close
LOGINYou are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles. For unlimited access take a risk-free trial
Compound, pyramid or supersets for strength?
Which set structure during strength training delivers the best sports performance benefits? SPB looks at new research
As regular SPB subscribers will know, a great deal of evidence has accumulated in recent years demonstrating the benefits of strength training for athletes – not just strength and power athletes, but endurance athletes too, such as those competing in distance running and cycling events(1-3). The traditional view of strength training in endurance sport is that it helps by improving resilience and reducing injury risk, which is certainly true enough(4).
However, it has also become increasingly apparent that heavy strength training can benefit muscle economy(5). In short, this means that muscles become more efficient at converting chemical energy into motion, which in turn means that less energy and oxygen is required to sustain a given pace, resulting in less fatigue, especially in longer duration events. The benefit of improved muscle economy cannot be overstated in endurance sports because research shows that excellent economy is a key factor for the superior performance of elite distance athletes(6).
The right balance
The challenge for athletes in training however is how to add strength training to an existing program in a manner that is effective but without being overly demanding in terms of time or effort. After all, what’s the point in getting stronger if you’re too tired or short of time to complete your main (sports-specific) training?
One way round this conundrum is to strength train in a brief but intense manner; brief in order not to impose excessive time demands while allowing plenty of recovery, yet intensely enough to produce a meaningful and beneficial muscle stimulus. This combination can be achieved by ensuring that any strength training performed is ‘high-quality’. High quality training, which stresses the muscle fibres sufficiently, will produce a good training stimulus, even if training duration is brief. This stimulus will in turn will result in muscle and strength gains. By contrast, no amount of low quality training will produce muscle and strength gains because it simply won’t overload the muscle tissues adequately to cause a training adaptation. As an analogy, think of a coconut shy at the fairground. You could throw hundreds of marbles, but no amount of direct hits on the coconut will dislodge it. Yet one accurately aimed brick would very quickly produce the powerful stimulus you want and dislodge that coconut from its perch!
The brick of intensity
Although it’s a simple word, intensity as a concept when applied to strength training is sometimes hard to grasp, especially for more novice strength trainers. Generating intensity during a strength-training session is most definitely not about running round the gym like a headless chicken throwing the weights about with poor form. What it is about is making muscles perform a greater volume of hard work per unit of time(7). Athletes who have ever had to cram a normal workout into shorter time period because of time pressure frequently remark how much they ‘felt’ the effects the next day. The reason is simple; in an effort to fit all the exercises in a shorter than normal time period, they unwittingly generated increased intensity!
Supersets and intensity
The most common mode of resistance training is to employ a traditional ‘muscle group by muscle group’ approach. One sub-category of this mode is known as compound training, where muscle groups are trained in succession –but where a primary exercise is selected as the ‘core’ exercise and supplemented with related assistance exercises. An example would be the use of squats as the primary lower body exercise to develop leg strength, which could then be complemented by calf raises and hip extensions(8). The benefit of using compound strength training is that it’s simple to apply and tends to ensure there’s ample time for inter-set recovery, making it a good starting point for novice strength trainers. The downside however is that as well as being somewhat more time consuming, compound training makes it harder to generate ‘intensity shocks’, which are sometimes needed to move on from a training plateau.
There are however, there are many other approaches that can generate good intensity. In a fairly recent SPB article, we looked at the concept of generating intensity in a strength session by employing a ‘superset’ structure. Supersets commonly take advantage of the muscle agonist/antagonist principle by working pairs of muscles with opposite actions (eg hamstrings/quadriceps, biceps/triceps, chest/upper back etc) back to back, without pausing in between(9). However, they can also be used to hit the same muscle group from different angles using two exercises. Regardless, supersets effectively eliminate the ‘dead time’ in between sets - which occurs when muscles are worked consecutively with multiple sets of different exercises (see figure 1). The advantage of supersets is that they can generate very high intensities. However, that can also be a downside since supersets also generate high levels of fatigue and metabolic stress, which entails longer periods of post-workout recovery.
Figure 1: Superset vs. traditional set structure
In supersets, no or minimal rest is taken in between agonist exercise A and antagonist exercise B, thereby shortening the workout duration and increasing intensity. Supersets can even be condensed into a giant set by repeating the A/B sequence without rest – ie immediately following exercise B by exercise A again.
Another method of structuring a strength workout to generate high levels of intensity for better training adaptations is by the use of ‘pyramids’. Pyramid training involves alternating between lighter and heavier intensities, for example using a repetition scheme of 3-5-7-5-3, gradually increasing and subsequently decreasing the training load – or simply using the same number of reps per set but increasing the load to a peak then decreasing it(10). The benefit of a pyramid approach is that like supersets, it is time efficient. However, like supersets also, pyramids can be tiring and impose a high metabolic load on those who are unaccustomed to this training mode.
