Journal of Sports Science 1 (2013) 37-45 D DAVID PUBLISHING

Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the

Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets

Jordan M. Joy1, 2, Jonathan M. Oliver3, Sean A. McCleary1, Ryan P. Lowery1 and Jacob M. Wilson1
1. Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, The University of Tampa, Tampa 33606, FL, USA
2. MusclePharm Sports Science Institute, MusclePharm Corp., Denver 80239, CO, USA
3. Department of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth 76129, TX, USA

Abstract: Recently, it has been demonstrated that hypertrophic training with CLU (cluster) sets produces greater strength and power
following a 12-week periodized program. The results suggest possible differences in neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, we
sought to compare the acute effect of TRD (traditional) and CLU set configurations during the parallel back squat on mean power
output and integrated EMG (electromyography) activity of the VL (vastus lateralis) and BF (biceps femoris). Ten males (23 ± 2.4
years; height 182.9 ± 6.1 cm; weight 86.2 ± 4.2 kg; 5 ± 2 years training) performed the parallel back squat using TRD and CLU with
75% 1RM (one-repetition maximum) in a randomized crossover design. Data was analyzed by a repeated measures—ANOVA
(analysis of variance). A significant effect of set (P = 0.006) was observed in mean power output. Mean power output decreased over
each successive set when collapsed for condition. Clusters resulted in greater mean power output during latter repetitions of each set
(repetition 4, 6-10; P < 0.05). A significant effect of set (P = 0.049) was observed in VL EMG. VL EMG increased over each
successive set when collapsed for condition. TRD training produced significantly greater VL EMG during latter repetitions of each
set (repetition 6-8; P < 0.05). An interaction was observed in BF EMG. No significant differences were observed in post-hoc. Thus,
cluster sets can be used to achieve greater power output, but greater neuromuscular activity should not be expected relative to
traditional training.

Key words: Cluster, interset rest, electromyography, power, squat, intraset rest.

1. Introduction [4] and Hardee et al. [3] demonstrated a near linear

decrease in power output when repetitions were
When performing resistance training in a TRD
performed in a TRD manner in the bench press and
(traditional), repetitions are performed in a continuous
power clean exercises with loads corresponding to
fashion resting only between sets. This results in
85% and 80% 1RM, respectively. Given that both
decrements in velocity [1, 2] and power output across
strength and power are important aspects of sports
the set [3, 4]. Izquierdo et al. [2] demonstrated a
performance [5, 6], alternative training methods that
significant reduction in velocity corresponding to 48%
produce greater strength and/or power adaptations
of the total repetitions performed in the parallel back
would theoretically improve sport performance.
squat when repetitions were performed to failure with
One method to counteract the decrease in velocity
loads of 60-75% 1RM. Similarly, Haff et al. [1]
and power output associated with TRD, is the use of
observed a trend in which barbell velocity declined
CLU (cluster) [1, 3-12]. CLU involve the
with each successive repetition over 5 repetitions in
introduction of short rest between repetitions
the clean pull with an intensity of 90% and 120% of
(inter-repetition rest) or groups of repetitions
subjects power clean 1RM. Further, both Lawton et al.
(intra-set rest) [1, 8]. Acute studies on the effects of
CLU have demonstrated greater velocity, force and
Corresponding Author: Jacob M. Wilson, Ph.D., assistant power output [1, 3, 4] when compared to TRD set
professor, research fields: strength and conditioning, sports
nutrition. E-mail: jmwilson@ut.edu. configurations. However, long term studies have
38 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets
demonstrated no significant differences between
CLU and TRD in power output [12], a possible
benefit of CLU [6], or a greater improvement in power
output [13].
