Short break within the set, drop set or traditional strength training - what leads to more strength or bigger muscles?

It is known that strength training leads to an increase in strength and muscle mass and is therefore also prescribed as an intervention by doctors and/or physiotherapists [1]. Strength training consists of several modifiable and non-modifiable factors. The modifiable factors can be manipulated. In research, these factors are manipulated, often with the aim of demonstrating an increase in efficiency and/or effectiveness. Different types of strength training are also compared with each other.

A short break during the set, a drop set or traditional strength training

In addition to "traditional" strength training, which usually consists of a number of sets and a number of associated repetitions, there are a variety of other types of training. One option is the drop set. Here, a set is trained to exhaustion with a specified mass [kg]/intensity [% of 1-repetition maximum]. When exhaustion is reached, the mass/intensity is usually reduced by 20-25% [2] and training continues until exhaustion, which allows additional repetitions [3,4].

Another training method is to take a short rest-pause during the set and then continue training. The break is usually short (10 - 20 seconds) and allows people who do not reach the specified number of repetitions to recover briefly and complete the missing repetitions immediately after the break [4,5].

Why all this

? Research speculates that different types of training create an environment in the body that is conducive to strength and muscle growth [5-8]. For example, the drop set increases metabolic stress by performing many repetitions to exhaustion [7,8], while a pause within the set is helpful to increase mechanical stress by prolonging the duration of tension [5,9].

The higher mechanical and metabolic stress caused by the different types of training could lead to more strength gains and more muscle mass [5,7-11]. But is this really the case? A research team led by Alysson Enes addressed this question [12]. They investigated the effects on strength and muscle mass when different types of training were compared with each other, and in such a way that all groups completed the same training volume. They hypothesised that drop sets and/or a break within the set would lead to more strength and muscle mass than traditional strength training.

Study design and methods

The researchers analysed 28 men between the ages of 18 and 30 who were experienced in strength training. They divided them into three groups. 9 subjects were assigned to the drop-set group, 10 to the interval group and 9 completed traditional strength training. The duration of the study was 8 weeks, with training taking place twice a week. The test subjects always trained the following exercises in the same order: squat with barbell, 45° leg press, seated knee extension, deadlift with legs extended and seated knee flexion.

The training protocols looked like this:

Total training volume was calculated as the product of the number of sets, the number of repetitions and the training intensity. To compare the types of training, the volume was equalised between the groups. In addition, the participants were asked to maintain their usual diet so as not to influence the results.
Strength was measured using a direct 1-repetition maximum test, in which mass was increased by approximately 5% for each successful trial. This was done for all exercises.

Muscle thickness was measured using ultrasound. This was done at 30%, 50% and 70% of the distance from the hip to the knee joint, starting at the hip joint. The muscle thickness was measured from the combination of the vastus lateralis and vastus intermedius muscles.

The results

Comparing the strength of all training groups between the end and beginning of the study period, all groups showed a highly significant (P < 0.001) increase in strength. The group that took a short break within the set had a significantly higher increase in strength (P > 0.001) compared to the group that trained traditionally. However, there was no significant (P = 0.093) difference between the drop-set and rest groups.

The muscle thickness increased significantly in the proximal (P = 0.0001) and middle (P = 0.0001) sections of the lateral thigh in all groups compared to the initial value. However, this was not the case for the distal, i.e. the furthest section of the muscle thickness measurement (P = 0.495). There was no significant difference between the individual groups for any of the three muscle thickness measurements (P = 0.61). Analysing the macronutrients (P = 0.751) or total energy intake (P = 0.476) also revealed no difference between the groups.

Conclusions

The study shows that with the same training volume, the increase in muscle thickness is similar for all groups and not statistically significant. This means that a similarly large increase in muscle mass can be expected with the same training volume for these types of training.

All groups increased their strength compared to the initial value. However, the group that took a short break within the set showed a significantly greater increase in strength compared to traditional training. However, the increase in strength was not statistically significant compared to drop-set training. The short break within the set enabled the test subjects to maintain the higher mechanical load over a longer period of time. This could have led to a higher increase in strength due to the specificity of the adaptation. The question of why the distal, i.e. the furthest part of the thigh muscle, did not grow significantly compared to the initial value cannot be fully answered. It is assumed that the muscle growth is not homogeneous over the entire length and is related to the region-specific activation and structural changes, e.g. the pinnation angle, along the muscle length [13-16].

