Research Review: Supersets vs. Traditional Lifting — Same Gains, Less Time

By Emmett Shaul

BLUF

Across the studies reviewed, superset training—alternate agonist–antagonist pairings (AAPS), reciprocal supersets (RSS), and total-body supersets (TBSS)—produces similar long-term gains in strength, hypertrophy, power, and muscular endurance compared to traditional straight sets (TRAD), while finishing sessions in about half the time. Acutely, supersets raise cardiovascular/metabolic load and perceived effort, and can slightly reduce bar velocity within a session due to compressed rest—yet over weeks, outcomes generally match TRAD when total work is comparable.

What Was Reviewed

A narrative review comparing three superset styles to traditional resistance training (TRAD):

• AAPS (Alternate Agonist–Antagonist Pairing Supersets): Pair opposing movements (e.g., row to bench press) with moderate rest.
• RSS (Reciprocal Supersets): Perform paired moves back-to-back with minimal rest before a longer break.
• TBSS (Total-Body Supersets): Alternate upper–lower exercises to compress full-body sessions.

Methods

Narrative synthesis of acute (single-session) and chronic (multi-week) studies in trained and untrained lifters. Outcomes commonly included:

• Work & time metrics: total volume (sets × reps × load), session time, training density (work per minute).
• Performance: bar speed/velocity, power outputs, 1RM changes, endurance reps.
• Physiology: EMG, heart rate, oxygen consumption, energy expenditure, EPOC, blood lactate, hormonal markers, creatine kinase.
• Perception: session RPE, discomfort, preference.
  Training studies typically matched total work across groups where reported.

Findings — Acute

Training volume & density

• Volume: Supersets typically match—often equal or exceed—the total work of traditional sets.
• Density: Because sessions are shorter, training density is consistently higher with supersets (more work per minute completed).

Power & bar velocity

• Peak/mean power and bar speed are generally higher with traditional sets, especially in TBSS comparisons. Supersets can slightly depress bar speed as fatigue accumulates within compressed work bouts.

Muscle activation (EMG) & fatigue

• EMG and “fatigue index” measures are often higher during RSS; AAPS vs. TRAD tends to show similar activation when routines are ecologically realistic.

Cardiovascular & metabolic load

• Heart rate, oxygen consumption, energy expenditure per minute, and EPOC are higher with RSS/TBSS than TRAD (sessions are shorter and denser).
• Blood lactate is higher with supersets under those higher-density, shorter-rest conditions.

Post-exercise blood pressure & HRV

• Mixed: some protocols show greater post-exercise hypotension with TRAD, others with supersets; differences hinge on total volume and rest schemes. HRV responses are broadly similar across methods when volume is comparable.

Hormonal & muscle-damage markers

• Results vary; several studies show small creatine kinase increases and transient hormone changes(testosterone/cortisol, GH) after higher-density sessions, but the review notes these acute shifts are unlikely to drive long-term gains.

Perceived effort & enjoyment

• RPE and discomfort trend higher with RSS/TBSS than TRAD. Despite this, many lifters prefer the time-efficiency of TBSS.

Findings — Chronic

AAPS vs. TRAD

• Strength & power gains: Similar increases in bench press, bench pull, and ballistic bench-throw outputs across 8 weeks—with AAPS sessions taking about half the time of TRAD in the featured study.

RSS vs. TRAD

• In detrained lifters using light loads, both methods increased arm muscle size; TRAD favored maximal strengthon some tests, while RSS favored muscular endurance.
• In trained lifters across a multi-exercise program to near-failure, RSS and TRAD produced similar hypertrophy, strength, power, and endurance, with RSS sessions notably shorter and perceived harder.

TBSS vs. TRAD

• Across 6–8 weeks with matched volumes, both improved squat/bench 1RM and endurance similarly; in one trial TRAD outperformed TBSS for some pulling 1RMs (likely order/fatigue effects), but TBSS cut session time about half while maintaining outcomes for key lifts and body-composition markers.

Bottom line: Over weeks, supersets match TRAD for strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance—while saving time.

Practical Applications

• Short on time? Use TBSS or RSS/AAPS to complete the same work in about half the time.
• Protect speed/power when needed: On velocity-priority days, keep traditional sets or build longer rests into pairings to protect bar speed; place true speed-strength work away from the densest parts of a session.
• Pair wisely: Favor non-competing patterns (push to pull, quad to hamstring) to reduce interference and manage fatigue within supersets.
• Match total work and effort: For fair comparisons (and predictable results), keep volume and proximity to failure similar between methods—don’t assume EMG or acute hormone spikes equal better gains.
• Monitor effort: Expect higher RPE with denser formats; plan recovery accordingly.

Limitations

• Narrative review (not a meta-analysis).
• Heterogeneous evidence base. Studies differ in participant training status, exercise selection, loading schemes, rest intervals, and whether exercise order is fixed or alternated. This variability makes direct comparisons across papers difficult.
• Mostly acute data; few short training trials. A large share of the literature reports single-session (acute) responses. The available training interventions are relatively short (≈6–8 weeks), so longer-term effects are uncertain.
• Volume/ordering not always matched. In several studies, total volume and/or intensity were not perfectly equated between superset and traditional conditions, and exercise order/fatigue (notably in total-body alternation) can influence power/velocity and some 1RM outcomes.
• Generalizability. Most samples are healthy, recreationally trained adults; evidence in highly trained strength/power athletes is limited.

Bibliography

Mang ZA, Beam JR, Kravitz L. The Acute and Chronic Effects of Superset Resistance Training Versus Traditional Resistance Training—A Narrative Review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2025; 39(11):1216–1234.