Similar to the results observed from long term
studies on the use of CLU on power output, the effect
of CLU on strength gains has also been
equivocal. Previous studies have demonstrated either
reduced [6, 12, 14] or no difference [15] in strength
gains compared to TRD. Studies demonstrating
reduced strength gains with CLU utilized loads
corresponding to ≥ 85% 1RM, while those studies in
which no differences were reported utilized intensities
of ~ 73% 1RM [15]. Izquierdo et al. [16] also
observed no significant differences in strength
between TRD and CLU after 16 weeks of periodized
training. However in this study, intra-set rest was used
to prevent training to failure with the intra-set rest
period extended to 120 seconds. Only one study to
date has reported greater strength gains with the use of
CLU. Oliver et al. [13] reported CLU resulted in
greater strength gains in the parallel back squat
exercise (CLU, 52.4% ± 3.4%; TRD, 41.8% ± 3.4%)
following a 12-week periodized program design.
These greater gains in strength occurred, despite no
significant differences in hypertrophy or fiber type
changes between TRD and CLU suggesting a possible
neuromuscular adaptation.
One method for measuring the global electrical
activity of the muscle generated by active motor units
is through the use of surface EMG [17]. Altering the
work to rest ratio may be indicated by increased motor
unit recruitment and/or rate coding as evidenced
through surface EMG. Keogh et al. [18] reported
lower levels of EMG using a short inter-repetition
rest-pause during a 6RM (six-repetition maximum)
bench press exercise. Considering this information,
EMG activity during CLU with different intensities
may produce different patterns than those observed by
Keogh and colleagues. Therefore, the purpose of the
current study was to compare the neuromuscular
activity during the parallel back squat exercise using
both TRD and CLU set configurations at 75% 1RM.
We hypothesized significantly different patterns of
EMG activity of between TRD and CLU set
configurations. Additionally, while the differences in
the intensities utilized in the previous studies may
partially explain their divergent findings, further
research is necessary to identify the mechanism
responsible for greater power output being
demonstrated following the performance of a
periodized training program with specific intensities.
Therefore, a secondary purpose of this investigation
was to determine the acute effects of CLU in the
parallel back squat utilizing intensities corresponding
to hypertrophy, similar to those used in the study by
Oliver et al. [21] in which greater power output was
observed. We hypothesized greater power output with
the use of CLU during the performance of the parallel
back squat with the use of CLU with intensities
corresponding to 75% 1RM.
2. Methods
2.1 Experimental Protocol
A randomized, crossover research design was
employed to compare the mean power output and
EMG activity of the VL (vastus lateralis) and BF
(biceps femoris) during the parallel back squat
exercise using a CLU and TRD. Subjects reported to
the laboratory on three separate occasions. Session 1
consisted of 1RM determination. Following 1RM
determination and in a randomized order, sessions 2
and 3 involved subjects performing the parallel back
squat using TRD (4 sets of 10 repetitions) and CLU
(four sets of two clusters of five repetitions) with a
load corresponding to 75% 1RM. Sessions 2 and 3
were separated by 72-96 hours. Both TRD and CLU
were equated for total training volume load and time.
Mean power output and EMG of the VL and BF were
measured for the entirety of every repetition
performed during each condition.
 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets
2.2 Subjects
Nine resistance trained males (23 ± 2.4 years;
height 182.9 ± 6.1 cm; weight 86.2 ± 4.2 kg; 5 ± 2
years training) with an average squat of 151.8 kg
participated in this study. Only those with: (1) at least
1 year resistance training experience; (2) not taking
any ergogenic aids with an exception of protein and
multivitamin; (3) free from any musculoskeletal
injuries or disorders were included in the study. Those
meeting all inclusion criteria, were informed of the
study procedures and required to sign an informed
consent as approved by the Institutional Review Board
of the University of Tampa.
2.3 1RM Determination
Subjects reported to the laboratory having refrained
from any exercise outside of daily living for at least 72
hours prior to 1RM determination. The progression
strategy for 1RM determination was estimated from
self-reporting. A dynamic warm up consisting of deep
knee bends and other squat-mimicking movements
lasting approximately 10 min was performed prior to
1RM determination. Following warm up, two warm
up sets of 5 repetitions at approximately 40%-60%
1RM separated by two minutes rest were followed by
a three minute rest period and one to two sets of 2-3
repetitions at a load corresponding to 60%-80% 1RM.
