↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Exercise order affects the total training volume and the ratings of perceived exertion in response to a super-set resistance training session

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Exercise order affects the total training volume and the ratings of perceived exertion in response to a super-set resistance training session
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, February 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s27377
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandor Balsamo, Ramires Alsamir Tibana, Dahan da Cunha Nascimento, Gleyverton Landim de Farias, Zeno Petruccelli, Frederico dos Santos de Santana, Otávio Vanni Martins, Fernando de Aguiar, Guilherme Borges Pereira, Jéssica Cardoso de Souza, Jonato Prestes

Abstract

The super-set is a widely used resistance training method consisting of exercises for agonist and antagonist muscles with limited or no rest interval between them - for example, bench press followed by bent-over rows. In this sense, the aim of the present study was to compare the effects of different super-set exercise sequences on the total training volume. A secondary aim was to evaluate the ratings of perceived exertion and fatigue index in response to different exercise order. On separate testing days, twelve resistance-trained men, aged 23.0 ± 4.3 years, height 174.8 ± 6.75 cm, body mass 77.8 ± 13.27 kg, body fat 12.0% ± 4.7%, were submitted to a super-set method by using two different exercise orders: quadriceps (leg extension) + hamstrings (leg curl) (QH) or hamstrings (leg curl) + quadriceps (leg extension) (HQ). Sessions consisted of three sets with a ten-repetition maximum load with 90 seconds rest between sets. Results revealed that the total training volume was higher for the HQ exercise order (P = 0.02) with lower perceived exertion than the inverse order (P = 0.04). These results suggest that HQ exercise order involving lower limbs may benefit practitioners interested in reaching a higher total training volume with lower ratings of perceived exertion compared with the leg extension plus leg curl order.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 18%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Professor 8 7%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 32 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 56 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2022.
All research outputs
#881,695
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#54
of 1,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,206
of 254,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.