Physical Performance and Electromyographic Responses to an Acute Bout of Paired Set Strength Training Versus Traditional Strength Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the acute effects of performing paired set (PS) vs. traditional set (TS) training over 3 consecutive sets on volume load (VL) and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, latissimus dorsi, and trapezius muscles. Following a familiarization session 16 trained males performed 2 testing protocols using 4 repetition maximum loads: TS (3 sets of bench pull [Bpull] followed by 3 sets of bench press [Bpress] performed in approximately 20 minutes) or PS (3 sets of Bpull and 3 sets of Bpress performed in an alternating manner in approximately 10 minutes). Bpull and Bpress VL decreased significantly from set 1 to set 2 and from set 2 to set 3 under both conditions. There was no difference between VL per set, or over the sessions, between the 2 conditions. PS was determined to be more efficient (VL/time) as compared to TS. EMG activity of the 4 monitored muscles was not different for the 2 conditions or within each condition over the 3 sets. However, there was a significant within-set response in EMG activity in the Bpress exercise. The data suggest that a 4-minute rest interval between sets may not be adequate to maintain VL using either protocol. The data further suggest that PS training may be as effective as TS training in terms of VL maintenance and more effective in terms of efficiency. The comparison of EMG activity between the PS and TS protocols suggests that the level of neuromuscular fatigue does not differ under the 2 conditions. PS training would appear to be an effective method of exercise with respect to VL maintenance and efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".