Author(s): STAFUZZA, J., CANEVARI, M., AZZINI, V., GRANIERO, F., PALOMBA, A., CASASOLA, M., SERAVALLI, S., FAVERO, C., COPETTI, R., URSELLA, G., BRUGNOLA, G., PERSELLO, G., MARI, L., D'ALLEVA, M., ZACCARON, S., REJC, E., LAZZER, S., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF UDINE, Country: ITALY, Abstract-ID: 2482

INTRODUCTION:
Resistance training (RT) represents the only non-pharmacological approach proven to consistently improve muscle mass, strength, and power (1). Since the prevalence of sarcopenia in people with cardiovascular diseases (2), RT is strongly encouraged for inpatients, outpatients and in everyday life (3). However, RT, especially at high intensities (≥ 70% 1RM), has been considered potentially unsafe for subjects with cardiovascular disease due to its acute effect on blood pressure response and other hemodynamic parameters (4). Evidence showed that, when matching for total volume (set x rep x load), low intensity RT evoked higher blood pressure response compared to high intensity RT, apparently due to longer time under tension (5). Thus, the aim of our study was to compare the blood pressure responses between two RT protocols that had different time under tension distribution.
METHODS:
In this study two resistance training protocols - a traditional (TRAD) and a cluster (CLUSTER) protocol – were investigated using a bilateral leg press exercise. Protocols were matched for total volume but differed in the set x repetitions scheme: 3 x 12 for TRAD and 3 x (4+4+4) for CLUSTER. Total rest period for every set was equal to 90 seconds for both protocols. However, the distribution of rest differed: the TRAD protocol involved the 90 seconds rest at the end of each set, while the CLUSTER protocol involved two 15-second intra-set rests (between cluster of four repetitions) and the remaining 60 seconds rest at the end of the set. Training intensity was set at 60% of the estimated one-repetition maximum (1RM). Blood pressure was recorded at the end of each set. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were measured manually by a trained operator using a sphygmomanometer and a stethoscope.
RESULTS:
Compared to pre-exercise values, SBP at the end of each set was higher for the TRAD protocol compared to the CLUSTER protocol: SBP: SET1 14±11 vs 7±8 mmHg (p: 0.013), SET2 17±12 vs 12±10 mmHg (p: 0.036) and SET3 21±12 vs 13±10 mmHg (p: 0.007). However, no differences were found between training methods on DBP.
CONCLUSION:
Cluster set protocols effectively mitigate systolic blood pressure (SBP) peaks during bilateral leg press exercises in patients with coronary artery disease. These findings provide a solid rationale for integrating cluster sets into cardiac subjects’ programs.

References
1. Fyfe JJ, et al. Sports Med 2022; 52: 463–479.
2. Pacifico J, et al. Exp Gerontol 2020; 131: 110801.
3. Bjarnason-Wehrens B, et al. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2022; 42: 304–315.
4. Way KL, et al. Sports Med - Open 2023; 9: 86.
5. Lamotte M, et al. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev & Rehab 2005; 12: 12–17.