Original Research

Time Course of Recovery From Different Velocity

Loss Thresholds and Set Configurations During
Full-Squat Training
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Pedro Jesús Cornejo-Daza,1,2 Antonio Villalba-Fernández,1 Juan José González-Badillo,1 and

Fernando Pareja-Blanco1,2
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 01/18/2024

1
Department of Sports and Computers Sciences, Physical Performance & Sports Research Center, Universidad Pablo de Olavide,
Seville, Spain; and 2Department of Sports and Computers Sciences, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville,
Spain

Abstract
Cornejo-Daza, PJ, Villalba-Fernández, A, González-Badillo, JJ, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Time course of recovery from different
velocity loss thresholds and set configurations during full-squat training. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2023—The aims of
the research were to examine the effects of (a) velocity loss (VL) thresholds and (b) set configuration, traditional or cluster, on time-
course recovery. A randomized cross-over research design was conducted, in which 15 resistance-trained men performed 4
protocols consisting of 3 sets of 70% 1RM in full squat (SQ), differing in the VL incurred during the set assessed with a linear velocity
transducer: (a) 20% (70-20), (b) 30% (70-30), (c) 40% (70-40), and in the set configuration (d) 20% of VL using a cluster methodology
(70-CLU). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s21 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load) in SQ, coun-
termovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time in 20 m (T20) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and postintervention (Post, 6 hour-
Post, 24 hour-Post, and 48 hour-Post). The 70-20 protocol resulted in fewer total repetitions than the other protocols (p 5 0.001),
whereas 70-CLU, 70-30, and 70-40 completed similar total repetitions. The 70-30 protocol significantly worsened T20 at 6 hours-
Post, CMJ at 48 hours-Post, and V1-load at 6 hours-Post (p , 0.05). The 70-40 protocol significantly impaired T20 at 6 hours-Post,
and CMJ and V1-load at 24 hours-Post (p , 0.05). No significant performance reductions were observed for 70-20 and 70-CLU at
6 hours-Post, 24 hours-Post, and 48 hours-Post. Protocols with higher VL resulted in more pronounced fatigue and a slower rate of
recovery. Cluster sets (70-CLU) resulted in higher volume than protocols with a similar level of fatigue (70-20) and a quicker recovery
than protocols with a similar volume (70-30 and 70-40).
Key Words: strength training, velocity-based training, cluster training, training volume, rate of recovery

Introduction
Knowledge of the time required to recover baseline values after
strength training is of great importance because it can affect not
only physical training but also the quality of technical-tactical
training (5). Importantly, if a balance between overload and re-
covery is not found, it may result in undesired adaptations (21).
Therefore, it is important to consider recovery before performing
the next training session or competition to ensure good neuro-
muscular condition (25).
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a methodology that allows for
accurate monitoring and real-time prescription of resistance
training (RT) intensity and volume. In this regard, velocity loss
(VL) incurred within the set has been proposed as an objective,
practical, and noninvasive indicator of fatigue development
during RT (33). Interestingly, a strong relationship (R2 5 0.93)
has been observed between VL during the set and the percentage
of repetitions completed about the maximum number of repeti-
tions in the full-squat (SQ) exercise over a range of intensities
from 50 to 85% one repetition maximum (1RM) (31). Accord-
ingly, VL attained in the exercise set allows practitioners to esti-
mate, with high accuracy, the ratio of repetitions already
Address correspondence to Pedro Jesús Cornejo-Daza, pjcordaz@gmail.com.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–7
ª 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association
performed and, as a result, how many repetitions are left in re-
serve. In this way, it has been suggested that a 40–50% VL means
that the set is conducted to near or until muscle failure, whereas a
20–25% VL allows the performance of approximately 50% of
the maximal possible repetitions for the SQ exercise (31). Several
studies have shown that fatigue and the time needed for recovery
increase with the proximity to failure (8,25,28). These studies
prescribed the same number of repetitions for all subjects for a
given percentage of 1RM and they did not use a VL approach.
However, the number of repetitions required for attaining a given
magnitude of fatigue within the sets may be reduced throughout
the training sets, which can be individualized when using the VL
approach (40). Moreover, force, velocity, and power may be
better preserved during the set by using the VL threshold as a
training approach (40). Therefore, prescribing set volumes using
VL thresholds may enhance exercise quality by mitigating fatigue
and allowing strength and conditioning coaches to account for
factors associated with individual differences in performance,
daily readiness, or within-session fatigue development. In this
regard, time course of recovery is another factor that should be
considered. Time-course recovery is critical for optimizing sub-
sequent performance and quality of the following training ses-
sions, as well as for minimizing the risk of overtraining and
promote long-term adaptations. The duration of this recovery
period is individual and varies on training factors such as intensity

Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Velocity Loss and Cluster Set Recovery (2023) 00:00
or volume. However, to the best of our knowledge, only 1 pre-
vious study has analyzed the time course of recovery to resistance
exercise protocols (REPs) using a VL approach (29). This study
analyzed the time course of recovery (Pre, Post, 6 hours-Post, 24
hours-Post, and 48 hours-Post) of 4 REPs with different relative
loads (60 and 80% 1RM) and distinct VL thresholds within the
set (20 and 40%) for the SQ exercise (29). Lighter relative loads
(60% 1RM) and higher VL (40%) resulted in greater fatigue and
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
slower rate of recovery than their counterparts (intensity: 80%
1RM, VL: 20%) (29).
A methodology that is receiving great interest is “cluster
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 01/18/2024
training,” which is based on introducing short rest periods be-
tween each repetition or after a certain number of repetitions
(13,37). The implementation of this methodology is an effective
strategy to alleviate the mechanical fatigue induced during
training sessions (23,26,38). In addition, cluster training is also
effective in ameliorating acute post-RT mechanical fatigue
(7,23,30,39), although this positive effect was smaller than that
observed within the session (20). Importantly, to the best of our
knowledge, no study has analyzed the effects of cluster training on
the time course of recovery. A recent systematic review has ac-
knowledged that research on this topic is lacking and further
research should explore the effectiveness of cluster training in
mitigating residual fatigue after RT (20). Therefore, the aims of
the research were to analyze the effects of different (a) VL
thresholds (20, 30, and 40%) and (b) set configuration (tradi-
tional or cluster) on the time course of recovery up to 48 hours-
Post exercise.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A randomized and cross-sectional experimental design was un-
dertaken to examine the effects of VL within the set (20, 30, and
40%) and set configuration (traditional vs. cluster) on time course
of recovery. Subjects performed, in a randomized order, 4 REPs
14 days apart from each other trials that differed in the VL
threshold during the set and in the set configuration in the SQ
exercise. All REPs used the same relative intensity (70% 1RM),
number of sets (3), and interset rest duration (4 minutes). The
experimental design comprised 4 REPs: (a) 70% 1RM with a VL
in the set of 20% (70-20), (b) 70% 1RM with a VL of 30% (70-
30), (c) 70% 1RM with a VL of 40% (70-40), and (d) 70% 1RM
with a cluster configuration (10-second rest between each repe-
tition securing the bar on the Smith machine rack) until attaining
a VL of 20% (70-CLU).
For all protocols, a battery of tests was performed at different
time points: pre-exercise (Pre), postexercise (Post), 6 hours-Post,
24 hours-Post, and 48 hours-Post. The battery of tests consisted
of (a) 20-m running sprint time (T20), (b) vertical countermove-
ment jump (CMJ), and (c) bar velocity against the load that eli-
cited a 1 m·s21 at baseline measurements (V1-load) in the SQ
exercise. These mechanical measurements and time points have
been previously used to analyze the time course of recovery after
different REPs (8,29).
Sessions and testing were performed in a research laboratory,
at the same time of day (61 hour) for each subject, with the same
environmental conditions (20°C and 60% humidity). All sessions
were supervised by researchers to provide detailed instructions on
specific testing procedures, and they gave strong verbal encour-
agement during each session to motivate subjects to give maximal
effort. Subjects had to complete all REPs and were required not to
Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
perform any other type of strenuous physical activity for at least 4
days before each REP trial. Subjects underwent 4 familiarization
sessions 2 weeks before the start of the first trial. An initial
strength assessment was performed 1 week before the first trial to
obtain subjects’ 1RM and load-velocity relationships.
Subjects
Fifteen resistance-trained and physically active men (age 22.1 6 3.3
years, height 1.75 6 0.04 m, body mass 71.2 6 8.1 kg) volunteered
to participate in this study. All subjects had a previous training
background (1.5–4 years) in the SQ exercise (1RM relative to body
mass 5 1.40 6 0.23) and were taught to perform the SQ with the
correct technique in the familiarization sessions (age range: 19–31
years; No subjects were under 18 years old). After being informed
of the purpose, testing procedures, and the potential risks of the
investigation, subjects signed a written informed consent document
to participate. No physical limitations, health problems, or mus-
culoskeletal injuries that could affect testing were found after a
medical examination. This study was approved by the Research
Ethics Committee of Pablo de Olavide University and was con-
ducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Procedures
20-m Running Sprint. Indoor sprint performance was assessed
with 20-m straight-line sprints using a photoelectric cell system
(Witty, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). The warm-up consisted of 5
minutes of jogging at a self-selected easy pace; four 20-m run-
ning accelerations at 80, 85, 90, and 95% perceived effort; and
one 10-m sprint at 100% effort with 1-minute rest periods be-
tween them. Then, subjects started 1 m behind the first photocell
and then ran at maximal speed until they reached the last pho-
tocell gate. Two attempts were made, with a 3-minute break,
and the best time (T20) was taken as the pre-exercise reference
value. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.989
(95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.949; 0.998) and the coefficient
of variation (CV) was 0.7%.
Vertical Countermovement Jump. Countermovement jump has
been used as an indicator of fatigue and time course of recovery in
strength and sprint training settings (19,27). Subjects were in an
upright position with their knees and hips fully extended and their
hands on their hips, keeping their feet fully supported on the floor
