Effects of Varying Antagonist Exercise Volume in Upper-Body Supersets on Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Responses in Resistance-Trained Men
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Márquez, Gonzalo; Coutado-Sánchez, Etham; Villaraviz-Ferro, Adrián; Marcos-Frutos, Daniel; García Ramos, Amador; Colomer-Poveda, DavidEditorial
MDPI
Materia
Velocity-based training Strength training Neuromuscular fatigue
Fecha
2025-10-23Referencia bibliográfica
Márquez, G.; CoutadoSánchez, E.; Villaraviz-Ferro, A.; Marcos-Frutos, D.; García-Ramos, A.; Colomer-Poveda, D. Effects of Varying Antagonist Exercise Volume in UpperBody Supersets on Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Responses in Resistance-Trained Men. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2025, 10, 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10040419
Resumen
Objectives: This study aimed to analyze the effects of varying antagonist volume in upperbody supersets on mechanical (lifting velocity), metabolic (blood lactate), and perceptual
(perceived exertion) variables. Methods: A randomized crossover study was conducted
in which 14 resistance-trained men performed three strength training conditions. In the
control condition (CTR), participants performed four sets of bench press with 8 repetitions
at their 12-repetition maximum load, whereas in the experimental conditions, a prone
bench pull was performed immediately after the bench press using 33% (SS1) or 66% (SS2)
of the individual’s maximum possible repetitions. Lifting velocity, lactate concentration,
and perceived exertion were measured. Repeated-measures ANOVA or Friedman test was
applied to compare conditions, with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests and effect sizes
reported. Results: Despite a progressive decrease in mean set velocity (p < 0.001) and
fastest set velocity across sets (p = 0.014) in the agonist exercise (i.e., bench press), these
variables did not significantly differ between conditions. The only difference observed
was a lower mean set velocity during the prone bench pull in the SS2 condition compared
to the SS1 condition (p = 0.011). Perceived exertion also increased across sets (p < 0.001),
with no differences between protocols. Blood lactate concentration, measured before the
final set, was significantly higher in SS2 compared to CTR (p = 0.003) and SS1 (p < 0.001),
indicating a greater metabolic load during training. Conclusions: Agonist–antagonist
supersets allow for reduced training time without negatively impacting acute mechanical
performance in the agonist exercise. Low-fatigue configurations (SS1) in the secondary
exercise do not significantly increase lactate levels, while moderate-fatigue configurations
(SS2) in the secondary exercise increase metabolic load.