Is there a preferred route to conditioning?
As we can see from the above, all three modes of strength training – compound, pyramids and supersets – have been researched and found to deliver benefits for athletic performance. For example, studies have found that compound training can enhance one-repetition maximum (1RM) and overall muscular strength(11,12). Likewise, pyramid training seems to be especially effective at improving isometric (fixed position) muscular power(13), while superset training seems to be effective at improving flexibility and reduce body fat percentage(14). But how do these strength-training modes stack up when directly compared against each other? That’s a difficult question to answer because to date, there’s been no study that has tried to answer this question.
New research
Fortunately, new research by a team of Chinese, Korean and Malaysian researchers has provided some valuable insight into which mode of strength training might be preferable, and when(15). Just published in the journal ‘Frontiers in Physiology’, this study investigated the effects of using compound, pyramid and superset strength training on a number of performance markers such as body composition (% lean muscle and body fat), maximal strength (assessed by one-repetition maximum - 1RM), isokinetic strength (strength at a predetermined joint velocity) of the shoulder and knee joints, and the biomechanical properties of core muscles.
Forty male participants aged 18–30 years were recruited for the study, which consisted of an 8-week intervention. All the men had a minimum of six months’ prior experience in resistance training and none had any current or recent musculoskeletal injuries (that could impact their ability to train). The participants were randomly assigned to one of resistance training four groups, each group having ten participants. These were:
· Compound Set Group
· Pyramid Set Group
· Superset Group
· Control Group (traditional weight training structure)
What they did
The 8-week intervention comprised of three sessions per week, incorporating compound sets, pyramid sets, or superset routines depending on the group. The initial three weeks served as an intensity adaptation phase, with training intensities individualized based on each participant’s 1RM test results. Each training session followed a structured protocol. This started with a warm up using dynamic stretching; running at 50%–70% of maximum heart rate for 10 minutes to elevate heart rate and prepare the body for resistance training. The actual resistance training varied from group to group in the following way:
· Compound sets: Two exercises targeting the same muscle group performed consecutively, with a 1-min rest interval between sets.
· Pyramid sets: Traditional pyramid-style training, with progressive increments in weight and decrements in repetitions across sets.
· Supersets: Two or more exercises targeting muscle group performed consecutively, without rest intervals.
The same exercises were used in all three protocols. These were: bench press; incline push-up; under-grip lat pull down; cable row; dumbbell shoulder press; side lateral raise; squats; leg press; lunge; leg extension; stiff deadlift; leg curl; bent over lateral raise. The precise program, including sets, loading and progression can be seen in this table. At the end of the resistance stretching, five minutes of static stretching was carried out as a warm down.
In terms of the overall structure of these four training modes, these were as follows:
· Control Group: Performed traditional straight sets with three sets of eight to twelve repetitions at 60%–70% of 1RM for all exercises.
· Compound Set Group: Weeks 1–3: Three sets of eight to twelve repetitions at 60%–70% 1RM. Weeks 4–6: Three sets of six to eight repetitions at 70% 1RM. Weeks 7–8: Three sets of four to six repetitions at 80% 1RM. One-minute rest between compound sets.
· Pyramid Set Group: Day 1: One set at 60% 1RM, one set at 70% 1RM, one set at 80% 1RM. Day 2: One set at 80% 1RM, one set at 70% 1RM, one set at 60% 1RM. Ninety-second rest between pyramid sets.
· Superset Group: Weeks 1–3: Three sets of eight to twelve repetitions at 60-70% 1RM. Weeks 4–6: Three sets of six to eight repetitions at 70% 1RM. Weeks 7–8: Three sets of four to six repetitions at 80% 1RM. No rest between superset exercises.
What they measured
Before and after the 8-week intervention, a wide range of physiological and performance-related tests were carried out to see which mode of strength training had produced the greatest benefits. These tests were as follows:
· Body composition (lean muscle mass and body fat percentage).
· Flexibility (of the hamstring muscles).
· Muscle strength (grip and back strength).
· Forty metre sprint times.
· Agility measured using the Illinois agility test.
· Standing long jump performance (to measure explosive strength).
· One repetition maximum (1RM) for bench press, deadlift, and squat exercises.
· Maximum force generation at the shoulder and knee joint at a constant (isokinetic) velocity.
· The biomechanical performance of the trunk muscles.
What they found
When the before-after measurements were compared between the four groups, the following findings emerged:
1. Compared to the control group (traditional weight training program), there were no statistically significant differences in any of the body composition indicators (weight, skeletal muscle mass, fat mass, body mass index, body fat percentage). Interestingly, this contradicts previous research on pyramid set weight training, which showed that it was more effective than other methods for decreasing in body fat percentage(16).
