Sports Biomechanics

ISSN: 1476-3141 (Print) 1752-6116 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20

Acute effects of shorter but more frequent rest

periods on mechanical and perceptual fatigue
during a weightlifting derivative at different loads
in strength-trained men

Ivan Jukic & James J. Tufano

To cite this article: Ivan Jukic & James J. Tufano (2020): Acute effects of shorter but
more frequent rest periods on mechanical and perceptual fatigue during a weightlifting
derivative at different loads in strength-trained men, Sports Biomechanics, DOI:
10.1080/14763141.2020.1747530

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1747530

Published online: 27 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspb20
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2020.1747530

Acute effects of shorter but more frequent rest periods on

mechanical and perceptual fatigue during a weightlifting
derivative at different loads in strength-trained men
a,b b
Ivan Jukic and James J. Tufano
a
Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,
New Zealand; bFaculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Traditional sets can be fatiguing, but redistributing rest periods to Received 8 December 2019
be shorter and more frequent may help maintain peak vertical Accepted 20 March 2020
barbell displacement (DISP) and reduce concentric repetition dura- KEYWORDS
tion (CRDI), peak velocity decline (PVD) and perceptual exertion Velocity; power; perceived
(RPE) across multiple repetitions, sets and loads during clean exertion; resistance training;
pulls. Fifteen strength-trained men performed: 3 traditional sets of fatigue
6 clean pulls using 80% (TS80), 100% (TS100) and 120% (TS120) of
power clean 1RM with 180 seconds of inter-set rest; and 3 ‘rest
redistribution’ protocols of 9 sets of 2 clean pulls using 80% (RR80),
100% (RR100) and 120% (RR120) of power clean 1RM with 45 sec-
onds of inter-set rest. DISP was greater during RR100 (g = 0.39) and
RR120 (g = 0.56) compared to TS100 and TS120, respectively. In
addition, PVD was less during RR120 than TS120 (g = 1.18), while
CRDI was greater during TS100 (g = 0.98) and TS120 (g = 0.89)
compared to RR100 and RR120, respectively. Also, RR protocols
resulted in lower RPE across the sets at all loads (g = 1.11–1.24).
Therefore, RR generally resulted in lower perceptual and mechan-
ical fatigue, evidenced by lower RPE, PVD, CRDI and greater DISP
than TS, and these differences became even more exaggerated as
the barbell load and the number of sets performed increased.

Introduction
It is generally accepted that the expression of muscular power, quantified by measures of
force and velocity, is critical in most sports (Haff & Nimphius, 2012). As a result, athletes
of various sports often implement ballistic exercises, weightlifting movements and
weightlifting derivatives, which are often performed with a variety of loads, aiming to
increase performance throughout the whole force-velocity spectrum (James et al., 2018;
Suchomel et al., 2017, 2015). During various training phases, clean pulls are commonly
used as they still focus on rapid force development of the lower limbs but do not include
the catch phase, allowing for external training loads even greater than the athlete’s full
clean one repetition maximum (1RM) (Suchomel et al., 2017, 2015). Regardless of the
external load, performing many repetitions consecutively (i.e., traditional sets) with
maximal concentric effort is fatiguing, and increasing acute training volume further

CONTACT Ivan Jukic [email protected]

