Volume Load and Neuromuscular Fatigue During an Acute Bout of Agonist-Antagonist Paired-Set vs. Traditional-Set Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose 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 and electromyographic fatigue parameters of the latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii, pectoralis major, and triceps brachii muscles. Fifteen trained men performed 2 testing protocols (TS and PS) using 10 repetition maximum loads. The TS protocol consisted of 3 sets of bench press (BP) followed by 3 sets of wide-grip seated row (SR). The PS consisted of 3 sets of BP and 3 sets of SR performed in an alternating manner. Volume load was calculated as load × repetitions. The electromyographic signal, time (CRMS) and frequency (Cf5) domain, parameters were recorded during SR. Under the PS protocol, sets of SR were performed immediately after the sets of BP. A 2-minute rest interval between the completion of the set of SR and the subsequent set of BP was implemented (e.g., between PSs). Under the TS protocol, 2-minute rest intervals were implemented between all sets. BP and SR volume loads decreased significantly from set 1 to set 2 and from set 2 to set 3 under both conditions. Volume load was greater for all sets of both exercises under PS as compared with TS. Muscle fatigue indices were greater under PS as compared with TS. In general, these results indicate that as compared with TS, PS produced a greater training volume in less time and may induce greater fatigue and thereby provide an enhanced training stimulus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".