Hypertrophy
Randomized Controlled Trial
2019
Effects of supersets versus traditional strength training on physical performance
By Yuri de Almeida Costa Campos and Jeferson Macedo Vianna
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 18(1), pp. 73-79
<h2>Abstract</h2>
<p><a href="/terms/superset/" class="term-link" data-slug="superset" title="Supersets">Supersets</a> — the sequential performance of two exercises targeting different muscle groups with minimal or no rest between them — represent one of the most widely employed time-efficiency strategies in resistance training. Campos and Vianna (2019) conducted a <a href="/terms/randomized-controlled-trial/" class="term-link" data-slug="randomized-controlled-trial" title="randomized controlled trial">randomized controlled trial</a> comparing the effects of agonist-antagonist paired sets (AAPS) against traditional straight sets on maximal strength, <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a>, and training session duration in resistance-trained men. Thirty participants were randomized to either a superset or traditional training condition over 12 weeks, performing equivalent total exercise volume for the upper body using bench press paired with barbell row, and biceps curl paired with triceps extension. Results demonstrated that both conditions produced statistically equivalent gains in maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy across all measured muscle groups. Critically, the superset condition completed the same <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> in 40% less time compared to traditional sets, with session durations of approximately 28 minutes versus 47 minutes. Metabolic responses, measured via blood lactate concentration and perceived exertion, were significantly higher in the superset condition. These findings position antagonist superset training as a time-efficient and equally effective alternative to traditional training for individuals with time constraints who maintain hypertrophy and strength as their training goals.</p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The challenge of maintaining consistent resistance training in the context of modern time constraints is one of the most pressing issues in exercise science and public health. While the physiological benefits of resistance training for <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="hypertrophy">hypertrophy</a>, strength, metabolic health, and longevity are robustly documented [1], many individuals fail to meet recommended training volumes due to inadequate time rather than insufficient motivation. <a href="/terms/superset/" class="term-link" data-slug="superset" title="Supersets">Supersets</a> — pairing two exercises for different muscle groups and performing them back-to-back with minimal rest — have emerged as a practical strategy for compressing <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> into shorter sessions.</p>
<p>The theoretical basis for antagonist superset effectiveness rests on a physiological principle known as post-activation potentiation (PAP) at the muscular level, and the functional independence of agonist-antagonist muscle pairs at the systemic level [2]. When one muscle group is exercised, the opposing (antagonist) muscle group is mechanically passive. This functional independence means that while, for example, the pectorals are recovering from a set of bench press, the latissimus dorsi can perform a rowing movement without significant cumulative fatigue between the two exercises. The <a href="/terms/inter-set-rest-interval/" class="term-link" data-slug="inter-set-rest-interval" title="rest period">rest period</a> for each muscle group is approximately doubled compared to traditional straight sets, because each muscle rests while the other is working.</p>
<p>Several variants of superset training exist, each with different physiological and practical characteristics:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Agonist-Antagonist Paired Sets (AAPS):</strong> The most commonly studied format — opposing muscle groups trained back-to-back (chest-back, biceps-triceps, quadriceps-hamstrings).</li>
<li><strong>Compound supersets:</strong> Two exercises targeting the same muscle group (potentially increasing hypertrophic stimulus at the cost of greater fatigue accumulation).</li>
<li><strong>Pre-exhaustion supersets:</strong> An <a href="/terms/isolation-exercise/" class="term-link" data-slug="isolation-exercise" title="isolation exercise">isolation exercise</a> performed before a <a href="/terms/compound-exercise/" class="term-link" data-slug="compound-exercise" title="compound movement">compound movement</a> targeting the same muscle — a contested strategy examined separately in the literature.</li>
</ul>
<p>The study by Campos and Vianna (2019) specifically examined AAPS, comparing this format against traditional straight sets over a 12-week intervention in resistance-trained men, measuring both performance outcomes and training efficiency [3].</p>
<h2>Methods</h2>
<h3>Study Design and Participants</h3>
<p>The study employed a <a href="/terms/squat-depth/" class="term-link" data-slug="squat-depth" title="parallel">parallel</a>-group <a href="/terms/randomized-controlled-trial/" class="term-link" data-slug="randomized-controlled-trial" title="randomized controlled trial">randomized controlled trial</a> design. Thirty resistance-trained men (age 24 ± 4 years, training experience ≥ 12 months) were recruited and randomly allocated to one of two conditions:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong><a href="/terms/superset/" class="term-link" data-slug="superset" title="Superset">Superset</a> group (SS):</strong> Performed agonist-antagonist paired sets with 90 seconds of rest between each paired set.</li>
<li><strong>Traditional group (TRD):</strong> Performed straight sets with 90 seconds of rest between each individual set.</li>
</ol>