Subjects then began performing sets of 1 repetition of
increasing weight for 1RM determination. Three to
five minutes rest was provided between each
successive attempt. All 1RM determinations were
made within 3-5 attempts. Subjects were required to
have the crease of their hip descend below the knee
Fig. 1 Schematic of CONDITION protocols, TRD, CLU, ISR, intraset rest.
39
for an attempt to be considered successful as
determined by a CSCS (certified strength and
conditioning specialist) [13].
2.4 Condition Protocols
In a randomized order, each subject completed both
training conditions involving the parallel back squat
exercise. The TRD condition consisted of four sets of
ten repetitions (4 × 10) with two minutes inter-set rest,
while the CLU condition consisted of four sets of two
clusters of five repetitions (4 × (2 × 5)) with 1 min
inter-set rest and 1 min intra-set rest between clusters.
The purpose of this CLU structure was to equate total
time between conditions. A schematic of both
conditions is provided in Fig. 1. Both conditions were
performed with 75% 1RM. Subjects were monitored
at all times by a CSCS to ensure safety and repetition
quality.
2.5 EMG and Power
An EMG (Delsys Trigno® Wireless EMG systems,
Boston, MA, USA) sensor was applied to the VL and
BF of the dominant leg half-way between the greater
trochanter and the lateral epicondyle, in order to
measure muscle activation during exercise. Prior to
sensor placement, the leg was shaved and sterilized
with alcohol, in order to ensure optimal electrical
conductance. The location of the sensor was traced
with a permanent marker to better replicate initial
conditions during the subsequent session. The sensor
was applied using specialized, double-sided adhesive
(Delsys Trigno® adhesive, Boston, MA, USA).
Surface EMG signals were preamplified (× 100),
40 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets
amplified (× 2), band-pass filtered (10-1,000 Hz),
and sampled at 2,500 Hz with EMG works software
(version 4.01, Boston, MA, USA). All EMG data are
expressed as RMS (root mean squared) values for the
EMG activation of the VL and BF during each
condition. EMG data were analyzed for all phases
(eccentric, amortization and concentric) of each
individual repetition. Reliability of EMG assessments
were 0.98. Mean power output was measured using a
linear position transducer (Tendo Fitrodyne, Tendo
Sport Machines, Slovak Republic). The reliability of
the Fitrodyne has been previously reported [19].
2.6 Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS
Version 20.0 (Armonk, NY). To assess the effect of
TRD and CLU on mean power output and EMG
activity of the VL and BF across sets and repetitions, a
three-way (CONDITION × SET × Rep) repeated
measures—ANOVA was utilized. Data
considered statistically significant when the probability
of type I error was < 0.05. If a significant main effect
or interaction was observed, a Tukey’s LSD (least
significant differences) post-hoc analysis
performed to determine where significance occured.
Differences were quantified by Cohen’s d effect size
statistics. Effect sizes of < 0.35, 0.35-0.80, 0.80-1.50,
and > 1.50 were considered trivial, small, moderate
and large, respectively, according to Rhea’s [20] scale
for determining the magnitude of effect sizes in
strength training research for recreationally trained
individuals. Data are presented as means ± SE
(standard error).
3. Results
3.1 Power Output
A complete set of power output data was obtained
on 7 subjects (n = 7), due to a mechanical failure to
obtain a complete data set for two subjects. A
significant effect of SET (P = 0.006) was observed in
which post-hoc analysis demonstrated mean power
output decreased over each successive set when
collapsed for CONDITION (Fig. 2). Mean power
output produced during SET 3 and 4 was significantly
lower than SET 1, P = 0.048 and P = 0.008,
respectively. No CONDITION × SET × Rep effect
was observed. However, a CONDITION × Rep
interaction was observed (P = 0.001), suggesting
similarities across repetitions for each set for both
TRD and CLU. Post-hoc analysis demonstrated
greater power output was produced by CLU during
latter repetitions of each SET (Rep 6, ES = 0.94, P =
0.002; Rep 7, ES = 1.09, P = 0.003; Rep 8, ES = 1.12,
P = 0.002; REP 9, ES = 1.00, P = 0.004; Rep 10, ES =
0.51, P = 0.022) compared to TRD (Fig. 3a).