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 I. JUKIC AND J. J. TUFANO

leads to decreases in movement velocity, power output and ultimately vertical barbell
displacement (Ammar et al., 2018; Haff et al., 2003; Hardee, Triplett et al., 2012), all of
which are likely unwarranted when the aim is to elicit power training adaptations.
To combat acute fatigue during resistance training with traditional sets that do not
include intra-set rest intervals, cluster sets that include short intra-set rest intervals have
been shown to be effective in maintaining power, velocity and vertical displacement of
the barbell during weightlifting movements (Haff et al., 2003; Hardee et al., 2013; Hardee,
Triplett et al., 2012). Although these studies, and others, demonstrate the superiority of
cluster sets over traditional sets for maintaining acute performance, the extra rest periods
during cluster sets might not always be feasible from a practical perspective since they
extend the total training time, which is not always possible to do in a real-world training
environment (Haff et al., 2003; Tufano et al., 2016). Thus, redistributing total rest time to
create shorter but more frequent sets has become an interesting strategy for strength and
conditioning professionals to offset fatigue during resistance training without increasing
total training time. However, this approach to set configuration during resistance train-
ing has yet to be examined with weightlifting movements. Therefore, it is important to
elucidate whether the positive effects on mechanical variables previously reported for
cluster set configurations during weightlifting movements could also be observed when
the rest redistribution approach is used.
Another important practical tool to gauge the degree of fatigue during resistance
training is the self-reported rating of perceived exertion (RPE). The modified OMNI scale
for resistance training (Robertson et al., 2003) has been shown to be reliable and
representative of training intensity and the degree of fatigue (Tufano et al., 2019;
Hardee, Lawrence et al., 2012). In addition, it has also been shown to mimic changes
in power output during weightlifting movements, making it a good indicator of acute
fatigue (Hardee, Lawrence et al., 2012). Since lower RPE scores have been associated with
greater power outputs, movement velocity and vertical barbell displacements (Hardee,
Lawrence et al., 2012; Hardee et al., 2013), set structures that result in low RPE scores may
be useful during training that involves weightlifting movements.
Interestingly, a recent study showed that rest redistribution may only be advantageous
compared to traditional sets that are highly fatiguing (Tufano et al., 2018), meaning that
clean pulls performed with different loads may respond differently to rest redistribution.
To our knowledge, only a few studies to date investigated the influence of different set
structures on weightlifting movements (Haff et al., 2003; Hardee et al., 2013; Hardee,
Triplett et al., 2012) all of which used cluster set structures that extend total training time.
For example, Hardee et al. (2013); Hardee et al. (2012) showed greater vertical displace-
ments, velocity and power outputs as well lower RPE scores during 3 sets of 6 repetitions
of power cleans with a catch during cluster set structures with 80% of 1RM. On the other
hand, Haff et al. (2003) demonstrated greater peak velocities and vertical displacements
during cluster sets in clean pull exercise without the catch performed at 90% and 120% of
1RM, but only within a single set. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate
the effects of rest redistribution on changes in peak vertical barbell displacement, con-
centric repetition duration, peak velocity changes, and RPE over multiple repetitions and
multiple sets of the clean pull exercise using different loads in strength-trained men.
Based on previous studies (Hardee, Lawrence et al., 2012; Hardee, Triplett et al., 2012), it
was hypothesised that the protocols containing shorter but more frequent rest periods
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 3

would result in a more stable peak velocity and greater vertical barbell displacements,
while also resulting in lower RPE than traditional sets, especially when lifting heavier
loads.

Methods
Participants
Based on the study by Tufano et al. (2017) who examined the differences in mechanical
variables between traditional and cluster set structures, we conducted a priori power
analysis using the GPower 3.1 software to calculate the minimum sample size required
for a repeated-measures ANOVA using classical frequentist analysis. Based on the effect
sizes for velocity variables obtained in the study by Tufano et al. (2017), and alpha of 0.05
and power of 0.80, the software indicated a minimal sample size of 12 participants.
Therefore, we conservatively recruited fifteen strength-trained men (age 28.8 ± 4.5 y,
body mass 89.1 ± 8.7 kg, power clean 1RM 99.8 ± 10.8 kg, 1RM-to-body-mass ratio
1.13 ± 0.14) who had at least 1 year of resistance training experience using the power
clean and the clean pull. All participants were members of a private strength and
conditioning facility where weightlifting movements were commonplace during training,
which were always supervised by one of the gym’s certified coaches. Participants gave
written informed consent prior to participating. All procedures were approved by the
University of Split Institutional Review Board (018/2019) and carried out in accordance
with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Study design
Participants reported to the laboratory for a 1RM power clean session and six experi-
mental sessions, which occurred in a randomised order, separated by 48 to 72 hours.
These experimental sessions each included the clean pull exercise for one of the following
protocols: 3 traditional sets of 6 repetitions using 80% (TS80), 100% (TS100) and 120%
(TS120) of power clean 1RM with 180 seconds of inter-set rest (2 x 180 = 360 s of total
rest); and 3 ‘rest redistribution’ protocols of 9 sets of 2 repetitions using 80% (RR80),
100% (RR100) and 120% (RR120) of power clean 1RM with 45 seconds of inter-set rest (8
x 45 = 360 s of total rest). Participants were instructed to avoid any type of fatiguing lower
body activity for at least 48 hours before each session. All participants successfully
completed all 18 repetitions in every experimental session.

Repetition-maximum testing: Session 1

During Session 1, participants' height and weight were recorded, and they were famil-
iarised with the protocols and the 0–10 OMNI-RES scale: a resistance training specific
RPE scale (Robertson et al., 2003). After a dynamic warm-up with a special focus on the
hips, shoulders and wrists (8–10 minutes), participants performed 10 barbell front squats
followed by 3, 2, 1 and 1 power clean repetitions at 50%, 70%, 80% and 90% of their
estimated power clean 1RM, respectively. After the estimated 90% repetition, the load
was progressively increased until the 1RM was achieved, with 2 to 3 minutes of rest
4 I. JUKIC AND J. J. TUFANO

between each successful attempt. Proper technique of the power clean was assessed, as
discussed previously (Garhammer, 1984; Winchester et al., 2005), by the research
personnel (certified weightlifting coach). During this visit, each participant’s foot place-
ment was recording using chalk outlines and was then maintained for the remainder of
the study.

