Advanced Training Methods: Strength Gains Without Extra Size?

Advanced resistance training methods are often promoted as superior to traditional sets and reps. This meta-analysis compared a range of advanced methods to standard resistance training approaches. The authors found slightly greater strength gains, but similar hypertrophy between approaches. However, several important factors make these findings more nuanced than they may first appear. Let’s take a closer look.

Overview

• What did they test? Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of training studies comparing strength and hypertrophy outcomes between advanced resistance training methods and traditional sets and reps. The advanced methods included rest–pause, drop sets, cluster sets, tempo variation, velocity-based training, and eccentric overload. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to involve healthy, recreationally trained adults aged 18–45 years.
• What did they find? Of the 120 articles initially identified, 24 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. However, only 20 were included in the meta-analysis due to data availability. Pooled data showed a small but statistically significant overall advantage for advanced training methods (g = 0.159). When outcomes were examined separately, advanced methods produced a moderate benefit for strength (g = 0.351), but there was no advantage for hypertrophy.
• What does it mean for you? Advanced training methods appear to be effective for improving strength, with no negative impact on hypertrophy. However, it is important to note the wide range of approaches grouped as “advanced methods.” For example, the stimulus from cluster sets is very different from that of drop sets, and training volume was only controlled in about half of the included studies. Therefore, while advanced methods can be useful tools within a program, they should not automatically be assumed to be superior to traditional sets and reps.

What’s the Problem?

Last month, in Issue 46, I covered a preprint by Hinson et al. 1 that investigated a novel approach to drop set training. They found that while drop sets did not produce as much hypertrophy as traditional training, the magnitude of the difference was not considered practically meaningful. In essence, this aligns with previous meta-analyses on the topic 2 3, which concluded that these approaches can produce relatively similar outcomes but require less training time.

In this month’s article, the authors were investigating a wider range of advanced resistance training methods. Specifically, they included:

• Cluster sets: Utilize intra-set rest periods, breaking a set up into more manageable chunks. This limits fatigue and should enable higher repetition velocities and better movement quality.
• Drop sets: Involves performing a set to or near failure, then immediately (or shortly thereafter) reducing the load and continuing the set with little or no rest.
• Eccentric overload: Enables the handling of heavier loads during the eccentric (typically lowering) phase of a movement.
• Rest–pause: Involves performing a set to or near failure, resting briefly, and then continuing with the same load for additional mini-sets. Unlike cluster sets, the goal is to extend the set beyond initial fatigue rather than manage it.
• Velocity-based training: Uses real time feedback on movement velocity to regulate intensity, volume, and fatigue. The application varies, it could be choosing loads based on target velocities, or performing reps until a certain velocity loss is achieved.

However, despite their popularity, it is still unclear whether these approaches actually produce superior strength or hypertrophy outcomes compared with traditional sets and reps.

With that background in mind, let’s take a closer look at the study.

Purpose

The study aimed to determine whether advanced resistance training methods produce greater strength and hypertrophy adaptations than traditional sets and reps.

Hypothesis

No specific hypothesis was stated.