# Acute effects of cluster vs. traditional sets on performance and perceptual responses during upper- and lower-limb power-oriented resistance exercises in older adults

## TL;DR

Cluster sets improve power exercise performance in older adults compared to traditional sets, without reducing perceived exertion.

## Contribution

First study to compare acute responses of cluster vs. traditional sets in older adults across upper- and lower-limb exercises.

## Key findings

- Cluster sets increased mean concentric velocity in chest press and leg press compared to traditional sets.
- Cluster sets reduced velocity loss and increased estimated repetitions to failure in both exercises.
- Perceived exertion was similar between cluster and traditional sets.

## Abstract

Power training is critical for maintaining muscle function and independence in older adults, but excessive fatigue during traditional sets (TRAD) can reduce effectiveness and adherence. Cluster sets (CS) may help counteract these issues; however, most evidence comes from athletes, and acute responses to CS versus TRAD across exercises in older adults remain poorly understood, limiting guidance for optimal prescription.

Thirty apparently healthy, resistance-trained older adults (19 males, 11 females; 69.3 ± 6.6 years) performed chest press (CP) and leg press (LP) at 70% one-repetition maximum (1RM) at maximal concentric velocity. Participants performed CS (4 × (2 × 5), 30s intra-set rest, 150s between sets; 570s total rest) and TRAD (4 × 10, 180s rest between sets; 540s total rest) on separate occasions in randomized order. Mean concentric velocity (MCV), velocity loss (VL), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and estimated repetitions to failure (ERF) were measured.

MCV was higher in CS than TRAD for CP (p < 0.001) and LP (p = 0.005). VL was lower in CS than TRAD for CP (p < 0.001) and LP (p = 0.003), although CP exceeded 30% VL in both conditions, whereas LP remained below 20% VL. No differences were observed in RPE, whereas ERF was higher in CS for CP (p = 0.015) and LP (p = 0.045).

CS maintained better exercise performance in older adults, accompanied by perception that they could perform more repetitions compared to TRAD. However, the CS implemented did not significantly reduce perceived exertion.

This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) under the identifier: ACTRN12622001573741.