Facebook Pixel
Brookbush Institute Logo
  1. Articles
  2. Drop Sets: Comprehensive Systematic Review and Training Recommendations

September 16, 2025

Drop Sets: Comprehensive Systematic Review and Training Recommendations

Evidence indicates that drop-sets with multiple load reductions may result in the largest improvements in muscular endurance and strength when compared with other set strategies (e.g., conventional sets, pyramid sets, supersets).

Brent Brookbush

Brent Brookbush

DPT, PT, MS, CPT, HMS, IMT

Although hypertrophy outcomes are generally similar when comparing conventional and drop-set routines that have been volume-equated, drop-sets may consolidate the stimulus of multiple straight sets into a single extended set, improving session efficiency.

Drop-sets Comprehensive Systematic Research Review and Evidence-based Training Recommendations

Abstract

Drop-sets are an advanced resistance training strategy defined by performing a set to muscular failure, followed immediately by one or more reductions in load and continuation to failure with minimal or no rest. This systematic review synthesizes all available comparative research on drop-sets, originally included in the Brookbush Institute course Acute Variables: Set Strategies . Evidence indicates that drop-sets with multiple load reductions may result in the largest improvements in muscular endurance and strength when compared with other set strategies (e.g., conventional sets, pyramid sets, supersets). Although hypertrophy outcomes are generally similar when comparing conventional and drop-set routines that have been volume-equated, drop-sets may consolidate the stimulus of multiple straight sets into a single extended set, improving session efficiency. Notably, one multi-drop set may approximate the volume of two to three conventional sets. However, drop-sets also result in larger immediate post-exercise decreases in power, requiring careful consideration in programming for athletes. This systematic review also investigated outcomes for acute changes in blood chemistry, cardiovascular outcome measures, electromyographic (EMG) activity, body composition, and force production. Further, this review concludes with evidence-based recommendations and a sample program.

Definition:

  • Drop-sets: Performing a set with repetitions-to-failure, followed by an immediate reduction in load and a continuation (without rest) of repetitions-to-failure, and potentially 1 or 2 more decreases in load ("drops") with repetitions-to-failure.
    • Single-drop example: Reps to failure with 80% and 60% of 1 RM load and minimal rest between loads.
    • Multiple-drops example: Reps to failure with 85, 65, and 45% of 1 RM load and minimal rest between loads.

Summary of Research Findings:

  • Blood Chemistry and Cardiovascular Changes: Compared to conventional set protocols, drop-sets may result in larger increases in serum concentrations of lactate, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), growth hormone (GH), and testosterone in the hour following exercise; however, these increases may be a result of increased exercise volume, and not of the drop-set strategy itself. Additionally, immediately post-exercise, drop-sets may result in larger increases in serum monocyte concentrations and similar increases in lymphocyte concentrations when compared to conventional set protocols. However, 1-day post-exercise conventional sets may result in larger increases in monocytes, and two days post-exercise, both protocols are likely to result in a return to pre-exercise values. Last, conventional sets and drop set protocols result in similar increases in intra-exercise HR and tissue oxygen saturation; however, the drop set protocol is likely to result in a larger increase in deoxygenated hemoglobin and a larger shift in heart variability correlated with a shift toward sympathetic nervous system activity.
  • Strength and Endurance: Drop set protocols result in significantly larger increases in strength and endurance than conventional set protocols. Further, more "drops" likely result in larger improvements than a single "drop," and one drop set (with multiple drops) may be as effective, or more effective, than three to four conventional sets. Additionally, one study by Enes et al. (2021) found that drop sets and rest-pause sets result in larger increases in strength than conventional sets, even when exercise volumes are similar. This study may imply that the largest benefits from set strategies result from extending sets beyond reps-to-failure/set.
  • Hypertrophy and Body Composition: Drop sets with multiple drops and rest-pause sets result in significantly larger improvements in strength than conventional sets or drop sets with a single-drop. However, this increase in strength may not result in larger improvements in muscle hypertrophy or body composition. It may be worth noting that the research in this section included conventional set protocols that performed more sets (often 3 conventional sets to each drop set). Additional research is needed to compare conventional and drop-sets with similar sets/exercises. Although drop sets result in a significant increase in exercise volume, experienced exercisers would likely perform at least 2 drop sets for every 3 conventional sets that they would routinely perform.
  • Electromyographic (EMG) Activity: Drop sets, pyramid sets, and conventional sets are likely to result in similar EMG activity. If supersets result in longer rest between sets for the same muscle group, resulting in more reps/set, then the average EMG activity and fatigue index scores for that muscle may increase.
  • Changes in Force Production: These studies suggest that drop sets result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise strength and power when compared to conventional sets. A single drop-set, with only 1 drop, may not be sufficient to significantly increase immediate post-exercise decreases in force production. However, multiple drop sets, multiple drops/set, and/or drops resulting in low loads and high reps to failure may result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise force production. Further, it may be advised that drop-sets are performed on larger multi-joint exercises, in a routine with multiple exercises/muscle groups, if the goal is to maximize exercise volume.
  • Power: Conventional sets, supersets, and pyramid sets likely result in similar improvements in power outcomes. Drop sets may result in larger improvements in power; however, the significant decrease in power immediately following drop sets should be considered when scheduling routines for athletes.