<p>Participants were excluded <a href="/terms/intermittent-fasting/" class="term-link" data-slug="intermittent-fasting" title="if">if</a> they had any musculoskeletal injury, were currently using anabolic-androgenic steroids, or had changed their dietary habits or supplementation in the preceding 3 months. Dietary protein intake was monitored via 3-day food diaries and kept comparable between groups throughout the study (≥ 1.5 g/kg/day).</p>
<h3>Training Protocol</h3>
<p>Both groups trained three days per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) for 12 weeks on an upper-body focused program. Total volume (sets × reps × load) was equated between conditions. The following exercise pairings were used in the superset condition:</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Superset Pairing</th>
<th>Agonist</th>
<th>Antagonist</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Pair 1</td>
<td>Barbell Bench Press</td>
<td>Barbell Bent-Over Row</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pair 2</td>
<td>Biceps Curl (barbell)</td>
<td>Triceps Pushdown (cable)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>In the traditional group, each of these exercises was performed as individual straight sets. Both groups performed 4 sets of 8-12 repetitions per exercise at 70-80% of assessed <a href="/terms/one-repetition-maximum/" class="term-link" data-slug="one-repetition-maximum" title="1RM">1RM</a>, with loads adjusted to maintain the rep range as strength improved across the 12-week period [4].</p>
<h3>Outcome Measures</h3>
<p><strong>Primary outcomes:</strong>
- Maximal strength: 1RM bench press and 1RM barbell row (assessed at baseline, week 6, and week 12)
- <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="Muscle hypertrophy">Muscle hypertrophy</a>: Muscle <a href="/terms/cross-sectional-area/" class="term-link" data-slug="cross-sectional-area" title="cross-sectional area">cross-sectional area</a> via B-mode ultrasound at the pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi</p>
<p><strong>Secondary outcomes:</strong>
- Session duration: Total time from first exercise initiation to completion of last set
- Blood lactate concentration: Sampled at 5 minutes post-session at weeks 4, 8, and 12
- Rating of perceived exertion (<a href="/terms/rate-of-perceived-exertion/" class="term-link" data-slug="rate-of-perceived-exertion" title="RPE">RPE</a>): Session RPE recorded immediately post-session using the Borg CR10 scale</p>
<h3>Statistical Analysis</h3>
<p>Between-group differences in primary outcomes were assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline values as covariates. Within-group changes over time were evaluated using paired-sample t-tests. Effect sizes (<a href="/terms/effect-size/" class="term-link" data-slug="effect-size" title="Cohen's d">Cohen's d</a>) were calculated for all between-group comparisons. The significance threshold was set at p 0.05 [5].</p>
<h2>Results and Discussion</h2>
<h3>Strength Outcomes</h3>
<p>Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in maximal bench press and barbell row <a href="/terms/one-repetition-maximum/" class="term-link" data-slug="one-repetition-maximum" title="1RM">1RM</a> over the 12-week intervention. The <a href="/terms/superset/" class="term-link" data-slug="superset" title="superset">superset</a> group increased bench press 1RM by 13.2 ± 4.8% and barbell row 1RM by 14.1 ± 5.2%, while the traditional group increased by 12.6 ± 4.1% and 13.8 ± 4.9%, respectively. Between-group differences were not statistically significant for either measure (p = 0.71 for bench press; p = 0.84 for row), with small effect sizes (<a href="/terms/effect-size/" class="term-link" data-slug="effect-size" title="Cohen's d">Cohen's d</a> 0.2) indicating negligible practical difference [6]. These findings replicate and extend earlier work demonstrating equivalent strength adaptations between superset and traditional set formats when total <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> is equated.</p>
<h3><a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="Hypertrophy">Hypertrophy</a> Outcomes</h3>
<p>Ultrasound-measured <a href="/terms/cross-sectional-area/" class="term-link" data-slug="cross-sectional-area" title="cross-sectional area">cross-sectional area</a> of the pectoralis major increased by 8.7 ± 3.2% in the superset group versus 8.3 ± 2.9% in the traditional group (p = 0.61). Latissimus dorsi cross-sectional area increased comparably across both conditions (7.9% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.77). These data confirm that agonist-antagonist superset training is equally hypertrophic compared to traditional training when session volume is held constant. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed at the 6-week midpoint assessment, suggesting that the rate of hypertrophic adaptation was similarly paced across conditions.</p>
<h3>Training Session Duration</h3>
<p>The most pronounced between-group difference was session duration. The superset condition completed the identical training volume in 28.1 ± 3.2 minutes, compared to 47.3 ± 4.8 minutes for the traditional condition — a 40.6% reduction in session time [7]. This finding has substantial practical implications: it demonstrates that equivalent muscular adaptations are achievable in dramatically less time through strategic exercise pairing, without compromising the quality or magnitude of training stimuli received by individual muscle groups.</p>
<h3>Metabolic Responses</h3>
<p>Blood lactate at 5 minutes post-session was significantly higher in the superset group at all measured time points (mean 6.8 vs. 4.2 mmol/L across assessments; p 0.01). Session <a href="/terms/rate-of-perceived-exertion/" class="term-link" data-slug="rate-of-perceived-exertion" title="RPE">RPE</a> was similarly elevated in the superset condition (7.2 vs. 5.9 on CR10 scale; p 0.01). These findings indicate that while objective strength and hypertrophy outcomes were equivalent, the superset condition imposed a higher metabolic demand per unit time — an expected consequence of the compressed rest structure. The elevated metabolic demand did not, however, translate into performance decrements, as both strength and hypertrophy gains were preserved.</p>
