Superset training: a double quick route to strength gains?

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.

Supersets vs. traditional sets

There’s no doubt that performing a strength session using supersets can slash the workout duration by at least 50%, if not more. That makes supersets potentially very attractive for athletes with other time demands. However, the obvious question to ask is whether strength sessions using supersets can deliver the same benefits as traditional sets, or is there a price to pay? It turns out that there’s not a lot of data on this topic. It’s certainly true that conventional set training is a good method of enhancing one-repetition maximum (1RM) and overall muscular strength^(7,8). And research on using supersets for strength training has found that it is particularly effective at improving flexibility and reducing body fat⁽⁹⁾. But when it comes to directly comparing the two, very little research has been carried out. In particular, it would be good to know whether and how the high intensities and metabolic demands generated by supersets are detrimental for gaining high levels of strength?

New research

To try and answer this question, a team of Norwegian scientists has carried out a new research study, which has just been published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research(10). In this study, the researchers compared the effectiveness of supersets versus traditional sets when carrying out full-body, multiple-joint resistance sessions – in particular how maximal strength varied with these two training modes.

The participants in the study were resistance trained and free of injury or any other medical condition that could affect the outcome. Before the intervention itself, all the subjects took part in a 3-week introductory training phase to ensure they were thoroughly familiarized with the resistance training demands of the study. Following this familiarization phase, a series of baseline tests were carried out to assess maximal strength, muscle mass and fat mass. At this point, the participants were randomized to one of two resistance training groups

·        Superset group – all sets and training sessions structured as supersets.

·        Traditional group – all sets and sessions structured in the traditional manner.

Both groups then trained twice per week for ten weeks. The program itself consisted of heavy multiple-joint (ie compound movements rather than isolation movements) resistance training twice per week. The exercises performed in this program were: leg press, bench press, lat pull-down, and seated rows. At the end of the 10-week training program, levels of strength and body composition were reassessed in all the participants, and the results of the two groups were compared.

What they found

When the results from each group were compared, the traditional set structure was clearly superior for upper body strength gains. While both groups experienced gains, the traditional set training group had a significantly higher improvement (an extra 5.2kg) in the lat pull-down exercise than the superset group. In the seated row exercise, the traditional-set group achieved an extra 4.8kg improvement compared to the superset group. Although deemed not quite large enough to be statistically significant, this gain only just fell short of being significant (implying that in a larger study with more participants, this result would have been significant).

When it came to other measures, the strength gains in the leg press and bench press exercises were quite similar for both groups. Meanwhile, neither of the two training methods was superior to the other for improving either lean muscle mass or reducing body fat levels; both training groups experienced increased muscle mass and reduced fat mass but there were no group differences in the extent of the improvements.

Practical implications for athletes

How can you use these findings to develop a more effective and efficient training program? In their summing up, the authors commented that: ‘performing superset training of multi-joint exercises hampered maximal strength gains somewhat compared with traditional-set training’, but also that: ‘there were very similar improvements in body composition, and strength gains were observed for all exercises in the superset group - therefore, whole-body, multiple-joint superset resistance training could be a viable time-saving approach’.

The principle finding therefore is that if you are training for maximum strength and power – for example, if you are a sprint athlete or rugby player – and you have the time to invest, using a traditional approach is going to deliver the best results. Yes, it will require a greater time investment than performing supersets, but being less intense, the upside is that recovery times will be faster.

However, athletes who are looking for good overall strength gains while minimizing time spent in the gym may prefer and benefit from superset training. Yes, the maximum gains in strength may not quite match those achieved by traditional training, but the time savings could be well worth it. This is particularly the case for endurance athletes where maximal strength development is less important than the overall efficiency and injury-prevention benefits that strength training can bring.

Finally, your set structure doesn’t have to be an ‘either-or’ choice. You can mix and match either depending on your goals and circumstances. For example, superset strength training may be preferable during those times in the season when your main training demands are high and time is tight. However, in the winter or off-season, when there’s more time available, a traditional set approach might work better. You can also select different training modes in different workouts to suit your own sport. Swimmers for example might find that a superset approach works just fine for leg training, whereas a traditional set structure is preferred for the upper body pulling exercises (latissimus and upper back muscles), where maximum strength and power are needed for propulsion through the water. The key take-home message is to understand that both strength training modes offer considerable performance benefits – just choose which works best for you at any given time!

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.       J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021 Mar 17;6(1):29

5.       Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006 Oct;31(5):530-40

6.       Sports Med 2021. 51 (10), 2079–2095

7.       PloS One 2019. 14 (12), e0226989

8.       Front. Physiology 2017. 8, 1105. 10.3389/fphys.2017.01105

9.       J. Strength & Cond. Res 2014. 28 (10), 2909–2918

10.     J Strength Cond Res. 2024 Aug 1;38(8):1372-1378. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004819