Practical Application:

Evidence-based Recommendation: The Brookbush Institute recommends that agonist/antagonist supersets (or circuit training ) be adopted to improve workout efficiency, and experienced exercisers who may benefit from larger volumes of exercise progress (more than 3 - 4 sets/muscle group/session) progress to drop-sets to improve outcomes (when resistance training is not immediately followed by sport).

  • Note that drop-sets result in a significant increase in volume, with 1 drop-set (with multiple drops) similar to the volume of 2 - 3 conventional sets (note that this also significantly reduces session length). This implies that even advanced exercisers should only perform 2 - 3 drop sets per muscle group per session, and only use drop sets during 1 - 3 exercises/muscle groups per session. Additionally, drop sets may result in larger improvements in power; however, the significant decrease in power immediately following drop sets should be considered when considering drop sets for athletes

Potential Additional Implications of Research

  • Who should use drop sets?
    • Advanced Exercise Progression: Experienced exercisers who may benefit from larger volumes of exercise (more than 3 - 4 sets/muscle group/session).
    • Short on Time: Experienced exercisers who only have time to perform 1 or 2 quality sets per muscle group.
  • Who should not use drop sets?
    • Max Strength and Power Phases: Training phases focused on maximum strength and power should not include drop sets during initial sets; instead, use strategies like rest-pause sets to perform additional reps.
    • Athletes: Athletes performing resistance training prior to practice or games should not perform drop-sets.
  • Clever programming:
    • No More "Endurance Phase"? A "drop-set phase" may replace an endurance (high-rep) phase in periodized training programs, aiding in maintaining strength and power improvements, and potentially resulting in superior endurance improvements.
    • Maintain Exercise Volume: During very high-intensity/low volume phases (1-5 RM/set), a drop-set can be performed during the last set to aid in maintaining volume.
  • Strength-Stability Super-sets Re-imagined:
    • Strength-stability supersets are likely effective only because they function as a form of drop-set, but are likely not an optimal design for either supersets or drop-sets. Research summarized in Acute Variables: Set Strategies  demonstrates that agonist–agonist supersets reduce set performance during a routine (e.g., larger decrease from set to set in reps/set, rep velocity, and peak force). And, the purpose of drop-sets is to extend a set beyond failure by progressively reducing load, attempting to recruit and fatigue as many motor units as possible. This typically requires sequential, relatively small load reductions of 20–30% per drop, with 3-8 reps per load, until reducing load is no longer sufficient to continue (generally 2-4 drops). Strength–stability supersets often involve larger decreases in load when switching from the strength exercise to the stability exercise, and most do not include enough drops to optimally rerecruit and fatigue motor units. If strength-stability super-sets are reimagined as drop-sets, they could be refined to improve outcomes. Future experimentation should include different combinations of decreases in load and increased stability demand, in an attempt to optimally recruit and fatigue motor units, while adding the benefits of training with unstable loads. For example, a strength exercise, followed by the same exercise at a lower load, then the stability exercise for the same muscle groups, followed by the same stability exercise at a lower load (e.g., bench press, lighter bench press, stability ball push-up, stability ball push-up on knees).