<h3>Discussion: Reconciling Efficiency with Efficacy</h3>
<p>The central finding — equivalent outcomes in dramatically less time — challenges the implicit assumption that longer sessions are inherently more productive. Rather, the data suggest that for upper-body training in resistance-trained men, the limiting factor for hypertrophy and strength is the total mechanical stimulus delivered to each muscle group, not the absolute session duration. The superset format preserves per-muscle-group recovery (each muscle rests while the other works) while compressing the overall session timeline [8].</p>
<p>The elevated metabolic response in the superset condition is consistent with greater cardiovascular demand, which may provide ancillary aerobic conditioning benefits alongside the resistance training stimulus. Whether this metabolic elevation constitutes an advantage or disadvantage depends on the trainee's goals: for fat loss or cardiovascular fitness alongside hypertrophy, it may be beneficial; for pure strength maximization or in the context of high-volume training where excessive fatigue accumulation is counterproductive, it warrants consideration.</p>
<h2>Practical Applications</h2>
<h3>Ideal Use Cases for Antagonist <a href="/terms/superset/" class="term-link" data-slug="superset" title="Supersets">Supersets</a></h3>
<p>The evidence from this study and related literature supports incorporating antagonist paired sets in the following contexts:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Time-constrained training sessions:</strong> When less than 45 minutes is available, antagonist supersets allow completion of a full upper-body session without compromising hypertrophic or strength outcomes.</li>
<li><strong>High-frequency training programs:</strong> Supersets are compatible with <a href="/terms/training-frequency/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-frequency" title="training frequency">training frequency</a> of 4-6 days per week by preserving session intensity while reducing accumulated daily fatigue.</li>
<li><strong>Body composition goals:</strong> The elevated metabolic response of superset training may provide modest additional caloric expenditure alongside muscle-building benefits.</li>
<li><strong>Gym environments with equipment limitations:</strong> Superset pairing reduces the number of pieces of equipment required per session (alternating between two stations) and may be more compatible with crowded gym conditions.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Recommended Superset Pairings</h3>
<p>Based on agonist-antagonist principles, the following pairings are well-supported and practically convenient:</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Agonist Exercise</th>
<th>Antagonist Pairing</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Barbell Bench Press</td>
<td>Barbell Bent-Over Row</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Incline Dumbbell Press</td>
<td>Cable Row or Seated Row</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Overhead Press</td>
<td>Lat Pulldown or Pull-Up</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Biceps Curl</td>
<td>Triceps Pushdown or Skull Crusher</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Leg Extension</td>
<td>Leg Curl (seated or prone)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Romanian Deadlift</td>
<td>Leg Press</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3><a href="/terms/inter-set-rest-interval/" class="term-link" data-slug="inter-set-rest-interval" title="Rest Interval">Rest Interval</a> Guidance</h3>
<p>The study employed 90 seconds of rest between each paired set (i.e., after completing both exercises of the pair). For <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="hypertrophy">hypertrophy</a> goals, this duration aligns with evidence on inter-set rest for hypertrophy [9]. For strength-focused goals, increasing rest to 120-180 seconds between pairs may better preserve force production capacity, at the cost of some session duration advantage.</p>
<p>A practical structure for one superset pairing at a given rest interval:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Exercise A → Exercise B → Rest (90-120 sec) → Exercise A → Exercise B → ...</p>
</blockquote>
<h3>Load Management in Supersets</h3>
<p>Trainees may initially find their performance on the second exercise of a superset slightly compromised compared to performing it fresh. This is particularly true for adjacent muscle groups with some overlap in function (e.g., chest and shoulder presses). Starting supersets with loads 5-10% lower than traditional set loads and progressing over 2-4 weeks as the neuromuscular system adapts to the paired structure is recommended.</p>
<p>For compound exercises such as bench press and barbell row, ensure technical proficiency is maintained under the accumulated fatigue of the superset structure — session <a href="/terms/rate-of-perceived-exertion/" class="term-link" data-slug="rate-of-perceived-exertion" title="RPE">RPE</a> will be higher than for traditional sets, and technical breakdown under fatigue is a common early challenge.</p>
<h3>Limitations and Generalization</h3>
<p>This study examined upper-body, agonist-antagonist supersets in resistance-trained men. Generalization to lower-body supersets, <a href="/terms/compound-exercise/" class="term-link" data-slug="compound-exercise" title="compound exercise">compound exercise</a> supersets within the same muscle group, or populations with different training backgrounds requires caution. Additionally, very high-volume programs targeting maximal hypertrophy may benefit from longer inter-set rest periods than supersets allow, making traditional sets the more appropriate structure in such contexts [10].</p>