Adam C. Stewart
Drop sets are enjoyable, fast, and result in similar hypertrophy and strength gains as traditional sets, according to a new meta-analysis. So, are Drop Sets All you need? This article addresses this issue from all angles.
Note: This article was the cover article of MASS Research Review for February 2023 and is a review of a recent article by Coleman et al. If you want more content like this, subscribe to MASS.
I’ve always liked Drop Sets. They don’t take long, you get a great pump and they are super fun with a training partner. In fact, this describes most of the time that me and my boyfriend Greg (another Greg) spent lifting weights in his basement 20 years ago. The drop sets, the Rest Sets and the super Sets train in the most raw form and remind me of a time when I didn’t think too much and I put my head down and lifted weights. Moreover, as I wrote recently, there is a certain mystique surrounding these strategies. Although most individual studies (2, 3, 4, 5) have shown that muscle growth is similar between drop sets and traditional sets, there is evidence of a slight advantage for drop sets (6) that have kept their mythical existence alive. Fortunately, a meta-analysis has arrived to provide some authority on the subject.
Objective and assumptions
Objective
The aim of the meta-analysis examined was to compare the Drop Set training with the traditional Set training for longitudinal gains in strength and Hypertrophy.
Hypothesis
As usual in a meta-analysis, the researchers did not make any assumptions.
Methods
(1) systematically searched the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and CINAHL databases to identify longitudinal studies comparing Drop Set training to traditional Set training for Hypertrophy or strength results. The researchers performed the meta-analysis according to the guidelines on preferred reporting points for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and pooled the results of the included studies for Analysis. The criteria of the researchers for including the studies in the Analysis are presented in the table
Coleman et al. (1) have identified five studies (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) this met their inclusion criteria. Of these studies, all five evaluated Hypertrophy and four (2, 4, 5, 6) evaluated strength. In total, there were 13 comparisons for Hypertrophy and 11 comparisons for Strength. The researchers assessed the quality of the study using the “Downs and Black” checklist (7), consisting of 27 items. Each element was rated 0 (criteria not met) or 1 (criteria met), and the studies were rated good, moderate or poor quality when they received 21-29, 11-20 and ≤10 points respectively. The average score was 18.4 points, with two studies judged “good” and three studies judged “moderate”.
Analysis
The researchers did not use null hypothesis tests (i.e. no p-values) and instead calculated the effect sizes [(mean change 1 – mean change 2)/Grouped standard deviation at baseline] to compare the Hypertrophy and strength results between the Drop-Set and the traditional training. The researchers also performed a “Leave One Out” Analysis, in which each individual study was removed from the Analysis individually to see the impact of each study on the results. Finally, the statistic I2 has been calculated. This statistic quantifies the degree of heterogeneity (variation in effect size estimates between studies) that is not due to sampling error. The I2 is given as a percentage (low = <25%; moderate = 25-75%; high => 75%).
Jewelry accessories
Of the five studies and 13 comparisons, the effect size between the groups for Hypertrophy was trivial (ES = 0.08; 95% confidence interval = -0.08 – 0.24). Similarly, the four studies and 11 comparisons for Strength gave a trivial effect size (ES = 0.07; 95% confidence interval = -0.14 – 0.29) when comparing the fall sets with traditional training. The relative degree of heterogeneity observed was quite low for the comparisons of Hypertrophy and strength (I2 = 0%). Finally, no study of the “Leave-one-Out” Analysis has resulted in an “appreciable difference” in the results. The forest areas for the Hypertrophy and resistance results can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.