Sample Program:

Routine Name: Advanced Strength Routine

  • Goal: Advanced routine to improve overall strength
  • Experience: Advanced

Phase 1: Hypertrophy (Strength/Stability Drop-sets)

Acute Variables:

  • Cycle: 4- 8 weeks
  • Frequency: Whole body routine, 2-3 sessions/week
  • Load: Moderate (70-80% of 1-RM); Light (50-70% of 1-RM)
  • Reps/set: 8-12 reps-to-failure/set
  • Sets/exercise (or circuits): 2-3 circuits (sets/muscle group)
  • Set Strategy: Strength/Stability Drop-sets
  • Rest between exercises: 30 - 60 seconds between exercises, circuit training
  • Rest between circuits: 1 - 3 minutes
  • Rep Tempo: Moderate tempo with max velocity concentric (2:1:MaxV)
  • Training Time: 30 – 40 minutes (excluding warm-up).

Exercise Routine:

Optional Warm-up (1-2 sets in circuit)

  • Focus: Overhead Squat Assessment Sign: Forward head and arms falls forward (cervical/thoracic mobility)

Note: Ideally, the strength training routine would be preceded by a corrective exercise/movement preparation routine that is tailored to the client based on a movement assessment.

  1. Release: Self-myofascial release of levator scapulae
  2. Release: Self-myofascial release of upper trapezius
  3. Release: Self-myofascial release of cervical extensors
  4. Mobilization: Self-administered thoracic mobilization
  5. Isolated Activation: Deep cervical flexor activation
  6. Core Integration: Quadruped with deep cervical flexor activation
  7. Subsystem Integration: Reverse lunge to unilateral row

Strength Training Routine (2-3 sets in circuit):

Phase 2: Max Strength

Acute Variables:

  • Cycle Length: 4 - 8 weeks
  • Frequency: Whole body routine, 2-3 sessions/week
    • If a recovery week is necessary, it is best to plan that week immediately following the first routine of a new program.
  • Load: Heavy (80-95% of 1-RM)
  • Reps/set: 1-5 reps-to-failure/set, drop set on the last set
    • Note: Drop sets result in a significant decrease in force production immediately following a set or session. This could imply that drop sets are less than ideal when the goal of a phase is increasing maximum strength, which generally implies performing multiple sets of heavy loads. However, a problem with maximum strength training is maintaining sufficient volume for optimal hypertrophy and maintaining muscle endurance. It may be ideal to combine conventional max strength training with a drop set performed on the last set of an exercise to increase volume without affecting force production during the initial sets.
  • Sets/exercise: 3 - 5 sets
  • Rest between Sets: 2 - 3 minutes between exercises for the same muscle group (or if horizontal loading)
  • Rest between Exercises: 30-60 seconds between exercises, circuit training (vertical loading)
  • Rest between Circuits: 1-3 minutes
  • Rep Tempo: As fast as can be controlled (X:X:X)
  • Training time: 20 – 40 minutes (excluding warm-up).

Exercise Routine:

Optional Warm-up (1-2 sets in circuit)

Note: Ideally, the strength training routine would be preceded by a corrective exercise/movement preparation routine that is tailored to the client based on a movement assessment.

  1. Release: Self-myofascial release of gastrocnemius
  2. Release: Self-myofascial release of fibularis
  3. Mobilization: Self-administered ankle mobilization
  4. Isolated Activation: Tibilias anterior activation (equipped)
  5. Isolated Activation: Tibialis posterior activation against the wall (unequipped)
  6. Core Integration: Dynamic ball bridges with anti-rotation
  7. Subsystem Integration: Reverse lunge to unilateral row

Strength Training Routine (2-4 sets in circuit, last set a drop set):