Experimental testing: Sessions 2-7

During these sessions, the participants performed the clean pull exercise from the floor
with loads corresponding to their actual power clean 1RM. The warm-up consisted of
the same dynamic warm-up as Session 1, after which the participants performed a set
of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 repetition at 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 90% of the actual load that they
had to perform that day (i.e., 80%, 100% or 120% of their 1RM power clean). Therefore,
the loads during the warm-ups were not identical across sessions but instead were
standardised according to the load that was to be lifted during each respective session.
Participants were instructed to perform the second pull and shrug of the clean pulls
aggressively and as fast as possible (i.e., maximal intended velocity), with strong verbal
encouragement provided throughout all trials. Participants were required to avoid
bouncing the loaded barbell off the floor when transitioning from one repetition to the
next by implementing a 1-second pause with the barbell on the floor, starting each
consecutive repetition with their original starting position. During all repetitions, the
feet were required to maintain contact with the floor (i.e., no jumping), but participants
were instructed to achieve triple extension of the hips, knees and ankles.

Data acquisition and preparation

A linear position transducer (LPT) (GymAware Power Tool, Kinetic Performance
Technologies, Canberra, Australia) was used to measure concentric repetition duration
(CRD), peak velocity (PV), and peak vertical displacement of the barbell (DISP) during
all repetitions. The LPT, which has been previously validated (Banyard et al., 2017;
O’Donnell et al., 2018; Orange et al., 2020), was attached to the right side of the barbell
between the hands and the loaded barbell sleeves, according to the manufacturer’s
instructions. The LPT used in the present study measures the total displacement of its
cable in response to changes in the barbell position and incorporates an angle sensor that
enables motion in the horizontal plane to be accounted for in vertical displacement
measurements. The LPT software later accounts for the total distance and angle, and
using basic trigonometry, provides a resultant vertical displacement (Harris et al., 2010).
Data recorded with LPT were sampled using a level-crossing detection method with
changes in barbell position being time-stamped with a high resolution of 35 microse-
conds, which was downsampled to 50 Hz for analysis with no additional filtering
techniques required (Qaisar et al., 2009). Data obtained from the LPT were transmitted
via Bluetooth to a tablet (iPad, Apple Inc., California, USA) using the GymAware v2.4.1
app, and to the online cloud before being exported to Microsoft Excel (Microsoft
Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA) and prepared for further analysis.
For each protocol, the absolute DISP and CRD were each combined and averaged
across all 18 repetitions. In addition to these protocol averages, the PV, DISP and CRD
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 5

of individual repetitions were each compared relative to each protocol’s best repetition,
resulting in 18 data points for each variable that were relative to the best repetition of
each protocol. From these relative values, the greatest percent change (a decrease for
PV and DISP (PVD and DISPD) and an increase for CRD (CRDI)) were calculated,
similar to previous research (Jukic & Tufano, 2019; Hardee, Triplett et al., 2012), using
the following equation: [(repetitionmin—repetitionmax)/repetitionmax] × 100, where min
and max represent the repetitions where the minimum and maximum value occurred,
respectively, for PV, DISP and CRD. This was done rather than comparing the first and
last repetitions, as the first repetition is not always the best and the last repetition is not
always the worst.
To simplify the statistical analyses, the 1st, 7th and 13th repetitions were collapsed
together, and this process was repeated for the 2nd, 8th and 14th repetitions and so-on,
ultimately creating a single set of six collapsed repetitions (Oliver et al., 2016; Hardee,
Triplett et al., 2012). Lastly, as the number of repetitions per set differed between RR (2
repetitions per set) and TS (6 repetitions per set), RR sets 1 to 3, 4 to 6 and 7 to 9 were
grouped together to create ‘three sets’ for the sake comparing 3 RR sets (although
technically 9 sets total) to 3 TS sets.

Rating of perceived exertion

Familiarisation of the RPE scale took place during Session 1 using low and high anchor-
ing procedures as previously described (Robertson et al., 2003). During sessions, 2–7,
RPE (0 = no effort, 10 = maximal effort) was obtained after the 6th, 12th and 18th
repetitions. Like previous research using weightlifting movements, these three RPE
scores were also averaged together to create an average RPE for each protocol.

