Totó, Erick Carlos da Cunha; Conceição, Miguel Soares; Vieira, Amilton; Pareja-Blanco, Fernando; Bottaro, Martim; Boullosa, Daniel

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

REVIEW ARTICLE • Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Esporte 42 • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/rbce.42.2019.071 copiar

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

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

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.

Palavras Chave:
Treinamento de força; Configuração de série; Área de corte transverso; Adaptações musculares

Study (year)	Participants' characteristics	Intervention	Training duration	Work volume	Hypertrophy measurement	Findings	PEDro score
Goto et al. (2005)Goto, K., N. Ishii, T. Kizuka and K. Takamatsu (2005). “The impact of metabolic stress on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations.” Med Sci Sports Exerc 37(6): 955-963.	Young untrained men (n = 26)	TS group: 4 × 10, 2 min of RI between sets. CS group: 4 × 2 × 5, 30 and 60 s of RI between repetitions and sets, respectively. Load: 10 RM	12 weeks 3 × week	Equated	CSA of quadriceps muscle	Greater increase (p < 0.01) in CSA in TS group compared with CS.	5
Oliver et al. (2013)Oliver, J. M., A. R. Jagim, A. C. Sanchez, M. A. Mardock, K. A. Kelly, H. J. Meredith, G. L. Smith, M. Greenwood, J. L. Parker, S. E. Riechman, J. D. Fluckey, S. F. Crouse and R. B. Kreider (2013). “Greater gains in strength and power with intraset rest intervals in hypertrophic training.” J Strength Cond Res 27(11): 3116-3131.	Young trained men (n = 22)	TS group: 4 × 10, 2 min of RI between sets. SC group: 4 × 2 × 5, 60 s of RI between and within sets. Load: 60 to 75% 1RM	12 weeks 4 × week	Equated	Total lean body mass (DEXA)	Similar increase (p = 0.86) in lean body mass between TS group (ES = 0.25) and CS group (ES = 0.14).	4
Iglesias-Soler et al. (2015)	Young trained men and women (n = 13)	TS group: 4 × 10, 3 min of RI between sets. CS group: 32, 17.4 sec of RI between repetitions. Load: 10 RM	5 weeks 2 × week	Equated	Thigh circumference corrected by skinfold thickness	Similar increase (P = 0.38) in thigh circumference between TS group (ES = 0.35) and CS group (ES = 0.32).	4
Arazi et al. (2017)Arazi, H., A. Khanmohammadi, A. Asadi and G. G. Haff (2018). “The effect of resistance training set configuration on strength, power, and hormonal adaptation in female volleyball players.” Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 43(2): 154-164.	Young untrained women (n = 30)	TS group: 4 × 10, 2 min of RI between sets. CS group: 4 × 2 × 5, 30 and 60 s of RI between repetitions and sets, respectively. Load: 10 RM	5 weeks 3 × week	Not reported	Arm and thigh circumference	CS group showed slightly (ES = 0.34 vs. 0.17), not significant (p > 0.05), greater increase in arm circumference. CS and TS groups showed similar increases in thigh circumference (ES = 0.19 vs. 0.17 respectively)	5

Colégio Brasileiro de Ciências do Esporte Avenida Esperança s/n, Câmpus Samambaia, CEP: 74690-900, Telefone: +55 (62) 3521-1513 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: rbceonline@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Autor correspondente: Daniel Boullosa. E-mail: daniel.boullosa@gmail.com