i.e., 1RM) loads (24).
As the present study was constrained by a 4RM load, it is
possible that a load of greater intensity (i.e., 1–3RM) may
allow for VL maintenance over repeated sets using either of
the prescribed rest intervals in the current study.
Although bench pull and bench press VL decreased
significantly from set to set under both conditions, the
decreases observed under TS were significantly greater than
those observed under PS. The significantly lower VL
observed under the TS condition resulted from the inability
to complete as many repetitions under the TS, as compared to
the PS, condition (Figures 3 and 4). A significantly lower VL
was observed in all but the first set (i.e., bench pull set 1) of
the sessions under TS, as compared to PS. It was not
expected that differences would be observed between the first
sets of the sessions because they were performed in a similar,
nonfatigued state under both conditions. The data suggest
that the prolonged rest interval between like sets enjoyed
under PS, as compared to TS, allowed for greater
physiological or mental recovery, or both, and resulted in
the attainment of greater VL. Given a similar timeline,
manipulation of the order in which the exercises were
performed under PS allowed for the targeted musculature to
enjoy a longer rest interval. Results would seem to suggest
that the effects on VL maintenance of alternating agonist and
antagonist work is somewhat less detrimental than are the
effects of performing multiple sets of one exercise before
performing multiple sets of another.
It was expected that greater VL would be observed in
subsequent sets (i.e., second and third sets) of both exercises
under PS, as compared to TS. However, a significantly greater
VL was also observed under P S, as compared to TS, in the first
set of bench press. The data suggest that performing 3 sets of
bench pull before performing a set of bench press (with 2-
minute rest intervals between each set) is more fatiguing than
performing 1 set of bench pull 2 minutes before performing
a set of bench press. That is, there would appear to be some
cumulative effects of general (i.e., not localized to the
musculature predominantly involved in the movement)
fatigue associated with antagonist work that is reflected in
subsequent agonist work. It would seem likely that this is
somewhat dependent on the length of the rest interval
between sets and, specifically, that longer rest intervals would
mitigate this observed effect. In previous research, under
a TS-type protocol using a 4-minute rest interval between
sets, cumulative effects of fatigue (VL and electromyography
[EMG]) were not observed in the antagonist musculature
after 3 sets of agonist work (17). Specifically, VL and EMG
activity were similar in an initial set of bench press after 3 sets
of bench pull with a 4-minute rest interval between sets as
compared to bench press VL and EMG activity after 1 set of
bench pull performed 2-minutes before. It is possible that TS-
type protocols implementing a 4-minute rest interval, as
compared to TS-type protocols implementing a 2-minute
rest interval, allow for more complete recovery of the antag-
onistic musculature. Although cumulative ‘‘general’’ fatigue is
commonly experienced by participants during resistance
training sessions, this phenomenon has not been well
documented in the literature and deserves further attention.
Although bench pull and bench press VL decreased from
set to set under both conditions, it is interesting to note that
the percentage decreases were greater in the bench press, as
compared to the bench pull, under both the PS and TS
protocols. In comparing percentage changes in VL between
sets of bench press to bench pull, 4 of the 6 comparisons (see
Table 2) revealed that the decreases in bench press were
significantly greater than those observed in bench pull.
Specifically, under the PS condition, the percent decreases in
bench press were significantly greater than those observed in
bench pull from set 1 to sets 2 and 3 and under the TS
condition, the percent decreases in bench press were
significantly greater than those observed in bench pull from
sets 1 and 2 to set 3. This can perhaps be explained by the
fiber-type composition of the musculature predominantly
involved in the bench pull, as compared to the bench press,
exercise. The percentage of type 1 (fatigue-resistant) fibers in
the musculature primarily involved in the bench pull is
greater than that in the musculature primarily involved in the
bench press exercise (10,19). It has been suggested that the
musculature involved in pulling movements may be more
fatigue resistant than that involved in pushing movements
(16,17). It is possible that the musculature involved in the
bench pull is more fatigue resistant than the musculature
involved in the bench press and may explain why the
observed decreases were larger in the bench press than in the
bench pull under both conditions.