Statistical analyses
All data were normally distributed as determined by the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality.
For each load, differences between the entire RR and TS protocols were examined using
separate repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for CRD, DISP, PVD, CRDI,
DISPD and RPE. For each load, differences between RR and TS within the three sets were
examined using separate 2 × 3 (set structure x set) repeated measures ANOVA for PVD
and RPE. For each load, differences between RR and TS within the collapsed repetitions
were then examined using separate 2 × 6 (set structure x repetition) repeated measures
ANOVA for PVD, CRDI and DISPD.
When significant main effects or interactions were obtained, a Holm’s Sequential
Bonferroni follow-up test was performed. Furthermore, Hedge’s g effect sizes with 90%
confidence intervals (90%CI) were used and were interpreted as small (0.20 to 0.49),
moderate (0.50 to 0.79), and large (>0.80) (Cohen, 1988). To avoid an unnecessarily large
number of effect sizes, only moderate and large effects are reported and discussed. An
a-priori level of significance was set at p < 0.05 for all tests. All statistical analyses were
performed using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, United States).

Results
Significant interactions and main effects are described in the text, whereas particular
P values and effect sizes are shown in Table 1, while a representation of CRD and DISP
6 I. JUKIC AND J. J. TUFANO

Table 1. Means ± SDs for peak vertical displacement, concentric repetition duration, peak velocity
decline, peak vertical displacement decline, concentric repetition duration increment, and RPE for all
18 repetitions averaged within each protocol, p (Effect Size (90%CI)).
Load (%1RM) RR TS p (Hedge’s g (90%CI))
DISP (m) 80% 0.91 ± 0.09 0.88 ± 0.07 0.094 (0.30 (−0.31, 0.90))
100% 0.86 ± 0.07a 0.83 ± 0.06 0.008 (0.39 (−0.22, 0.99))
120% 0.79 ± 0.06b† 0.76 ± 0.06 0.0001 (0.56 (−0.05, 1.17))
CRD (s) 80% 0.94 ± 0.07 0.96 ± 0.08 0.169 (−0.32 (−0.93, 0.28))
100% 1.05 ± 0.09 1.07 ± 0.09 0.195 (−0.23 (−0.84, 0.37))
120% 1.2 ± 0.15 1.22 ± 0.18 0.449 (−0.10 (−0.70, 0.50))
PVD (%) 80% 14.57 ± 3.69† 17.78 ± 7.05 0.062 (−0.56 (−1.17, 0.06))
100% 14.1 ± 5.23† 17.32 ± 2.50 0.060 (−0.77 (−1.39, −0.14))
120% 17.52 ± 3.79*†† 24.44 ± 7.13 0.008 (−1.18 (−1.83, −0.53))
DISPD (%) 80% 10.35 ± 3.77 9.63 ± 3.33 0.478 (0.20 (−0.41, 0.80))
100% 9.03 ± 5.06 8.77 ± 2.95 0.835 (0.06 (−0.44, 0.76))
120% 8.49 ± 4.73 10.84 ± 5.34 0.247 (−0.47 (−1.07, 0.15))
CRDI (%) 80% 15.38 ± 8.33 18.05 ± 8.56 0.364 (−0.31 (−0.91, 0.30))
100% 13.44 ± 4.60*†† 19.94 ± 7.84 0.010 (−0.98 (−1.51, −0.25))
120% 13.92 ± 6.59*†† 20.24 ± 7.28 0.003 (−0.89 (−1.56,—0.26))
RPE 80% 2.61 ± 0.80*†† 3.58 ± 0.84 0.001 (−1.15 (−1.80, −0.50))
100% 4.29 ± 1.02**†† 5.64 ± 1.32 0.0001 (−1.11 (−1.76, −0.47))
120% 6.50 ± 1.25**†† 8.04 ± 1.16 0.0001 (−1.24 (−1.90, −0.59))
Abbreviations: RR, rest redistribution protocol; TS, traditional set; DISP, peak vertical displacement; CRD, concentric
repetition duration; PVD, peak velocity decline; DISPD, peak vertical displacement decline; CRDI, concentric repetition
duration increment; RPE, rate of perceived exertion; CI, confidence intervals.
*(p < 0.05); significantly lower than traditional set.
**(p < 0.001); significantly lower than traditional set.
(p < 0.05); significantly greater than traditional set.
(p < 0.001); significantly greater than traditional set
†(g = 0.5–0.79); moderate effect size.
††(g > 0.8); large effect size.

for all repetitions performed during both TS and RR at all loads is illustrated in Figure 2.
At 80% 1RM, RPE was less during RR80 than TS80, but no differences were present for
CRD, DISP, PVD, CRDI, or DISPD (Table 1). At 100% 1RM, DISP was greater during
RR100, and CRDI and RPE were less during RR100 than TS100 (Table 1). At 120% 1RM,
DISP was greater during RR120, and CRDI and RPE were less during RR120 than TS120
(Table 1).