and hip-width apart. They went down to a self-selected depth and
then jumped as high as possible, landing in plantar flexion. The
warm-up consisted of 2 sets of 10 squats with no external load
(i.e., own body mass), 5 progressively higher CMJs, and 3 almost
maximal CMJs. The heights of the jumps were calculated from
the flight time, using a contact platform (Optojump Next,
Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). Each subject performed 5 jumps with
20 seconds’ rest between them. The highest and lowest CMJ
heights were discarded, and the resulting average CMJ height was
taken as the pre-exercise reference value (2). The ICC (95% CI)
was 0.995 (0.985; 0.999) and the CV was 1.7%.
Full-Squat Exercise. A Smith machine (Multipower Fitness Line,
Peroga, Murcia, Spain) with no counterweight mechanism was
used for all sessions. Subjects started from the upright position
with the knees and hips fully extended, feet approximately
shoulder-width apart, and the barbell resting across the back at
the level of the acromion. Subjects descended in a continuous
motion (;0.50–0.65 m·s21) as low as possible (;35–40° knee
 Velocity Loss and Cluster Set Recovery (2023) 00:00
flexion), then immediately ascended to the upright position at
maximal intended velocity. This execution technique was care-
fully reproduced in all REPs performed in the study. All repeti-
tions were recorded with a linear velocity transducer (T-Force
System, Ergotech, Murcia, Spain). The reliability of this device
has been reported elsewhere (3). For the determination of the V1-
load, subjects performed a standardized warm-up that consisted
of a set of 6 SQ repetitions with 20-kg load, followed by a set of 6
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
and 4 SQ repetitions with loads of 40 and 50% 1RM, re-
spectively, with 3-minute interset rests. Then, subjects performed
a set of 3 repetitions with V1-load (60% 1RM). The fastest ve-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 01/18/2024
locity of the 3 repetitions with the V1-load was registered as the
pre-exercise reference value for this variable, determined with a
precision of 60.03 m·s21. Relative loads were determined from
the load-velocity relationship because it has recently been shown
that there is a very close relationship (R2 5 0.96) between %1RM
and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) for SQ exercise (9). The
velocity measures used in this study correspond to the MPV of
each repetition, defined as that portion of the concentric action
during which the measured acceleration is greater than accelera-
tion due to gravity (29.81 m·s22) (34). The ICC (95% CI) and CV
values were 0.928 (0.706; 0.984) and 1.5%, respectively.
Resistance Exercise Protocol. Figure 1 shows a detailed de-
scription of the protocol performed. At Pre, the battery of tests
was performed in the order described above (i.e., T20, CMJ, and
V1-load). Once the V1-load was determined, the external load
was increased up to the target intensity (70% 1RM). Sub-
sequently, 3 sets separated by 4-minute rest were performed using
the corresponding REP. At Post, immediately after completing the
final repetition in the third set (the load was changed in 10 sec-
onds with the help of trained spotters), subjects again performed 3
repetitions with the V1-load. Furthermore, 5 seconds after the
V1-load (20 seconds after SQ exercise), another 3 maximal CMJs,
separated by 5-second rests, were performed. In addition, 1 mi-
nute after the last CMJ, a 20-m running sprint was performed.
The V1-load, CMJ height, and T20 were obtained as acute
postexercise measures. Strong verbal encouragement and velocity
feedback were provided in each repetition throughout all exercise
sets.
All REPs were performed in the morning. In the evening, 6
hours after exercise (6 hours-Post), and in the morning, 24 and
48 hours after exercise (24 hours-Post and 48 hours-Post), the
values of T20, CMJ height, and V1-load were obtained, as
Figure 1. Representation of mechanical measurements at different time points to analyze the time course of
recovery after exercise.
Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
described for Pre, to assess the time course of recovery after
each REP.
Statistical Analyses
Data are reported as mean 6 SD. Test-retest reliability for T20,
CMJ height, and V1-load was measured by the CV and the ICC
(95% CI), which was calculated with the one-way random effects
model. At Pre, all data were normally distributed as determined
by the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. A repeated-measures
ANOVA (4 REPs) with Bonferroni adjustments was used to
compare the descriptive characteristics of each REP. A factorial
ANOVA with repeated-measures 4 3 5 (4 REPs and 5 time
points) with Bonferroni adjustments was used to analyze time
course of recovery. Bonferroni correction was chosen because of
its conservative nature, which provides a strong safeguard against
making false positive findings (type I error) (1). Statistical sig-
nificance was established at the p # 0.05 level. All statistical
analyses were performed using SPSS software version 20.0 (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL).
Results
Descriptive Characteristics of the Resistance
Exercise Protocols
Descriptive characteristics of each REP are reported in Table 1 for
repetitions performed per set (reps) and actual repetition veloci-
ties. No significant differences between REPs were found (p 5
0.41) for the fastest repetition (Fastest-V). As expected, VL sig-
nificantly increased as the scheduled VL increased (70-20 5 70-
CLU , 70-30 , 70-40, p , 0.001). Accordingly, mean velocity
during the training session (Mean-V) decreased as the scheduled
VL increased (70-20 5 70-CLU . 70-30 . 70-40, p , 0.001).
Regarding the slowest velocity measured in the 3 sets (Slowest-V),
the 70-30 and 70-40 protocols showed significantly lower values
than 70-20 and 70-CLU (p , 0.001). Finally, the 70-20 protocol
completed fewer repetitions per set (reps) than the other REPs
(p 5 0.001).
Time Course of Recovery
No significant differences between REPs were found at Pre for
any of the variables analyzed (Table 2). A significant “protocol 3
 Velocity Loss and Cluster Set Recovery (2023) 00:00