2. There were small improvements in abdominal strength and 40-m sprint capability in the compound, pyramid and superset training groups compared to the control group, but these improvements were not large enough to be considered statistically significant.
3. Compared to the control group, one-repetition strength maximums for bench press, deadlift, and squats improved to a greater extent in the compound, pyramid and superset training groups, with all these three methods being equally effective as each other.
4. The gains in isokinetic muscle function at the shoulder and knee joint were significantly larger in the pyramid set group compared to the control group. Whilst there were also gains in the compound and superset groups, they were not sufficiently large to be considered superior to those of the control group.
Practical implications for athletes
The above findings are interesting because along with the more normal outcomes (gains in muscle mass, size or strength), the researchers looked at outcomes directly relevant to athletic performance and injury prevention such as flexibility, sprint speed, body composition, back strength etc. Taking the findings in the round, the traditional (control) approach to resistance training produced less gains overall than the other three approaches. This implies that athletes with an existing strength training background are better off using a compound, pyramid or superset structure than sticking with the traditional approach. By doing this, you can expect greater absolute strength gains and most likely, greater gains in short sprint and abdominal strength capacity too.
Of the three non-traditional structures (compound, pyramid and superset), it was the pyramid structure that stood head and shoulders above supersets and pyramids in terms of isokinetic muscle function and core muscle strength. The implication here is that if your sport involves high amounts of force production against a resistive medium such as water combined with good core strength, structuring your strength workouts as pyramid sets could give you a distinct advantage. Examples of athletes who are likely to benefits are swimmers, rowers, kayakers.
Finally, it’s worth emphasizing that those who are strength novices should not feel compelled to use more sophisticated set structures for their workouts. There are dozens and dozens of studies showing that even the most basic strength routine can yield benefits in those who are unaccustomed to strength training. The message therefore is that whatever your sport or experience level, some strength training of any kind is much than none at all!
References
1. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2014. 24, 603–612
2. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform 2016. 11, 283–289
3. Sports Med 2018. Auckl. NZ 48, 1117–1149
4. Br J Sports Med. 2018 Dec;52(24):1557-15
5. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021 Mar 17;6(1):29
6. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006 Oct;31(5):530-40
7. J Neurophysiol. 2018 Dec 1;120(6):2868-2876
8. ‘Essentials of strength training and conditioning’. 4. NSCA -National Strength & Conditioning Association; 2016
9. Sports Med 2021. 51 (10), 2079–2095
10. Int. J. Sports Physiology Perform 2020. 16 (2), 243–249
11. PloS One 2019. 14 (12), e0226989
12. Front. Physiology 2017. 8, 1105. 10.3389/fphys.2017.01105
13. Physiological Reports 2015. 3 (8), e12472
14. J. Strength & Cond. Res 2014. 28 (10), 2909–2918
15. Front Physiol. 2024; 15: 1424216
16. Turkish J. Kinesiol 2021. 7 (4), 123–131. 10.31459/turkjkin.1008780
Andrew Hamilton
Latest Issue
Subscribe Today
Newsletter Sign Up
Testimonials
Dr. Alexandra Fandetti-Robin, Back & Body Chiropractic
Elspeth Cowell MSCh DpodM SRCh HCPC reg
William Hunter, Nuffield Health
Subscribe Today
Newsletter Sign Up
Coaches Testimonials
Dr. Alexandra Fandetti-Robin, Back & Body Chiropractic
Elspeth Cowell MSCh DpodM SRCh HCPC reg
William Hunter, Nuffield Health
Subscribe Today
Latest Issue
Keep up with latest sports science research and apply it to maximize performance
Today you have the chance to join a group of athletes, and sports coaches/trainers who all have something special in common...
They use the latest research to improve performance for themselves and their clients - both athletes and sports teams - with help from global specialists in the fields of sports science, sports medicine and sports psychology.
They do this by reading Sports Performance Bulletin, an easy-to-digest but serious-minded journal dedicated to high performance sports. SPB offers a wealth of information and insight into the latest research, in an easily-accessible and understood format, along with a wealth of practical recommendations.
*includes 3 coaching manuals
Get Inspired
All the latest techniques and approaches
Sports Performance Bulletin helps dedicated endurance athletes improve their performance. Sense-checking the latest sports science research, and sourcing evidence and case studies to support findings, Sports Performance Bulletin turns proven insights into easily digestible practical advice. Supporting athletes, coaches and professionals who wish to ensure their guidance and programmes are kept right up to date and based on credible science.
