Compound Supersets versus Traditional Strength Training: Muscle Adaptations, Body Composition, and Recovery in Young Women

Compound supersets (CS) are a method of resistance training (RT) in which pairs of exercises are performed by the same muscle group with minimal rest between the paired exercises. It is unknown if a training program of CS offers any advantages above traditional strength (TS) RT. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of a twelve week lower body CS RT program on muscle strength (MS), muscle endurance (ME), hypertrophy, body composition (BC), workout efficiency and recovery as compared to a lower body TS RT program. METHODS: 31 untrained women (21±2 yrs) were randomly placed into three groups: control (C), TS, or CS training. All subjects were pre- and post-tested for vastus lateralis thickness (in cm) and cross-sectional area (CSA in cm2) via ultrasound (US), BC via skinfolds (SF) and air displacement plethysmography (ADP), one-repetition maximum (1RM), and ME (60% of 1RM REPS). 1RM and ME were determined for squats (SQ) and leg press (LP). The CS and TS groups performed SQ and LP at matched intensities, volumes and cumulative rest time per session. The CS group squatted, followed immediately by the LP for the prescribed intensity, volume and rest periods (RP) between sets. The TS group performed the prescribed intensity, volume and RPs of squats first, rested 1min, then completed the prescribed intensity, volume and RPs of LP. C group did not train. Comparisons of thickness, CSA, BC, 1RM, and ME were made using repeated measures mixed model ANOVAs and Tukey's HSD post-hoc. Workout time per session (one-way ANOVA) and post-workout soreness (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA by ranks) were compared for each group. RESULTS: Thickness increased in training groups (TGs) (TS 1.87±0.23 pre, 2.16±0.22 post; CS 1.99±0.21 pre, 2.10±0.23 post, p<0.05) but TS significantly differed pre vs. post. CSA increased significantly in TGs (TS 3.15±0.53 pre, 3.8±0.65 post; CS 3.08±0.59 pre, 3.76±0.49 post, p<0.05). SF of TS significantly improved (30.4±6.8 pre, 26±4.2 post, p<0.05). TGs significantly increased 1RM and ME on LP and SQ, but CS differed significantly from C post 1RM on squat (CS 81±11, C 53±14.7, p<0.05) and post ME on LP (CS 110.3±51, C 43.1±24, p<0.05). weight lifted/time for CS was superior. CONCLUSION: CS training is a more time efficient method of RT that elicits gains similar to or above TS RT in young women.