Table 1
Descriptive characteristics of each resistance exercise protocol.*†
Protocol
REP 70-20 70-CLU 70-30 70-40 p F
Fastest-V (m·s21) 0.85 6 0.02 0.86 6 0.03 0.85 6 0.03 0.85 6 0.02 0.41 1.05
VL (%) 23.0 6 2.030,40 21.3 6 2.030,40 34.4 6 3.940 40.5 6 4.5 ,0.001 144.03
Slowest-V (m·s21) 0.59 6 0.0530,40 0.61 6 0.0430,40 0.49 6 0.05 0.45 6 0.05 ,0.001 33.57
Mean-V (m·s21) 0.74 6 0.0330,40 0.74 6 0.0330,40 0.70 6 0.0340 0.65 6 0.03 ,0.001 45.26
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Reps (n) 5.1 6 1.9CLU,30,40 8.5 6 4.2 6.1 6 2.1 7.4 6 2.7 0.001 12.51
*REP 5 resistance exercise protocol; 70-20 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 20%; 70-CLU 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a cluster configuration and a velocity loss in the set of
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 01/18/2024

20%; 70-30 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 30% (70-30); 70-40 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 40% (70-40); Fastest-V 5 highest velocity
measured in the 3 sets; VL 5 mean percent loss in velocity from the fastest to the slowest repetition over the 3 sets; Slowest-V 5 lowest velocity measured in the 3 sets; Mean-V 5 mean velocity of all
repetitions during the 3 sets; Reps 5 repetitions performed in each set.
†Data are mean 6 SD, n 5 15. Velocities correspond to the mean propulsive velocity of each repetition. Protocol indicates p values among protocols. Statistically significant differences with the 70-CLU
protocol: CLUp , 0.05. Statistically significant differences with the 70-30 protocol: 30p , 0.05. Statistically significant differences with the 70-40 protocol: 40p , 0.05.