3.2 EMG
EMG activity of each individual repetition across
all sets was obtained on 9 subjects (n = 9). A
were significant effect of SET (P = 0.049) was observed in
EMG activity of the VL. A trend was observed in
which EMG activity of the VL increased over each
successive set when collapsed for CONDITION. SET
was 3 approached significance when compared to SET 1
and 2 (P < 0.010), while SET 4 was significantly
greater than all previous SETS (P < 0.05; Fig. 4a). No
CONDITION × SET × Rep effect was observed.
Again, the CONDITION × Rep interaction (P = 0.005)
suggested similarities across repetitions for each set
for TRD and CLU. Post-hoc analysis demonstrated
that TRD resulted in significantly greater EMG
activity of the VL during latter repetitions of each set
(Rep 6, ES = 0.51, P = 0.030; Rep 7, ES = 0.43, P =
0.049; Rep 8, ES = 0.37, P = 0.029; Rep 9, ES = 0.31,
P = 0.075) compared to CLU (Fig. 4b). Further, a
difference in the pattern of increase in EMG activity
of the VL was observed in TRD and CLU. EMG
activity of the VL increased linearly in TRD, with
each repetition being significantly greater than Rep 1
(P < 0.05). CLU increased linearly within each CLU,
demonstrating a pattern whereby the latter repetitions
 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets 41

Fig. 2 Mean power output combined for both groups (n = 7).

* significantly different than SET 1 (P < 0.05).

Fig. 3 Mean power output: TRD, CLU (n = 7).

* significantly different than repetition 1 for respective CONDITION (P < 0.05);
† significantly different than CLU (P < 0.05).

in each CLU of 5 were significantly different than Rep
1 (P < 0.05); Rep 3, 4, 5 and 8, 9, 10 for the first and
second cluster of 5, respectively.
A CONDITION × Rep interaction (P = 0.033) was
observed in EMG activity of the BF. Post-hoc analysis
demonstrated no significant differences between
CONDITION for any Rep. However, a significantly
different pattern of increase between TRD and CLU
was observed. BF EMG activity increased linearly in
TRD, with the latter repetitions in each set being
significantly greater than Rep 1 (Rep 5, P = 0.049;
Rep 6, P = 0.046; Rep 7, P = 0.043; Rep 8, P = 0.027;
Rep 9, P = 0.025; Rep 10, P = 0.001) (Fig. 4c). EMG
activity of the BF in CLU increased linearly within
each cluster of 5, with only the latter repetitions of
each cluster being significantly different than Rep 1
42 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 4 (a) EMG activity of the VL combined for both groups (n = 9).
*Significantly different than SET 1 (P < 0.05);
(b) EMG activity of the VL, TRD, CLU (n = 9).
*Significantly different than repetition 1 for respective CONDITION (p < 0.05);
*Significantly different than CLU (P < 0.05).
(c) EMG activity of the BF, TRD, CLU (n = 9).
*Significantly different than repetition 1 for respective CONDITION (p < 0.05).
 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets
(Rep 4, P = 0.052, Rep 5, P = 0.002; Rep 9, P = 0.077;
Rep 10, P = 0.020).
4. Discussion
Unique to the current study was the examination of
mean power output in the parallel back squat exercise
with loads corresponding to hypertrophy. Recent
evidence supports the use of CLU during a 12-week of
periodized resistance training program for the
development of power compared to TRD [13]. In
agreement with our original hypothesis, greater mean
power output was observed in CLU compared to TRD,
specifically in latter repetitions. These results are
consistent with previous studies in which greater mean
and peak power output has been reported in the bench
press and power clean exercises with loads
corresponding to 6RM (~ 85% 1RM) and 80% 1RM,
respectively [3, 4, 10].