Set-by-set comparisons
At 80% 1RM, there were no set structure x set interactions for PVD (p = 0.081), DISPD
(p = 0.529), CRDI (p = 0.301) or RPE (p = 0.194), but there were significant main effects
of set structure with RR80 resulting in less PVD (p = 0.044) and a lower RPE (p < 0.001)
than TS80, but similar CRDI (p = 0.299) and DISPD (p = 0.188) (Figure 3; Figure 4). At
100% 1RM, there were no set structure x set interactions for PVD (p = 0.137), DISPD
(p = 0.245), CRDI (p = 0.376) or RPE (p = 0.848), but there were significant main effects
of set structure with RR100 resulting in less PVD (p = 0.019), CRDI (p = 0.023) and lower
RPE (p < 0.001) than TS100 whereas DISPD remained similar (p = 0.483) (Figure 3;
Figure 4). At 120% 1RM, there were no set structure x set interactions for PVD
(p = 0.938), DISPD (p = 0.428), CRDI (p = 0.135) or RPE (p = 0.331), but there were
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 7

main effects of set structure with RR120 resulting in less PVD (P < 0.001), CRDI
(p = 0.135), DISPD (p = 0.010) and lower RPE (p < 0.001) than TS120 (Figure 3;
Figure 4).

Repetition-by-repetition comparisons
At 80% 1RM, there were set structure x repetition interactions for PVD (p < 0.001),
DISPD (p = 0.010) and CRDI (p < 0.001), all in favour of RR80 over TS80 (Figure 5).
However, the main effects of set structure were not observed for PVD (p = 0.078), DISPD
(p = 0.798), or CRDI (p = 0.136). At 100% 1RM, there were set structure x repetition
interactions for PVD (p < 0.001), DISPD (p < 0.001) and CRDI (p < 0.001) all in favour of
RR100 over TS100 (Figure 5). Main effects of set structure were not observed for DISPD
(p = 0.962), but main effects of set structure were observed for PVD (p = 0.016) and CRDI
(p = 0.009) with lower values during RR100. At 120% 1RM, significant set structure
x repetition interactions were observed for PVD, CRDI and DISPD (p < 0.001) in favour
of RR120 over TS120 (Figure 5). Main effects of set structure were not observed for
DISPD (p = 0.070), but main effects for set structure were observed for PVD (p < 0.001)
and CRDI (p = 0.002) with lower values during RR120.

Discussion and implication

This study investigated the effects of rest redistribution on mechanical and perceptual
measures of fatigue during clean pulls at different loads. The results demonstrate the
effectiveness of shorter but more frequent rest periods on fatigue management, sup-
ported by lower PVD, CRDI and RPE during clean pulls at different loads. These
differences between RR and TS were even more prominent as the external load increased.
In addition, although DISPD was similar between RR and TS, RR allowed for greater
DISP and lower CRD of the barbell at all loads, which supports the notion of performing
fewer repetitions per set in order to maintain acute resistance training performance.
Considering the performance aspects of weightlifting movements, maintaining
mechanical outputs is important for inducing the proper training stimulus which ulti-
mately leads to improved performance (Haff et al., 2003; Hardee, Triplett et al., 2012). We
observed an interesting inverse relationship between CRD and DISP during TS where
CRD progressively increased from repetition to repetition and DISP progressively
decreased, especially at heavier loads (Figure 1(a)). As CRD and DISP remained fairly
stable across sets at all loads during RR (Figure 1(b)), the data indicate that performing
two repetitions at a time maintains mechanical performance better than performing six
repetitions at a time, even when the total rest time is equal and the inter-set rest periods
are shorter. Previous research has shown that adding extra intra-set rest periods plays
a role in maintaining technique and decreasing fatigue during power cleans (Hardee
et al., 2013) and maintaining mechanical outputs during clean pulls (Haff et al., 2003).
However, the former study included 20 and 40 seconds of extra inter-repetition rest
periods and the latter study did not control total rest time but stated that participants had
an extra 15 to 30 seconds of inter-repetition rest. In either case, it is important to note
that cluster set structures (add extra rest periods) would drastically increase total training
time if performed throughout an entire session, which may not always be warranted or
possible in real-life situations where athletes must complete their resistance training
8 I. JUKIC AND J. J. TUFANO

a)

b)

Figure 1. Schematic view of the experimental design and set structure protocols. Rest redistribution
protocol, 9 sets of 2 clean pulls with 45 seconds of inter-set rest (panel A). Traditional sets protocol, 3
sets of 6 clean pulls with 180 seconds of inter-set rest (panel B).

a)

b)

Figure 2. Means and standard deviations across 18 clean pull repetitions for concentric repetition
duration (open circles) and peak vertical barbell displacement (closed circles) data during rest
redistribution sets (panel A) at 80%, 100% and 120% of power clean 1RM (RR80, RR100, RR120),
and traditional sets (panel B) at 80%, 100% and 120% of power clean 1RM (TS80, TS100, TS120).