time” interaction (p 5 0.003) was observed for CMJ height.
Significant “protocol effects” were observed for T20 (p 5 0.04)
and V1-load (p 5 0.02). Similarly, a significant “time” effect was
found for all performance variables assessed (T20, CMJ, and V1-
load). All REPs showed significant decreases in all mechanical
indicators of fatigue (T20, CMJ, and V1-load) at Post (p ,
0.001). For T20, the 70-30 and 70-40 protocols resulted in sig-
nificant (p , 0.05) impairments at 6 hours-Post (Table 3). For
CMJ height, the 70-30 and 70-40 protocols resulted in significant
impairments at 6 hours-Post and 24 hours-Post. Moreover, 70-30
induced CMJ height reductions up to 48 hours-Post. Impairments
in V1-load were significantly (p , 0.05) higher for the 70-40
protocol in comparison with 70-30 at Post and with 70-20 at Post
and 24 hours-Post (Figure 2). The 70-30 protocol also showed
significant (p , 0.05) higher impairments in comparison with 70-
20 at Post. Finally, the V1-load remained significantly (p , 0.05)
decreased up to 24 hours-Post for 70-40 and until 6 hours-Post
for 70-30. No further significant differences were observed for
any variable examined.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that has analyzed
the effect of including the cluster training methodology on the time
course of recovery for physical performance. To this end, the time
course of recovery after 4 REPs (70-20, 70-30, 70-40, and 70-CLU)
was examined. Two of these REPs experienced a similar level of
fatigue within the set: 20% of VL (70-20 and 70-CLU), but they
resulted in different training volumes (70-20 , 70-CLU). The cluster
methodology (70-CLU) induced lower levels of fatigue within the set
and quicker rates of recovery than the high VL protocols (70-30 and
70-40), despite the training volume completed in these REPs being
similar. These findings open up the possibility of including similar
training volumes but with reduced fatigue and faster recovery by
including short rest periods between repetitions.
High VL REPs (70-30 and 70-40) were characterized by sub-
stantial reductions in repetition velocity, resulting in slow lifting
velocities throughout the training session (Mean-V), especially in
the last repetitions (Slowest-V). Because the change in lifting ve-
locity against a given load is directly dependent on the force ap-
plied to the load, the force applied in the last repetitions was much
lower than that applied in the first repetitions. Regarding the
number of repetitions performed per set (Reps), the 70-20 pro-
tocol performed fewer repetitions than the other REPs (70-CLU,
70-30, and 70-40). No significant differences were found in the
number of repetitions completed by 70-CLU, 70-30, and 70-40,
despite different levels of fatigue being induced within the set, as
assessed by VL. The 70-CLU protocol allowed athletes to perform
slightly more repetitions than 70-30 and 70-40 (8.5 6 4.2, 6.1 6
2.1; 7.4 6 2.7, respectively). These findings are in line with pre-
vious research reporting that the cluster methodology allows a
higher number of repetitions to be performed, up to failure, with a
given load (4,16) and better performance maintenance (i.e., force,
velocity, and power) in the set than a set of continuous repetitions
with the same number of target repetitions (6,13,22,24,26,39).
However, to the best of our knowledge, performing cluster
repetitions until a given VL threshold is attained is novel in the
literature. One of the most widely accepted causes of cluster-
induced fatigue reduction is the better maintenance of phospho-
creatine (PCr) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) stores (12,37). It
has been reported that a 10-second rest between repetitions may
be sufficient to avoid a significant decrease in bar velocity (23)
and thus perform more repetitions for the same level of effort.
Hence, by providing short rest periods between repetitions, an
athlete can complete more repetitions before a certain level of
fatigue is attained.

Table 2
Baseline values in every test before each resistance exercise protocol.*†
Protocol
REP 70-20 70-CLU 70-30 70-40 p F
T20 (s) 3.07 6 0.13 3.10 6 0.11 3.10 6 0.14 3.05 6 0.13 0.36 1.19
CMJ height (cm) 39.7 6 3.0 39.1 6 4.7 39.7 6 3.3 38.8 6 3.6 0.52 0.79
V1-load (m·s21) 0.99 6 0.02 1.00 6 0.03 1.00 6 0.03 1.00 6 0.03 0.68 0.51
*REP 5 resistance exercise protocol; 70-20 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 20%; 70-CLU 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a cluster configuration and a velocity loss in the set of
20%; 70-30 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 30% (70-30); 70-40 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 40% (70-40); T20 5 20-m running sprint time;
CMJ 5 countermovement jump; V1-load 5 velocity attained against the load that elicited a 1 m·s21 in the pre-exercise test.
†Data are mean 6 SD, n 5 15. Protocol indicates p values among protocols.

Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Velocity Loss and Cluster Set Recovery (2023) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Table 3
Time course of recovery in the sprint and jump performance after each resistance exercise protocol.†‡
REP Post 6 h-Post 24 h-Post 48 h-Post
T20 (%) “protocol 3 time” interaction (p 5 0.53); “time effect” (p , 0.001); “protocol effect” (p 5 0.04)“protocol 3 time” interaction (F 5 1.13); “time effect” (F 5 24.65); “protocol
effect” (F 5 3.91)
70-20 95.9 6 2.4*** 99.3 6 2.0 98.8 6 1.8 99.5 6 1.8
70-CLU 95.6 6 1.9*** 98.5 6 2.9 98.8 6 2.7 99.4 6 2.3
70-30 95.0 6 1.2*** 98.7 6 1.2** 98.9 6 2.4 99.2 6 2.9
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

70-40 93.7 6 4.6*** 97.9 6 1.7** 97.5 6 4.2 98.0 6 2.5

CMJ height (%) “protocol 3 time” interaction (p 5 0.003); “time effect” (p , 0.001); “protocol effect” (p 5 0.09)“protocol 3 time” interaction (F 5 57.89); “time effect”
(F 5 136.44); “protocol effect” (F 5 2.75)
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 01/18/2024

70-20 78.1 6 4.7*** 96.0 6 5.1 97.7 6 6.3 97.9 6 5.2

70-CLU 81.2 6 8.0*** 94.5 6 9.8 95.4 6 7.1 98.4 6 5.7
70-30 76.1 6 5.5*** 95.4 6 4.4* 93.4 6 2.9*** 95.2 6 4.3**
70-40 76.2 6 8.7*** 95.2 6 4.9* 93.8 6 6.6* 96.7 6 6.6
†REP 5 resistance exercise protocol; 70-20 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 20%; 70-CLU 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a cluster configuration and a velocity loss in the set of
20%; 70-30 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 30% (70-30); 70-40 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 40% (70-40); T20 5 20-m running sprint time;
CMJ 5 countermovement jump.
‡Data are mean 6 SD, n 5 15. Statistically significant differences with Pre at the corresponding time point. *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.