Lawton et al. [4] reported a near linear decrease in
power output during a single set of the bench press
exercise. In that study, mean total power output
decreased -7.6% to -52.9% from repetition 1 to
repetition 6. The authors also reported significantly
greater power output (21.6%-25.1%) using different
CLU configurations with no differences observed
between configurations. Hardee et al. [3] also reported
a 15.65% decrease in peak power from repetition 1 to
repetition 6 in the power clean in TRD averaged over
three sets, compared to a 5.50% and 3.30% decrease
with CLU of 20 seconds and 40 seconds
inter-repetition rest, respectively. Similarly, we
observed a near linear decrease in mean power output
of the parallel back squat using TRD. A decrease of
-29.9% ± 3.0% in mean power output was observed
from repetition 1 to repetition 10 in TRD when
averaged over all four sets. While CLU also
experienced a decrease from repetition 1 to repetition
10 (-23.1% ± 2.9%), the time course and pattern of
decline was significantly different than TRD (Fig. 2).
Mean power output for latter repetitions (repetitions 6
through 10) was significantly greater in CLU; 12.4%
43
± 0.8%, 14.3% ± 2.2%, 13.3% ± 1.6%, 10.1% ± 1.3%,
and 6.7% ± 1.3% for repetitions 6 through 10,
respectively.
Haff et al. [1] were the first to present a
hypothetical model for the effect of CLU in scientific
literature. The authors hypothesized the inclusion of a
brief rest would allow for partial replenishment of PCr
(phosphocreatine), in comparison to the performance
of repetitions in a TRD which results in a significant
decline in PCr and increase in lactate accumulation.
Recent evidence supports the authors’ original theory.
Girman et al. [5] reported significantly lower blood
lactate levels following the performance of a CLU
protocol. Coincident with their investigation on the
effects of CLU in the performance of the
countermovement jump and standing long jump, the
authors measured blood lactate immediately following
the performance of the power clean and back squat
using CLU and TRD. Blood lactate levels were
significantly lower for the CLU (7.69 ± 3.73 mmol·L-1)
compared to TRD (12.78 ± 1.90 mmol·L-1). This was
the first study to demonstrate less reliance on anaerobic
glycolysis as a result of CLU set configurations.
While not measured in the current study, it is likely
lower lactate values would have been observed given
the truncated number of repetitions performed per
CLU, 5 in the current study, as well as the greater
intra-set rest, 60 s compared to 15 s in Ref. [5].
Oliver et al. [13] recently reported greater strength
gains in the parallel back squat exercise following a
12-week periodized program in trained males utilizing
intensities similar to the current study (65%-75%
1RM) [21]. Those results were in conflict with
previous reports demonstrating smaller strength gains
following training with CLU [6, 12]. However, those
studies in which smaller strength gains were reported
utilized different intensities. The observation of
similar gains in lean mass with greater strength gains,
led Oliver and colleagues [13] to hypothesize
differences in strength may have been attributable to
differences in neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore,
44 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets
we also sought to determine the neuromuscular
activity as measured by the EMG of the VL and BF
during the parallel back squat exercise. In agreement
with our original hypothesis, significant differences
were observed in EMG activity of the VL and RF
between CLU and TRD. When collapsed across
conditions, both groups experienced an increase in
EMG activity of the VL over successive sets (Fig. 4a).
However, the pattern of EMG activity of both the VL
and BF was significantly different between CLU and
TRD (Figs. 4 and 5). Consistent with our observations,
Keogh et al. [18] observed significantly different
EMG activity of the pectoralis major between TRD
and a brief inter-repetition rest-pause using a 6RM (~
85% 1RM) during the bench press exercise. EMG
activity was significantly lower during latter
repetitions (repetitions 3 and 6) for the inter-repetition
rest-pause condition compared to TRD.