  • Back (Drop-set on last set): Machine cable rows  (progress by increasing load, increasing sets/muscle group; alternative exercise: pull-ups )
  • Chest/Shoulders (Drop-set on last set): Bench press  (progress by increasing load, increasing sets/muscle group; alternative exercise: machine chest press)
  • Legs (Drop-set on last set): Barbell squats  (progress by increasing load, increasing sets/muscle group; alternative exercise: leg press)
  • Active Rest (Corrective/Core) (No drop-sets): Resisted side-stepping with band (progression: monster walks , progress by increasing band thickness, and/or increasing sets/muscle group)

Note: For strength goals, progressing load should be the priority. Sets/exercise can also be increased, especially when lifting with very heavy loads, resulting in 1-4 reps/set.

Note: Active Rest (Corrective Exercise): Active rest is appropriate when trying to ensure there is at least 3 minutes of rest between exercises that target some or all of the same muscles in a circuit. Generally, the Brookbush Institute recommends using a core or corrective exercise during active rest to increase the utility of the exercise selected. We do not recommend foam rolling or stretching techniques because some studies have demonstrated that inter-set use of these techniques has reduced performance in subsequent sets.

Comprehensive Systematic Review

Blood Chemistry and Cardiovascular Changes

  • Evidence-based Summary Statement: Compared to conventional set protocols, drop-sets may result in larger increases in serum concentrations of lactate, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), growth hormone (GH), and testosterone in the hour following exercise; however, these increases may be a result of increased exercise volume, and not of the drop-set strategy itself. Additionally, immediately post-exercise, drop-sets may result in larger increases in serum monocyte concentrations and similar increases in lymphocyte concentrations when compared to conventional set protocols. However, 1-day post-exercise conventional sets may result in larger increases in monocytes, and two days post-exercise, both protocols are likely to result in a return to pre-exercise values. Last, conventional sets and drop set protocols result in similar increases in intra-exercise HR and tissue oxygen saturation; however, the drop set protocol is likely to result in a larger increase in deoxygenated hemoglobin and a larger shift in heart variability correlated with a shift toward sympathetic nervous system activity.

Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF-1), Testosterone, and Cortisol

Three studies compared hormone concentrations following conventional and drop-set protocols. Namango et al. compared 30 male beginner exercisers (with at least 2 months of experience) (age: 18-28 years). Participants performed conventional and drop-set protocols, separated by at least 7 days. The conventional set protocol included 4 sets/exercise, 8-12 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM loads, and a long (3 min) rest between sets. The drop-set protocol included 4 conventional sets/exercise, 8-12 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and 3 drop-sets, 75-30% of 1 RM loads/set, with minimal (enough time to change loads) rest between drop-sets. Note that the study did not disclose the specific load of each drop-set. Participants performed knee extensions, with reps to failure/set. The findings demonstrated that both protocols resulted in significant and similar increases in serum concentrations of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and growth hormone (GH) immediately post-exercise (1). Alves et al. compared 12 male experienced exercisers (age: 22.5 ± 3.2 years) with no history of contraindications to exercise or anabolic steroid use. Participants completed conventional and drop-set protocols, separated by 3 days. The conventional set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM load/set, and short (1 min) rest between sets. The drop-set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 80% of 1 RM load/set, followed by 2 drop-sets, 10 reps/set, 40/20% of 1 RM load/set, with no rest between drops, short (45 sec) rest between sets. All protocols included leg press. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set protocol resulted in larger increases in serum testosterone concentrations immediately, 15 min, and 30 min post-exercise; however, both protocols resulted in testosterone concentrations returning to pre-exercise concentrations 60 min post-exercise (2). Goto et al. compared 8 male recreationally active exercisers (age: 20-23 years) with no history of supplement use, anabolic steroid use, or drug use that may affect serum concentrations of growth hormone. Participants performed 2 conventional set protocols and 2 drop-set protocols, separated by at least 7 days. All protocols included knee extensions for 5 sets, 90% of 1 RM loads, reps-to-failure/set, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a fast (2 sec/rep) rep tempo. One protocol did not include a 6th set, 1 protocol included a 6th set of the same load, 1 protocol included a 6th set of 70% of 1 RM loads, and 1 protocol included a 6th set of 50% of a 1 RM load. Note, only a 30 sec rest was permitted between the 5th and 6th sets. The findings demonstrated that the protocols resulted in similar reps/set for the initial 5 sets/exercise. However, for the 6th set, the 50% of 1-RM load resulted in the most reps, highest exercise volume, and the lowest work rate; the 70% of 1-RM load resulted in fewer reps, less exercise volume, and a higher work rate, and the 90% of 1-RM load resulted in the fewest reps, least exercise volume, and highest work rate. This study assessed serum concentrations of growth hormone before exercise and 5, 15, 30, and 60 min after exercise. The findings demonstrated that growth hormone (and lactate concentrations) increased with exercise volume, with the 50% 1-RM load protocol resulting in significantly larger increases than the 5-set protocol and the 6-set protocol with 90% 1-RM loads (3). These studies imply that when compared to conventional set protocols, drop-sets may result in larger increases in serum concentrations of IGF-1, GH, and testosterone in the hour following exercise. Further, the increase in serum concentrations may be dependent on exercise volume.