It is noteworthy that, while both protocols using a 20% VL
(70-20 and 70-CLU) had already recovered at 6 hours-Post for all
performance variables assessed, baseline performance was not
fully restored until 24–48 hours-Post after the high VL protocols
(70-30 and 70-40). Specifically, VL30 resulted in impaired sprint,
SQ, and jump performances up to 6 hours-Post and 48 hours-
Post, whereas VL40 showed reductions in sprint (at 6 hours-
Post), jump (at 24 hours-Post), and SQ (at 24 hours-Post)
performances. This higher performance deterioration and slower
recovery evoked by the protocols with higher VL (70-40 and 70-
30) could be due to high metabolic stress (accumulation of hy-
drogen ions and ammonia) (33) along with a depletion of muscle
purines (10,11). It has been shown that nucleotide adenine stores
may take several days to recover, although PCr levels may have
returned to normal values (14,36). Previous studies have also
shown performance reductions up to 48 hours after REPs to
failure (8,27,28). However, in the present study, even the high VL
protocols recovered their baseline performance at 48 hours-Post.

Figure 2. V1-load changes at various time points. Data are mean 6 SD, n 5 15. 70-20 5 protocol against
70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 20%; 70-CLU 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a cluster
configuration and a velocity loss in the set of 20%; 70-30 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in
the set of 30% (70-30); 70-40 5 protocol against 70% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 40% (70-40); V1-
load 5 velocity attained against the load that elicited a 1 m·s21 in the full-squat exercise at pre-exercise.
Statistically significant differences with 70-20 at Pre for the corresponding time point: 20***p , 0.001. Sta-
tistically significant differences with 70-CLU at Pre for the corresponding time point: CLU***p , 0.001. Sta-
tistically significant differences with 70-30 at Pre for the corresponding time point: 30*p , 0.05, 30***p , 0.001.
Statistically significant differences with 70-40 at Pre for the corresponding time point: 40*p , 0.05, 40***p ,
0.001. Statistically significant (p , 0.05) differences between 70-20 and 70-40 at the corresponding time
point: *; statistically significant (p , 0.05) differences between 70-20 and 70-30 at the corresponding time
point: º; statistically significant (p , 0.05) differences between 70-30 and 70-40 at the corresponding time
point: #.

Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Velocity Loss and Cluster Set Recovery (2023) 00:00
This may be because task failure was not attained in this study.
This was observed from the Slowest-V values because the velocity
of the last repetition before failure in the SQ exercise is about
0.30–0.35 m·s21 (18,27), whereas in the present study, the
Slowest-V was 0.45 6 0.05 m·s21 for 70-40. Taken together,
performance decrements evoked by high VL protocols could
impair the ability to apply force in subsequent training or com-
petition events, which affect the development of other physical
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
qualities and athletic performance (5,17,35).
Despite the plethora of evidence supporting the use of cluster
training to maintain performance during RT (20,37), little is
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 01/18/2024
known about how cluster training may influence the time course of
recovery after RT. Interestingly, the cluster protocol (70-CLU)
achieved a similar rate of recovery as 70-20, both with the same VL
(20%), despite 70-CLU accumulating a higher training volume
than 70-20 (Table 1). In addition, 70-CLU achieved faster recovery
than the REPs performing a similar number of repetitions but with
higher VL (70-30 and 70-40). This may be because cluster sets
provoke lower levels of fatigue and lower metabolic stress than
continuous repetitions sets (4,7,23,30,39). Moreover, the short rest
periods between repetitions may allow for the partial replacement
of muscle PCr and ATP stores (10,12), which may attenuate in-
creases in inosine monophosphate (32), avoiding the loss of purines
from muscle tissue (15). This hypothesis may explain, from a
metabolic standpoint, the faster time course of recovery observed
for 70-CLU compared with the other REPs that completed the
same training volume (70-30 and 70-40) because the replenishment
of the muscle nucleotide pool may take up to several days (36).
Collectively, our results suggest that cluster training may alleviate
the residual fatigue induced by RT, which may mitigate potential
interference with subsequent training sessions.
In summary, our results suggest that fatigue experienced within
the set, regardless of training volume, determines the acute response
and the rate of recovery after RT. Specifically, when using the same
relative intensity (%1RM), protocols involving higher VL thresholds
resulted in more pronounced fatigue and slower rates of recovery. In
addition, cluster sets (70-CLU) resulted in higher volumes than
protocols with similar levels of fatigue (70-20) and quicker recovery
than protocols with similar volumes (70-30 and 70-40).
Practical Applications
Strength and conditioning coaches can use the information
summarized here to create more effective VBT sessions, taking
into consideration that (a) resistance exercise with high levels
of fatigue within the set (high VL thresholds) is characterized
by high acute fatigue and needs longer periods for the recovery
of performance and (b) introducing short rest periods between
repetitions (cluster sets) allows athletes to complete a higher
training volume for a given level of fatigue and accelerates the
rate of recovery after the workout. This approach is of great
practical relevance for strength and conditioning profes-
sionals, especially where competitions are held every weekend
or even every 3–4 days, because it allows athletes to be in
better condition to undertake a new training session or com-
petition in a shorter period.
Acknowledgments
This study has no conflicts of interest to declare. The results of the
present study do not constitute endorsement of the product by the
authors or the National Strength and Conditioning Association.
Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
References
1. Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic
Physiol Opt 34: 502–508, 2014.
2. Claudino JG, Cronin J, Mezêncio B, et al. The countermovement jump to
monitor neuromuscular status: A meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport 20:
397–402, 2017.
3. Courel-Ibanez J, Martinez-Cava A, Moran-Navarro R, et al. Re-
producibility and repeatability of five different technologies for bar ve-
locity measurement in resistance training. Ann Biomed Eng 47:
1523–1538, 2019.
4. Denton J, Cronin JB. Kinematic, kinetic, and blood lactate profiles of
continuous and intraset rest loading schemes. J Strength Cond Res 20:
528–534, 2006.
5. Draganidis D, Chatzinikolaou A, Jamurtas AZ, et al. The time-frame of
acute resistance exercise effects on football skill performance: The impact
of exercise intensity. J Sports Sci 31: 714–722, 2013.
6. Garcı́a-Ramos A, Padial P, Haff GG, et al. Effect of different inter-
repetition rest periods on barbell velocity loss during the Ballistic Bench
press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2388–2396, 2015.
7. Girman JC, Jones MT, Matthews TD, Wood RJ. Acute effects of a cluster-
set protocol on hormonal, metabolic and performance measures in
resistance-trained males. Eur J Sport Sci 14: 151–159, 2014.
8. González-Badillo JJ, Rodrı́guez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, et al. Short-
term recovery following resistance exercise leading or not to failure. Int J
Sports Med 37: 295–304, 2015.
9. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Sanchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a measure of
loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347–352, 2010.
10. Gorostiaga EM, Navarro-Amezqueta I, Calbet JA, et al. Energy metabo-
lism during repeated sets of leg press exercise leading to failure or not.
PLoS One 7: e40621, 2012.
11. Gorostiaga EM, Navarro-Amézqueta I, Calbet JA, et al. Blood ammonia
and lactate as markers of muscle metabolites during leg press exercise.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 2775–2785, 2014.
12. Gorostiaga EM, Navarro-Amezqueta I, Cusso R, et al. Anaerobic energy
expenditure and mechanical efficiency during exhaustive leg press exer-
cise. PLoS One 5: e13486, 2010.