In terms of efficiency, the drop set cannot be beaten. In the study, 1 s was used for the concentric contraction phase and 2 s for the eccentric contraction phase. The isometric contraction phases were 0 s. This means that 3 s were required per repetition and therefore 48 s for a drop set. With 15 sets for 5 exercises, this makes a total training time of 2400 s or 40 min. If we calculate this for the rest group, we get 68 s per set. The total training time is 2700 s or 45 min. For the traditional training group, this results in a set duration of 36 s. With 20 sets for 5 exercises, the training time is 3000 s or 50 min. This is for a similar increase in muscle mass. In this example, the increase in efficiency when comparing drop set training with traditional strength training is already 20%.

We are working intensively at ETH Zurich on the digitalisation and motorisation of strength training, which will enable us to further increase efficiency through personalised training types. We hope to use this research to make strength training more effective and efficient and to minimise the time factor so that it is no longer seen as an obstacle to strength training. In this way, we hope to contribute to a paradigm shift and ensure that strength training is recognised as an essential component of a healthy lifestyle and sustainable health promotion.

References

1. ACSM, American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. United States; 2009;41: 687-708. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670
2. Schoenfeld B, Grgic J. Can drop set training enhance muscle growth? Strength Cond J. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2018;40: 95-98. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000366
3. Angleri V, Ugrinovich C, Libardi CA. Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do not promote greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with traditional resistance training in well-trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117. doi:10.1007/s00421-016-3529-1
4. Angleri V, Ugrinowitsch C, Libardi CA. Are resistance training systems necessary to avoid a stagnation and maximise the gains muscle strength and hypertrophy? Sci Sports. Elsevier Masson; 2020;35: 65.e1-65.e16. doi:10.1016/J.SCISPO.2018.12.013
5. Prestes J, A Tibana R, de Araujo Sousa E, da Cunha Nascimento D, de Oliveira Rocha P, F Camarço N, et al. Strength and Muscular Adaptations After 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause vs. Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training in Trained Subjects. J Strength Cond Res. NLM (Medline); 2019;33: S113-S121. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001923
6. Schoenfeld B. The use of specialised training techniques to maximize muscle hypertrophy. Strength Cond J. 2011;33: 60-65. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3182221ec2
7. Fink J, Schoenfeld BJ, Kikuchi N, Nakazato K. Effects of drop set resistance training on acute stress indicators and long-term muscle hypertrophy and strength. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. Edizioni Minerva Medica; 2018;58: 597-605. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06838-4
8. Ozaki H, Kubota A, Natsume T, Loenneke JP, Abe T, Machida S, et al. Effects of drop sets with resistance training on increases in muscle CSA, strength, and endurance: a pilot study. J Sports Sci Routledge; 2018;36: 691-696. doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1331042
9. Marshall PWM, Robbins DA, Wrightson AW, Siegler JC. Acute neuromuscular and fatigue responses to the rest-pause method. J Sci Med Sport. Elsevier; 2012;15: 153-158. doi:10.1016/J.JSAMS.2011.08.003
10. Schoenfeld BJ. Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training [Internet]. Sports Medicine. Springer; 2013. pp. 179–194. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0017-1
11. Hirono T, Ikezoe T, Taniguchi M, Tanaka H, Saeki J, Yagi M, et al. Relationship Between Muscle Swelling and Hypertrophy Induced by Resistance Training. J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36: 359-364. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003478
12. Enes A, Alves RC, Schoenfeld BJ, Oneda G, Perin SC, Trindade TB, et al. Rest-pause and drop-set training elicit similar strength and hypertrophy adaptations compared with traditional sets in resistance-trained males. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021;46: 1417-1424. doi:10.1139/apnm-2021-0278
13. Ema R, Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y. Inhomogeneous architectural changes of the quadriceps femoris induced by resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol. Springer; 2013;113: 2691-2703. doi:10.1007/S00421-013-2700-1/FIGURES/7
14. Ema R, Sakaguchi M, Akagi R, Kawakami Y. Unique activation of the quadriceps femoris during single- and multi-joint exercises. Eur J Appl Physiol. Springer Verlag; 2016;116: 1031-1041. doi:10.1007/S00421-016-3363-5/FIGURES/5
15. Wells AJ, Fukuda DH, Hoffman JR, Gonzalez AM, Jajtner AR, Townsend JR, et al. Vastus lateralis exhibits non-homogenous adaptation to resistance training. Muscle Nerve. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014;50: 785-793. doi:10.1002/MUS.24222
16. Wakahara T, Ema R, Miyamoto N, Kawakami Y. Inter- and intramuscular differences in training-induced hypertrophy of the quadriceps femoris: association with muscle activation during the first training session. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017;37: 405-412. doi:10.1111/CPF.12318