Keogh et al. [18] suggested inter-repetition
rest-pause would not be better than TRD in the
promotion of strength gains and hypertrophy. At the
intensities utilized by Keogh et al. [18], this may be
the case, as Lawton et al. [12] demonstrated
significantly lower strength gains in the bench press
using the same intensity. Numerous reports exist in
the literature to suggest changes in motor unit
recruitment and/or increased rate coding in already
active motor units contribute to the increased EMG
activity observed during the performance of repeated
submaximal contractions [18, 22, 23]. Further,
evidence suggests due to the exponential distribution
of recruitment thresholds, most motor units have low
recruitment thresholds, thus low forces are produced
mainly from the recruitment of more motor units [24].
This suggests that at higher intensities, any increase in
neural activation evidenced by EMG activity may be a
result of increases in rate coding of the already active
motor units and not increased motor unit recruitment.
As can be observed in the current study, the higher
EMG activity during latter repetitions in TRD could
be the result of increases in rate coding of the slower
type I fibers as fatigue reduced the activity of the
higher threshold type II fibers. This would suggest the
different pattern of EMG in the CLU allowed the type
II fibers to recover and be available during the next
CLU of 5 repetitions. Given the observation of greater
mean power output, these results seem logical as type
II muscle fibers are capable of producing greater force
and power output. The fact that only a Rep and Rep ×
CONDITION interaction were observed, suggests no
significant difference in overall activation between
CONDITION across all repetitions between CLU and
TRD (P = 0.155 and P = 0.356; for the VL and BF,
respectively). However, post-hoc analysis reveals that
TRD leads to greater muscle activation in latter
repetitions.
The results of this study demonstrate that at least
over an acute session, greater mean power output is
observed with the use of CLU. While the results from
EMG of the VL and BF suggest differing patterns of
motor unit recruitment and/or rate coding, further
research is needed to identify the possible mechanisms
responsible for the greater strength gains observed
with the use of CLU at lower intensities.
5. Conclusions
The results from this study demonstrate greater
mean power output is achieved using CLU during the
parallel back squat exercise with loads corresponding
to the development of hypertrophy (i.e., 75% 1RM).
Further, these results suggest a possible difference
between CLU and TRD in motor unit recruitment
and/or rate coding as evidenced by the differences in
EMG activity of the VL and BF. Therefore, TRD
should be used when muscle activation is a goal of
training, such as in hypertrophy training, and CLU can
be used to acutely increase power.
References
[1] G.G. Haff, A. Whitley, L.B. McCoy, H.S. O'Bryant, J.L.
Kilgore, E.E. Haff, et al., Effects of different set
configurations on barbell velocity and displacement
during a clean pull, Journal of Strength and Conditioning
 Power Output and Electromyography Activity of the Back Squat Exercise with Cluster Sets
Research 17 (2003) 95-103.
[2] M. Izquierdo, J.J. Gonzalez-Badillo, K. Häkkinen, J.
Ibanez, W.J. Kraemer, et al., Effect of loading on
unintentional lifting velocity declines during singles sets
of repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity
muscle actions, International Journal of Sports Medicine
27 (2006) 718-724.
[3] J.P. Hardee, N.T. Triplett, A.C. Utter, K.A. Zwetsloot,
J.M. McBride, Effect of inter-repetition rest on power
output in the power clean, Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 26 (2012) 883-889.
[4] T.W. Lawton, J.B. Cronin, R.P. Lindsell, Effect of
interrepetition rest intervals on weight training repetition
power output, Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 20 (2006) 172-176.
[5] J.C. Girman, M.T. Jones, T.D. Matthews, R.J. Wood,
Acute effects of a cluster-set protocol on hormonal,
metabolic and performance measures in resistance-trained
males, European Journal of Sport Science (2013) 1-9.