sessions under time constraints (Tufano et al., 2016). Therefore, our study is the first to
show that the performance during weightlifting movements can be enhanced using
shorter and more frequent rest periods without increasing total training time: a finding
that was accentuated as the number of repetitions increased at heavier loads (Figure 2;
Figure 4).
Over the last decade, researchers have begun to use volume load (repetitions x load) in
conjunction with DISP to estimate the amount of external work in resistance training
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 9

a)

b)

c)

Figure 3. Means and standard deviations across 3 sets of clean pulls for peak barbell velocity
decrement (panel A), peak vertical barbell displacement decrement (panel B), and concentric repeti-
tion duration increment (panel C) data during rest redistribution sets (closed rectangles) at 80%, 100%
and 120% of power clean 1RM (RR80, RR100, RR120), and traditional sets (open rectangles) at 80%,
100% and 120% of power clean 1RM (TS80, TS100, TS120). * significantly less than TS (p < 0.050); †
moderate effect size (g = 0.50 − 0.79); †† large effect size (g > 0.80).

studies (Carroll et al., 2019; Hornsby et al., 2018). Since participants in the present study
were achieving higher DISP during RR protocols while using the same load as during TS,
it would be logical to state that participants may have performed slightly more work
during RR than during TS protocols. This is interesting, since we also observed an inverse
relationship between DISP and RPE whereby RR allowed for greater DISP and lower RPE
(i.e., a greater DISP with the same external load). A similar finding of increased displace-
ment but lower RPE was also reported by Hardee et al. (2012), Hardee et al. (2013) but
those researchers did not equate total rest time, which suggests that lower perceptual
fatigue in their studies could be attributed to the additional rest period provided.
Therefore, our data show that although total rest time was equal, participants perceived
RR sets as easier than TS even though more work was performed during RR. This finding,
coupled with less PVD during RR at all loads (especially at heavier loads; Figure 2; Figure
4), shows that maintaining movement velocity is possible while RPE is decreased when
10 I. JUKIC AND J. J. TUFANO

Figure 4. Means and standard deviations across 3 sets of clean pulls for a rating of perceived exertion
(RPE) during rest redistribution sets (rectangles with diagonal stripes) at 80%, 100% and 120% of
power clean 1RM (RR80, RR100, RR120), and traditional sets (closed rectangles) at 80%, 100% and
120% of power clean 1RM (TS80, TS100, TS120). * significantly less than TS (p < 0.050); ** significantly
less than TS (p < 0.001); † moderate effect size (g = 0.50 to 0.79); †† large effect size (g > 0.80).

the number of repetitions performed in a row is minimised. Other studies have also
shown that set configurations with fewer repetitions per set result in lower RPE during
resistance training (Jukic & Tufano, 2019; Mayo et al., 2014), indicating that the number
of repetitions performed in sequence is an important factor to consider when aiming to
reduce an athlete’s perceived exertion (Mayo et al., 2014). This might be explained by
a higher phosphocreatine (PCr) depletion which might have occurred during TS struc-
tures, since it is thought that PCr depletion may increase RPE (Lagally et al., 2002) and
also decrease force production capabilities during high-intensity exercise (Bogdanis et al.,
1996). However, these variables were not measured in the present study and should be
addressed in future research.
Although there is no consensus on whether RPE better represents fatigue or
intensity of load, results of the present study show that it might be influenced by
both. For example, significantly higher RPE was observed during TS80 than RR80
although differences in DISPD, PVD and CRDI were not as profound as during
higher loading magnitudes (i.e., 100% and 120% 1RM). This questions the ability of
RPE to represent changes in mechanical performance at lower (farther from failure)
intensities, possibly making it load-dependent, and further supports the influence of
set structure and number of repetitions performed within a set on RPE (Jukic &
Tufano, 2019; Mayo et al., 2014). Despite all the above, RPE was still able to
represent differences in acute performance during higher loads in the present
study, suggesting that RPE can serve as an accurate measure of acute fatigue,
which is quick and easy to use.
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 11

a)

b)

c)

Figure 5. Means and standard deviations for 6 collapsed clean pull repetitions (i.e., the 1st, 7th and
13th repetitions) for peak barbell velocity decrement (panel A), peak vertical barbell displacement
(panel B) and concentric repetition duration increment (panel C) data during rest redistribution sets
(closed circles) at 80%, 100% and 120% of power clean 1RM (RR80, RR100, RR120), and traditional sets
(open circles) at 80%, 100% and 120% of power clean 1RM (TS80, TS100, TS120). * significantly less
than TS (p < 0.050); ** significantly less than TS (p < 0.001); † moderate effect size (g = 0.05 to 0.79); ††
large effect size (g > 0.80).