Because of the nature of PS training, coactivation (the
concurrent activation of agonist and antagonist muscles)
should be considered. Muscle activity is partially dependent
2638
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Volume Load and Efficiency
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
on contractile history (11), and it is therefore possible,
although perhaps unlikely, that the mechanisms associated
with coactivation played a role in the attainment of greater
VL observed under the PS protocol in the current research. It
has been suggested that preloading may alter the braking
phase of the triphasic pattern of the previously loaded
musculature when acting as an antagonist during subsequent
power exercise (1)—specifically, that the braking period of the
antagonist is shortened, thereby allowing for a longer total
agonist burst. However, the triphasic pattern is associated
with ballistic movement and is unlikely to have been a factor
in protocols that used 4RM loads. It is possible that fatigue
associated with coactivation influenced results. That is,
activation of the musculature when acting in an antagonistic
manner resulted in fatigue, which negatively influenced
performance of that musculature when acting as an agonist.
Resistance training sessions aimed at exercising multiple
muscle groups commonly involve .2 exercises and 6 sets.
Furthermore, the maintenance of a greater acute VL under
PS, as compared to TS, does not necessarily yield equivalent,
or effective, chronic development of strength. Outcomes in
acute efficiency (VL/t) do not necessarily translate into
similar outcomes in chronic adaptation. That PS training is
an efficient training method as compared to TS training does
not necessarily mean that PS training is efficient with respect
to chronic adaptation. Acute efficiency is negatively affected
by fatigue. However, it has been suggested that fatigue may,
in fact, act as a stimulus for strength development (18). That
is, the variable responsible for reducing acute efficiency may
act to enhance chronic development. Longitudinal research
investigating the effects of PS training is necessary to
determine the efficacy and efficiency of PS training.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Under designations such as ‘‘super sets,’’ ‘‘compound sets,’’
‘‘contrast sets,’’ and others, PS-type training has been
prescribed by practitioners for years. Incorporation of PS-
type modalities into training programs is commonly
performed as a time-saving measure. However, scientific
research investigating PS-type protocols in terms of time
efficiency is limited. The current data indicate that heavy
resistance (4RM) PS training allows a greater loading to be
imposed on the musculature than that achieved with TS
training. Given similar timelines, it would appear that
performing agonist and antagonist work in an alternating
manner, as compared to performing all sets of agonist work
before completing sets of antagonistic exercise, allows for
greater recovery and subsequently greater loading. More
complete physiological recovery will allow higher volumes of
work to be performed. Practitioners working with time-
constrained clients (athletes or the general population) may
be well advised to incorporate PS-type training into pre-
scribed programs.
Data from the current study indicate that neither a
2-minute rest interval nor a 4-minute rest interval (with
antagonist work done during this rest interval) is adequate
with respect to maintaining VL over repeated sets. Programs
incorporating 4RM loads with the intent of maintaining VL
over multiple sets may choose to use longer rest intervals.
Comment on rest interval lengths adequate to maintain VL
using loads similar to those used in the current study is beyond
the scope of this research. Data from the current study also
indicate that there may be cumulative effects of general
fatigue. That is, practitioners should be aware that antagonist
work may influence subsequent agonist work. If certain
exercises in a training session are considered to have greater
importance, practitioners may wish to prescribe such
exercises before performing antagonist work. Furthermore,
when tracking performance measures (e.g., VL) over a training
cycle, practitioners should be cognizant of the order in which
the exercises have been performed in each session. Also, it
would appear that the musculature involved in pulling
movements may be more fatigue resistant than the
musculature involving in pushing movements. If this is the
case, practitioners may wish to account for this when
prescribing pushing and pulling exercise.
Predictions regarding the chronic effects of PS training
would be speculative at this time. However, it is possible that
PS-type protocols are an effective and efficient method for
developing strength. For athletes, less time spent developing
strength should translate into more time to develop other
aspects of performance and theoretically result in perfor-
mance enhancement. For the general population, possibilities
of results in less time should attract greater numbers of people
to resistance training. Resistance training has been associated
with improved health and a decrease in the risk of chronic
disease and disability (22), and therefore, increases in
participation will likely have a positive effect on the health
of the general population. Before prescribing PS training to
certain groups within the general population, practitioners
may be well advised to examine other possible physiologic
responses (e.g., blood pressure) to such training. Given the
possibility that PS training may be beneficial to both athletes
and the general population, longitudinal studies investigating
the chronic effects of PS training are warranted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would also like to thank the University of
Victoria (Canada) for the allowance of laboratory space and
equipment. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are
directly relevant to the contents of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Baker, D and Newton, RU. Acute effect on power output of
alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during
complex training. J Strength Cond Res 19: 202–205, 2005.