13. Haff GG, Whitley A, McCoy LB, et al. Effects of different set configura-
tions on barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J Strength
Cond Res 17: 95–103, 2003.
14. Hellsten-Westing Y, Balsom PD, Norman B, Sjödin B. The effect of high
intensity training on purine metabolism in man. Acta Physiol Scand 149:
405–412, 1993.
15. Hellsten Y, Sjodin B, Richter EA, Bangsbo J. Urate uptake and lowered
ATP levels in human muscle after high-intensity intermittent exercise. Am
J Physiology-Endocrinology Metab 274: E600–E606, 1998.
16. Iglesias-Soler E, Carballeira E, Sanchez-Otero T, Mayo X, Fernandez-del-
Olmo M. Performance of maximum number of repetitions with cluster-set
configuration. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 637–642, 2014.
17. Izquierdo-Gabarren M, González De Txabarri Expósito R, Garcı́a-
pallarés J, Sánchez-Medina L, De Villarreal ESS, Izquierdo M. Concurrent
endurance and strength training not to failure optimizes performance
gains. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1191–1199, 2010.
18. Izquierdo M, González-Badillo JJ, Häkkinen K, et al. Effect of loading on
unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to
failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. Int J Sports Med
27: 718–724, 2006.
19. Jiménez-Reyes P, Pareja-Blanco F, Cuadrado-Peñafiel V, Ortega-Becerra
M, Párraga J, González-Badillo JJ. Jump height loss as an indicator of
fatigue during sprint training. J Sports Sci 37: 1029–1037, 2019.
20. Jukic I, Ramos AG, Helms ER, McGuigan MR, Tufano JJ. Acute effects of
cluster and rest redistribution set structures on mechanical, metabolic, and
perceptual fatigue during and after resistance training: A systematic re-
view and meta-analysis. Sports Med 50: 2209–2236, 2020.
21. Kuipers H. How much is too much? Performance aspects of overtraining.
Res Q Exerc Sport 67(Suppl 3): S-65–S-69, 1996.
22. Lawton TW, Cronin JB, Lindsell RP. Effect of interrepetition rest intervals
on weight training repetition power output. J Strength Cond Res 20:
172–176, 2006.
23. Mora-Custodio R, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Yanez-Garcia JM, Sánchez-
Moreno M, Pareja-Blanco F, González-Badillo JJ. Effect of different inter-
repetition rest intervals across four load intensities on velocity loss and
blood lactate concentration during full squat exercise. J Sports Sci 36:
2856–2864, 2018.
24. Morales-Artacho AJ, Padial P, Garcı́a-Ramos A, Pérez-Castilla A, Feriche
B. Influence of a cluster set configuration on the adaptations to short-term
power training. J Strength Cond Res 32: 930–937, 2018.
 Velocity Loss and Cluster Set Recovery (2023) 00:00
25. Morán-Navarro R, Pérez CE, Mora-Rodrı́guez R, et al. Time course of
recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure. Eur J Appl
Physiol 117: 2387–2399, 2017.
26. Ortega-Becerra M, Sanchez-Moreno M, Pareja-Blanco F. Effects of cluster
set configuration on mechanical performance and neuromuscular activity.
J Strength Cond Res 35: 310–317, 2021.
27. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Aagaard P, et al. Time course of
recovery from resistance exercise with different set configurations.
J Strength Cond Res 34: 2867–2876, 2020.
28. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodrı́guez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, et al. Acute and
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
delayed response to resistance exercise leading or not leading to muscle
failure. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 37: 630–639, 2017.
29. Pareja-Blanco F, Villalba-Fernández A, Cornejo-Daza PJ, Sánchez-Val-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 01/18/2024
depeñas J, González-Badillo JJ. Time course of recovery following re-
sistance exercise with different loading magnitudes and velocity loss in the
set. Sports 7: 59, 2019.
30. Rial-Vázquez J, Mayo X, Tufano JJ, Fariñas J, Rúa-Alonso M, Iglesias-
Soler E. Cluster vs. traditional training programmes: Changes in the force-
velocity relationship. Sports BioMech 21: 85–103, 2022.
31. Rodrı́guez-Rosell D, Yáñez-Garcı́a JM, Sánchez-Medina L, Mora-Cus-
todio R, González-Badillo JJ. Relationship between velocity loss and
repetitions in Reserve in the Bench press and back squat exercises.
J Strength Cond Res 34: 2537–2547, 2020.
32. Sahlin K, Broberg S. Adenine nucleotide depletion in human muscle
during exercise: Causality and significance of AMP deamination. Int J
Sports Med 11: S62–S67, 1990.
Copyright © 2023 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
33. Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of
neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
43: 1725–1734, 2011.
34. Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE, González-Badillo JJ. Importance of the
propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 31: 123–129,
2010.
35. Schumann M, Eklund D, Taipale RS, et al. Acute neuromuscular and
endocrine responses and recovery to single-session combined endurance
and strength loadings: “order effect” in untrained young men. J Strength
Cond Res 27: 421–433, 2013.
36. Stathis CG, Zhao S, Carey MF, Snow RJ. Purine loss after repeated sprint
bouts in humans. J Appl Physiol 87: 2037–2042, 1999.
37. Tufano JJ, Brown LE, Haff GG. Theoretical and practical aspects of dif-
ferent cluster set structures: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 31:
848–867, 2017.
38. Tufano JJ, Conlon JA, Nimphius S, et al. Maintenance of velocity and
power with cluster sets during high- volume back squats. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 11: 885–892, 2016.
39. Varela-Olalla D, Romero-Caballero A, Del Campo-Vecino J, Balsalobre-
Fernandez C. A cluster set protocol in the half squat exercise reduces
mechanical fatigue and lactate concentrations in comparison with A tra-
ditional set configuration. Sports 8: 45, 2020.
40. Weakley J, Ramirez-Lopez C, McLaren S, et al. The effects of 10%, 20%,
and 30% velocity loss thresholds on kinetic, kinematic, and repetition
characteristics during the barbell back squat. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
5: 180–188, 2019.