While not measured in the current study, it can be hypothesised that shorter but
more frequent rest periods may have enabled enhanced clearance of metabolic by-
products and replenishment of phosphagen energy substrates in our study. This
notion is in line with previous studies that collectively suggested that when the
frequency of rest intervals increased, lactate levels and RPE were lower and parti-
cipants better maintained power, ATP stores and PCr stores throughout the exercise
session (García-Ramos et al., 2020; Gorostiaga et al., 2012). In addition, as other
authors have hypothesised the same while studying other exercises (Tufano, Conlon,
Nimphius, Brown, Petkovic et al., 2017; Oliver et al., 2016), we believe that the
increased frequency of rest periods during RR allowed for superior replenishment of
ATP and PCr throughout the entire session, resulting in lower perceptual as well as
mechanical measures of fatigue as evidenced by lower RPE, decrement in movement
velocity and greater barbell displacement than TS.
12 I. JUKIC AND J. J. TUFANO

Conclusion
This study shows that RR protocols might allow for lower perceptual and mechan-
ical fatigue during weightlifting movements, evidenced by lower RPE, PVD, CRDI
and greater DISP than TS in the present study. In addition, these beneficial effects
of RR might be even more exaggerated as the barbell load and number of sets
increase.

Practical applications
This study shows that coaches should strongly consider using rest redistribution during
weightlifting movements, especially at greater loads. Compared to other compound
movements such as back squats and the bench press where the range of motion and
technique is fairly constant regardless of the load or amount of fatigue, weightlifting
movements are highly technical, and traditional sets should be avoided if maximal barbell
velocity and displacement are desired. Lastly, the data in this study show that RPE
mimics the changes in mechanical performance, especially with heavier loads.
Therefore, RPE could be used to monitor acute fatigue during weightlifting movements.
However, caution should be taken with lower (farther from failure) intensities, as RPE
does not seem to be sensitive enough to detect changes in performance.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Ivan Jukic http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0900-9410
James J. Tufano http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8325-0344

References
Ammar, A., Riemann, B. L., Abdelkarim, O., Driss, T., & Hökelmann, A. (2018). Effect of 2-vs.
3-minute interrepetition rest period on maximal clean technique and performance. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002785
Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., Sato, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Validity of various methods for
determining velocity, force, and power in the back squat. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 12, 1170–1176. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0627
Bogdanis, G. C., Nevill, M. E., Boobis, L. H., & Lakomy, H. (1996). Contribution of phosphocrea-
tine and aerobic metabolism to energy supply during repeated sprint exercise. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 80, 876–884. doi:10.1152/jappl.1996.80.3.876
Carroll, K. M., Bernards, J. R., Bazyler, C. D., Taber, C. B., Stuart, C. A., DeWeese, B. H....
Stone, M. H. (2019). Divergent performance outcomes following resistance training using
repetition maximums or relative intensity. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 14, 46–54. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0045
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
García-Ramos, A., González-Hernández, J. M., Baños-Pelegrín, E., Castaño-Zambudio, A.,
Capelo-Ramírez, F., Boullosa, D., ... & Jiménez-Reyes, P. (2020). Mechanical and metabolic
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 13