2. Berger, RA. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength.
Res Q 33: 169–181, 1962.
3. Green, HJ. Mechanisms of muscle fatigue in intense exercise. J Sport
Sci 15: 247–256, 1997.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2010 | 2639
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
4. Ha
¨kkinen, K and Komi, PV. Effect of different combined concentric
and eccentric muscle work regimens on maximal strength de-
velopment. J Hum Mov Stud 7: 33–41, 1981.
5. Hopkins, WG. A new view of statistics. Available at: http://
www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html, 2008. Accessed
September 24, 2008.
6. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies—The physiological basis for
strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy.
J Strength Cond Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
7. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Cafarelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooley, C,
Feigenbaum, MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR,
Newton, RU, Potteiger, J, Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA and
Triplett-McBride, T. Progression models in resistance training for
healthy adults. Med Sci Sport Exerc 34: 364–380, 2002.
8. Kraemer, WJ, Noble, B, Clark, M, and Culver, B. Physiologic
responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods.
Int J Sport Med 8: 247–252, 1987.
9. Kraemer, WJ, Ratamess, N, Fry, AC, Triplett-McBride, T, Koziris, LP,
Bauer, JA, Lynch, JM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of resistance training
volume and periodization on physiological and performance
adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sport Med
28: 626–633, 2000.
10. Lindman, R, Eriksson, A, and Thornell, LE. Fiber type composition
of the human male trapezius muscle: Enzyme-histochemical
characteristics. Am J Anat 189: 236–244, 1990.
11. MacIntosh, BR and Rassier, DE. What is fatigue. Can J Appl Physiol
27: 42–55, 2002.
12. Marx, JO, Ratamess, NA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS, Dohi, K,
Bush, JA, Go
´mez, AL, Mazzetti, SA, Fleck, SJ, Ha
¨kkinen, K, Newton, RU,
and Kraemer, WJ. Low-volume circuit versus high-volume
periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sport Exerc 33:
635–643, 2001.
13. Maynard, J and Ebben, WP. The effects of antagonist prefatigue on
agonist torque and electromyography. JStrengthCondRes17: 469–474,
2003.
14. Robbins, DW. Postactivation potentiation and its practical applica-
bility: A brief review. J Strength Cond Res 19: 453–458, 2005.
15. Robbins, DWand Docherty, D. Effect of loading on enhancement of
power performance over three consecutive trials. J Strength Cond Res
19: 898–902, 2005.
16. Robbins, DW, Young, WB, Behm, DG, and Payne, WR. The effect of
a complex agonist and antagonist resistance training protocol on
strength and power output, electromyographic responses and
efficiency. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1782–1789, 2010.
17. Robbins, DW, Young, WB, Behm, DG, Payne, WR, and Klimstra, MD.
Physical performance and electromyographic responses to an acute
bout of paired set strength training versus traditional strength
training. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1237–1245, 2010.
18. Rooney, KJ, Herbert, RD, and Balnave, RJ. Fatigue contributes to
the strength trainingstimulus.Med Sci Sport Exerc 26: 1160–1164, 1994.
19. Srinivasan, RC, Lungren, MP, Langenderfer, JE, and Hughes, RE.
Fiber type composition and maximum shortening velocity of
muscles crossing the human shoulder. Clin Anat 20: 144–149, 2007.
20. Staley, C. Fitness professional: Five tips to improve your efficiency.
Pro-Trainer-Online. Available at: http://www.protraineronline.
com/past/june23/fivetips.cfm, 2000. Accessed November 11, 2004.
21. Stone, MH and O’Bryant, HS. Weight Training: A Scientific Approach.
Minneapolis, MN: Bellweather, 1987.
22. Warburton, DE, Nicol, CW, and Bredin, SS. Prescribing exercise as
preventative therapy. Can Med Assoc J 174: 961–974, 2006.
23. Wathen, D. Strength training and spotting techniques. In: Essentials
of Strength Training and Conditioning. Baechle, TR, ed. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 1994. pp. 345–400.
24. Weiss, LW, Coney, HD, and Clark, FH. Different functional
adaptations to short-term low-, moderate-, and high repetition
weight training. J Strength Cond Res 13: 236–241, 1999.
2640
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Volume Load and Efficiency
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