Inflammatory and Immune Markers

Last, as mentioned above, Alves et al. compared 12 male experienced exercisers (age: 22.5 ± 3.2 years) with no history of contraindications to exercise or anabolic steroid use. Participants completed conventional and drop-set protocols, separated by 3 days. Serum concentrations of lymphocytes and monocytes were collected pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, and 1 and 2 days post-exercise. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set protocol resulted in larger increases in serum lymphocyte concentrations immediately post-exercise; however, both protocols resulted in lymphocyte concentrations similar to pre-exercise values 1-day post-exercise. The findings also demonstrated that both protocols resulted in significant and similar increases in serum monocyte concentrations immediately post-exercise. The conventional set protocol resulted in higher concentrations at 1-day post-exercise; however, both protocols resulted in serum monocyte concentrations similar to pre-exercise values at 2 days post-exercise (2). In summary, drop-sets may result in an earlier peak in monocyte production compared to conventional sets; however, average monocyte and lymphocyte production may be similar, and is likely to be the same in absolute values by the 3rd day.

Lactate

Additional studies have compared lactate concentrations following conventional set and various drop-set protocols. As mentioned above, Alves et al. compared 12 male experienced exercisers (age: 22.5 ± 3.2 years) with no history of contraindications to exercise or anabolic steroid use. Participants completed conventional and drop-set protocols, separated by 3 days. Serum concentrations of lactate were measured pre-exercise and immediately post-exercise. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set protocol resulted in larger increases in post-exercise lactate concentrations (2). Also mentioned above, Goto et al. compared 8 male recreationally active exercisers (age: 20-23 years) with no history of supplement use, anabolic steroid use, or drug use that may affect serum concentrations of growth hormone. Participants performed 2 conventional set protocols and 2 drop-set protocols, separated by at least 7 days. All protocols included knee extensions for 5 sets, 90% of 1 RM loads, reps-to-failure/set, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a fast (2 sec/rep) rep tempo. One protocol did not include a 6th set, 1 protocol included a 6th set of the same load, 1 protocol included a 6th set of 70% of 1 RM loads, and 1 protocol included a 6th set of 50% of a 1 RM load. Note, only a 30 sec rest was permitted between the 5th and 6th sets. The findings demonstrated that lactate concentrations increased with exercise volume, with the 50% 1-RM load protocol resulting in significantly larger increases than the 5-set protocol and the 6-set protocol with 90% 1-RM loads (3). Fink et al. compared 16 male exercisers with less than 1 year of resistance training experience (age: 22.8 ± 3.9 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set or drop-set group for 6 weeks. The conventional set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 12 RM loads, and a moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise with 12 RM loads, and then 2 drop-sets, with a 20% decrease in load/drop-set, and minimal rest between sets. All participants performed tricep press downs, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that both groups exhibited similar total exercise volume/session (load × reps); however, the drop-set group exhibited a significant reduction in session length. Additionally, serum concentrations of lactate were measured before exercise, immediately after exercise, and 2 and 5 min after exercise. The findings demonstrated that both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in post-exercise lactate concentrations; however, the conventional set group exhibited peak concentrations immediately after exercise, and the drop-set group exhibited a peak 2 min after exercise (4). Keogh et al. compared 12 highly experienced male exercisers (rugby, powerlifting, and bodybuilding athletes) (age: 25.4 ± 4.8 years). Participants performed conventional, isokinetics, eccentrics, and isometrics combined with isokinetics, slow reps, rest pause, drop sets, and low-load sets. Participants performed the 8 protocols within 2 sessions, and each protocol was separated by a 20 min rest. For the purposes of this course, only the conventional sets and drop-set protocols were included in the findings. The conventional set protocol performed 1 set/exercise, with 6 RM loads. The drop-set protocol performed 5 sets/exercise, 95/90/85/82.5/80% of 1 RM load, for 1 rep/load. Participants performed bench press with reps to failure/set. The finding demonstrated that both protocols resulted in similar reps/set, time under tension/set, and similar increases in serum lactate concentrations 3 minutes post-exercise (5). Last, De Almeida et al. compared 12 male experienced exercisers (age: 20.75 ± 2.3 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury, anabolic steroid use, or other substances known to influence muscle mass. Participants performed a conventional protocol, sarcoplasma-stimulating with fixed rest protocol, or sarcoplasma-stimulating with varied rest protocol, separated by 7 days. The conventional set protocol included 8 sets/exercise, 10 RM loads, and short (1 min) rest between sets. The sarcoplasma-stimulating with fixed rest protocol included conventional sets for the 1st - 3rd sets/exercise, 10 RM loads, and 3 drop-sets/exercise, a decrease of 20% load for each drop-set, short (20 sec) rest between all sets, with a slow (4:0:1) rep tempo. The sarcoplasma-stimulating with varied rest protocol included conventional sets, 8 sets/exercise, 10 RM load, short (45, 30, 15, 5, 5, 15, 30, and 45 sec) rest between sets. Participants performed bicep curls and tricep press downs, reps to failure/set, and a long (10 min) rest between exercises. The findings demonstrated that the conventional and sarcoplasma-stimulating with fixed rest protocols resulted in larger total exercise volume (sets × reps × load) during bicep curls. Further, the conventional set protocol resulted in the largest total exercise volume during tricep pressdowns, followed by the sarcoplasma-stimulating with fixed rest protocol, and the least volume by the sarcoplasma-stimulating with varied rest protocol. The findings demonstrated that the protocols resulted in significant and similar increases in serum concentrations of lactate. Note that lactate was assessed before exercise, immediately after exercise, and 5 and 10 min after exercise (6). These studies likely imply that when compared to conventional set protocols, drop-set protocols that result in a significant increase in exercise volume will also significantly increase post-exercise serum concentrations of lactate. However, if volumes are similar, then lactate concentrations will also be similar.

Heart Rate (HR), Oxygenation, and HR Variability:

Studies have compared heart rate (HR), tissue oxygenation, and HR variability following conventional sets and drop sets. Fink et al. compared 16 male exercisers with less than 1 year of resistance training experience (age: 22.8 ± 3.9 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set or drop-set group for 6 weeks. The conventional set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 12 RM loads, and a moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise with 12 RM loads, and then 2 drop-sets, with a 20% decrease in load/drop-set, and minimal rest between sets. All participants performed tricep press downs, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that both groups exhibited similar total exercise volume/session (load × reps); however, the drop-set group exhibited a significant reduction in session length. Further, both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in intra-exercise HR when compared to resting HR (7). Angleri et al. compared 12 male experienced exercisers (age: 23.0 ± 2 years) with no history of cardiovascular disease, neuromuscular disorders, or a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m. Participants performed conventional sets, drop-sets, and pyramid-set protocols, separated by 3 days. Note that participants' legs were randomly assigned to each protocol. The conventional set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, and 75% of 1 RM load. The drop-set protocol included 3 conventional sets/exercise, reps to failure/set, 75% of 1 RM load, immediately followed by 3 drop-sets, with reps to failure/set, and load decreased by 20% with each drop-set, with short (15-sec) rest between drop-sets. The ascending pyramid set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10/8/6 reps/set, and 75/80/85% of 1 RM load/set. All protocols included knee extensions with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that both protocols resulted in similar increases in total hemoglobin and tissue oxygen saturation. However, the dropset protocol resulted in larger increases in deoxygenated hemoglobin (8). Gambassi et al. compared 14 male experienced exercisers (control group age: 25.1 ± 4.5 years; drop-set group age: 26.9 ± 5.5 years) with no history of medications that may affect outcome measures, medical issues (cardiovascular, metabolic, or musculoskeletal), or tobacco use. Participants were randomly assigned to a control (no exercise) or a drop-set protocol. The drop-set protocol included conventional sets of leg press and bench press, 3 sets/exercise, reps to failure, short (20 sec) rest between sets, slow (3:0:3) rep tempo, and then 2 drop-sets, each drop-set decreased load by 20%. This study assessed the following HR variables: the squared difference between consecutive R-R intervals, the percentage of consecutive R-R intervals with greater than 50 ms, high frequency (a component of the parasympathetic nervous system), low frequency (a component of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system with dominance towards the sympathetic nervous system), and the ratio between low and high frequency. Note that all variables were assessed before exercise, immediately after exercise, and 10, 20, 30, and 40 min after exercise. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set protocol had a significantly larger influence on all variables, including the decreased square root of the mean squared differences between adjacent normal R-R intervals, decreased consecutive R-R intervals that showed differences greater than 50 ms, a significant decrease in high-frequency band and a significant increase in low-frequency band, and a significant increase in the low frequency/high-frequency ratio. These changes likely imply that drop-set protocols result in a larger shift toward sympathetic nervous activity (9). These studies imply that conventional sets and drop set protocols result in similar increases in intra-exercise HR and tissue oxygen saturation; however, the drop set protocol is likely to result in a larger increase in deoxygenated hemoglobin and a larger change in heart variability correlated with a shift toward sympathetic nervous system activity.

Strength and Endurance

  • Evidence-based Summary Statement: Drop set protocols result in significantly larger increases in strength and endurance than conventional set protocols. Further, more "drops" likely result in larger improvements than a single "drop," and one drop set (with multiple drops) may be as effective, or more effective, than three to four conventional sets. Additionally, one study by Enes et al. (2021) found that drop sets and rest-pause sets result in larger increases in strength than conventional sets, even when exercise volumes are similar. This study may imply that the largest benefits from set strategies result from extending sets beyond reps-to-failure/set.