responses to traditional and cluster set configurations in the bench press exercise. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 34, 663–670. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002301
Garhammer, J. (1984). Power clean: Kinesiological evaluation. Strength and Conditioning Journal,
6, 40.
Gorostiaga, E. M., Navarro-Amézqueta, I., Calbet, J. A., Hellsten, Y., Cusso, R., Guerrero, M., . . .
Izquierdo, M. (2012). Energy metabolism during repeated sets of leg press exercise leading to
failure or not. PLoS One, 7, e40621. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040621
Haff, G., & Nimphius, S. (2012). Training principles for power. Strength and Conditioning Journal,
34, 2–12. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e31826db467
Haff, G., Whitley, A., Mccoy, L. B., O'Bryant,H. S., Kilgore, J. L., Haff, E. E., . . . Stone, M. H. (2003).
Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17, 95–103. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(2003)
017<0095:eodsco>2.0.co;2
Hardee, J. P., Lawrence, M. M., Utter, A. C., Triplett, N. T., Zwetsloot, K. A., & McBride, J. M.
(2012). Effect of inter-repetition rest on ratings of perceived exertion during multiple sets of the
power clean. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112, 3141–3147. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-
2300-x
Hardee, J. P., Lawrence, M. M., Zwetsloot, K. A., Triplett, N. T., Utter, A. C., & McBride, J. M.
(2013). Effect of cluster set configurations on power clean technique. Journal of Sports Sciences,
31, 488–496. doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.736633
Hardee, J. P., Triplett, N. T., Utter, A. C., Zwetsloot, K. A., & Mcbride, J. M. (2012). Effect of
interrepetition rest on power output in the power clean. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 26, 883–889. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182474370
Harris, N. K., Cronin, J., Taylor, K.-L., Boris, J., & Sheppard, J. (2010). Understanding position
transducer technology for strength and conditioning practitioners. Strength and Conditioning
Journal, 32, 66–79. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181eb341b
Hornsby, W., Gentles, J., Comfort, P., Suchomel, T., Mizuguchi, S., & Stone, M. (2018). Resistance
training volume load with and without exercise displacement. Sports, 6, 137. doi:10.3390/
sports6040137
James, L. P., Haff, G. G., Kelly, V. G., Connick, M. J., Hoffman, B. W., & Beckman, E. M. (2018).
The impact of strength level on adaptations to combined weightlifting, plyometric, and ballistic
training. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 28, 1494–1505. doi:10.1111/
sms.13045
Jukic, I., & Tufano, J. J. (2019). Shorter but more frequent rest periods: No effect on velocity and
power compared to traditional sets not performed to failure. Journal of Human Kinetics, 66,
257-268. doi:10.2478/hukin-2018-0070
Lagally, K. M., Robertson, R. J., Gallagher, K. I., Goss, F. L., Jakicic, J. M., Lephart, S. M., . . .
Goodpaster, B. (2002). Perceived exertion, electromyography, and blood lactate during acute
bouts of resistance exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34, 552–559.
doi:10.1097/00005768-200203000-00025
Mayo, X., Iglesias-Soler, E., & Fernández-Del-Olmo, M. (2014). Effects of set configuration of
resistance exercise on perceived exertion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119, 825–837.
doi:10.2466/25.29.PMS.119c30z3
O’Donnell, S., Tavares, F., McMaster, D., Chambers, S., & Driller, M. (2018). The validity and
reliability of the GymAware linear position transducer for measuring counter-movement jump
performance in female athletes. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 22,
101–107. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2017.1399892
Oliver, J. M., Kreutzer, A., Jenke, S. C., Phillips, M. D., Mitchell, J. B., & Jones, M. T. (2016).
Velocity drives greater power observed during back squat using cluster sets. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 30, 235–243. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001023
Orange, S. T., Metcalfe, J. W., Marshall, P., Vince, R. V., Madden, L. A., & Liefeith, A. (2020). Test-
retest reliability of a commercial linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool) to measure
velocity and power in the back squat and bench press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 34, 728–737. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002715
14 I. JUKIC AND J. J. TUFANO

Qaisar, S. M., Fesquet, L., & Renaudin, M. (2009). Adaptive rate sampling and filtering based on
level crossing sampling. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2009, 971656.
doi:10.1155/2009/971656
Robertson, R. J., Goss, F. L., Rutkowski, J., Lenz, B., Dixon, C., Timmer, J., Frazee, K., Dube, J., &
Andreacci, J. (2003). Concurrent validation of the OMNI perceived exertion scale for resistance
exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35, 333–341. doi:10.1249/01.
MSS.0000048831.15016.2A
Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Lake, J. P. (2017). Enhancing the force-velocity profile of athletes
using weightlifting derivatives. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 39, 10–20. doi:10.1519/
SSC.0000000000000275
Suchomel, T. J., Comfort, P., & Stone, M. H. (2015). Weightlifting pulling derivatives: Rationale for
implementation and application. Sports Medicine, 45, 823–839. doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0314-y
Tufano, J. J., Conlon, J. A., Nimphius, S., Brown, L. E., Seitz, L. B., Williamson, B. D., & Haff, G. G.
(2016). Maintenance of velocity and power with cluster sets during high-volume back squats.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 11, 885–892. doi:10.1123/
ijspp.2015-0602
Tufano, J. J., Conlon, J. A., Nimphius, S., Brown, L. E., Banyard, H. G., Williamson, B. D., ... &
Haff, G. G. (2017). Cluster sets: Permitting greater mechanical stress without decreasing relative
velocity. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12, 463–469. doi:10.1123/
ijspp.2015-0738
Tufano, J. J., Conlon, J. A., Nimphius, S., Brown, L. E., Petkovic, A., Frick, J., & Haff, G. (2017).
Effects of cluster sets and rest-redistribution on mechanical responses to back squats in trained
men. Journal of Human Kinetics, 58, 35-43. doi:10.1515/hukin-2017-0069
Tufano, J. J., Halaj, M., Kampmiller, T., Novosad, A., & Buzgo, G. (2018). Cluster sets vs.
traditional sets: Levelling out the playing field using a power-based threshold. PLoS One, 13,
e0208035. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208035
Tufano, J. J., Conlon, J. A., Nimphius, S., Oliver, J. M., Kreutzer, A., & Haff, G. G. (2019). Different
cluster sets result in similar metabolic, endocrine, and perceptual responses in trained men.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33, 346–354. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001898
Winchester, J. B., Erickson, T. M., Blaak, J. B., & McBride, J. M. (2005). Changes in bar-path
kinematics and kinetics after power-clean training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 19, 177. doi:10.1519/14023.1