[6] K.T. Hansen, J.B. Cronin, S.L. Pickering, M.J. Newton,
Does cluster loading enhance lower body power
development in preseason preparation of elite rugby
union players?, Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 25 (2011) 2118-2126.
[7] D.A. Boullosa, L. Abreu, L.G.N. Geltrame, D.G. Behm,
The acute effect of different half squat set configurations
on jump potentiation, Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 27 (2013) 2059-2066.
[8] G.G. Haff, R.T. Hobbs, E.E. Haff, W.A. Sands, K.C.
Pierce, M.H. Stone, Cluster training: A novel method for
introducing training program variation, Strength and
Conditioning Journal 30 (2008) 67-76.
[9] K.T. Hansen, J.B. Cronin, M.J. Newton, The effect of
cluster loading on force, velocity and power output
during ballistic jump squat training, International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 6 (2011)
455-468.
[10] J.P. Hardee, M.M. Lawrence, A.C. Utter, N.T. Triplett,
K.A. Zwetsloot, J.M. McBride, Effect of inter-reptition
rest on ratings of perceived exertion during multiple sets
of power clean, European Journal of Applied Physiology
112 (2012) 3141-3147.
[11] J.P. Hardee, M.M. Lawrence, K.A. Zwetsloot, N.T.
Triplett, A.C. Utter, J.M. McBride, Effect of cluster set
configurations on power clean technique, Journal of
Sports Sciences 31 (2013) 488-496.
[12] T. Lawton, J. Cronin, E. Drinkwater, R. Lindsell, D. Pyne,
The effect of continuous repetition training and intra-set
45
rest training on bench press strength and power, Journal
of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 44 (2004)
361-367.
[13] J.M. Oliver, A.R. Jagim, A.C. Sanchez, M.A. Mardock,
K.A. Kelly, H.J. Meredith, et al., Greater gains in strength
and power with intra-set rest intervals in hypertrophic
training, J. Strength Cond. Res. 27 (11) 3116-3131.
[14] K.J. Rooney, R.D. Herbert, R.J. Balnave, Fatigue
contributes to the strength training stimulus, Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise 26 (1994) 1160-1164.
[15] J.P. Folland, C.S. Irish, J.C. Roberts, J.E. Tarr, D.A.
Jones, Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength
gains during resistance training, British Journal of Sports
Medicine 36 (2002) 370-373.
[16] M. Izquierdo, J. Ibanez, J.J. Gonzalez-Badillo, K.
Häkkinen, N.A. Ratamess, W.J. Kraemer, et al.,
Differential effects of strength training leading to failure
versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength and
muscle power gains, Journal of Applied Physiology 100
(2006) 1647-1656.
[17] D. Farina, R. Merletti, R.M. Enoka, The extraction of
neural strategies from the surface EMG, European
Journal of Applied Physiology 463 (2004) 83-105.
[18] J.W.I. Keogh, G.J. Wilson, R.P. Weatherby, A
cross-sectional comparison of different resistance training
techniques in the bench press, Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 13 (1999) 247-258.
[19] C.L. Jennings, W. Viljoen, J. Durandt, M.I. Lambert, The
reliability of the Fitrodyne as a measure of muscle power,
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19 (2005)
859-863.
[20] M.R. Rhea, Determining the magnitude of treatment
effects in strength training research through the use of the
effect size, Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 18 (2004) 918-920.
[21] American College of Sports Medicine, Progression
models in resistance training for healthy adults,
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41 (2009)
687-708.
[22] R.G. Edwards, O.C.J. Lippold, The relation between
force and integrated electrical activity in fatigued muscle,
Journal of Physiology 132 (1956) 677-681.
[23] J.H.T. Viitasalo, P.V. Komi, Signal characteristics of
EMG during fatigue, European Journal of Applied
Physiology 37 (1977) 111-121.
[24] J. Duchateau, J.G. Semmler, R.M. Enoka, Training
adaptations in the behavior of human motor units, Journal
of Applied Physiology 101 (2006) 1766-1775.