Conventional Sets Compared to Drop Sets

Several studies compared strength improvements following conventional and drop-set protocols. Singh et al. compared 30 male experienced exercisers (age: 21.88 ± 2.22 years) with no history of spine injury or joint pathology (i.e., hypermobility, instability, or pain). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set group or a drop-set group for 6 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 18 sessions. The conventional set group performed 8-12 reps/set, with 85% of 1 RM load, and long (3 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed reps to failure/set, with 85/65/45% of 1 RM load/set, and minimal rest between sets. All participants completed quarter deadlifts for 3 sets/session. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set group exhibited larger increases in 1 RM strength and back extension endurance (Biering Sorenson Test) (11). Fink et al. compared 16 male exercisers with less than 1 year of resistance training experience (age: 22.8 ± 3.9 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set group or drop-set group for 6 weeks. The conventional set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 12 RM loads, and a moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise with 12 RM loads, and then 2 drop-sets with a 20% decrease in load/drop-set, and minimal rest between sets. All participants performed tricep press downs, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that both groups exhibited similar total exercise volume/session (load × reps); however, the drop-set group exhibited a significant reduction in session length. Further, both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in tricep pressdown 12 RM strength (4). An RCT by Fisher et al. compared 36 healthy, experienced male and female exercisers (control group age: 34 ± 12 years; 1 drop-set group age: 38 ± 7 years; 2 drop-set group age: 37 ± 13 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a 1 conventional set group, 1 set with 1 drop set group, or 1 set with 2 drop sets group for 12 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions. The control group performed 1 set/exercise, 8-12 reps/set. The 1 drop set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise, 8-12 reps to failure, and then 1 drop set/exercise, with a 30% decrease in load and minimal rest between the conventional set and drop-set. The 2 drop sets group performed 1 conventional set/exercise, 4 reps to failure, and then 2 drop sets/exercise, each drop-set included a 20% decrease in load, with minimal rest between conventional sets and drop sets. Participants performed a full body program (chest press, leg press, lat pulldowns, overhead press, adduction machine, abduction machine, crunches, back extensions, pec flys, pullovers, knee extensions, dips, bicep curls, calf raises, hamstring curls, and abdominal rotations), with a slow (4:0:2) rep tempo. Note that the drop-set groups only performed drop-sets for chest press, leg press, and lat pulldowns. The findings demonstrated that the conventional set and drop-set groups exhibited significant and similar increases in chest press, leg press, and lat pulldown endurance (number of reps to failure with 8-12 RM load established before the intervention). However, the control group and 2 drop-set group exhibited a trend towards larger increases in chest press endurance when compared to the 1 drop-set group (12). Fasihiyan et al. compared 27 male experienced exercisers (age: approximately 26 ± 8 years) with no history of medical issues that would affect muscle biology or imply exercise is contraindicated. Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set, single-drop set, or multi-drop set group for 8 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions. The conventional set group performed 4 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM load/set, and moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The single-drop group performed 1 set with reps-to-failure/set with 80% of 1 RM loads, followed immediately by 1 drop with reps-to-failure/set with 45% of 1 RM loads. The multi-drop group performed 1 set with reps-to-failure/set with 80% of 1 RM loads, immediately followed by 3 drops with reps-to-failure/set with 65/50/35% of 1 RM loads/set. All participants performed bench press and leg press, with long (3 min) rest between exercises and a moderate (1:1:1:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that all groups exhibited significant and similar increases in knee extension isometric strength and bench press 1 RM strength. However, both drop-set groups exhibited similar increases in leg press 1 RM strength, which was significantly greater than the conventional set group. Additionally, the multi-drop group exhibited a trend towards larger increases in leg press endurance (reps to failure with 40% of 1 RM load) than the single drop-set group, and both drop-set groups exhibited significantly larger increases compared to the conventional set group. The multi-drop group also exhibited the largest increases in bench press endurance (reps to failure with 40% of 1 RM load), with the single-drop and conventional set groups exhibiting similar increases (13). In summary, these studies imply that drop set protocols result in significantly larger increases in strength and endurance when compared to conventional set protocols. Further, 1 drop-set may be as effective, or more effective than 3-4 conventional sets. Last, more "drops" likely result in larger improvements than a single "drop."

Comparing Pyramid, Rest-pause Sets, and Drop Sets

One study compared 3 different set strategies. Enes et al. compared 28 male experienced exercisers (age: 18-30 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury or substance use that may affect muscular adaptations. Participants were randomly assigned to conventional set, drop-set, or rest-pause set groups for 8 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 16 sessions. The conventional set group performed 4 sets/exercise, 12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, and a moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 3 conventional sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM loads, moderate (2 min) rest between sets, and 1 drop-set/exercise, for 6 reps with 55% of 1 RM loads, with minimal rest between the 3rd conventional set and the drop-set. The rest-pause set group performed 3 conventional sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM load/set, moderate (2 min) rest between sets, and a rest-pause set for 6 reps with short (20 sec) rest between sets. All participants performed a lower body program (squats, leg press, knee extensions, stiff-legged deadlifts, and hamstring curls), and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that all groups exhibited similar total exercise volume (sets × reps × load). Both the drop-set and rest-pause set groups exhibited similar increases in squat 1 RM strength that were larger than the conventional set group; however, only the rest-pause set group exhibited a difference that reached statistical significance (13). The findings of this study may suggest that drop sets and rest-pause sets result in larger increases in strength than conventional sets, even when exercise volumes are similar. This may imply that the largest benefits from set strategies are a result of extending sets beyond reps-to-failure/set.

Comparing Limbs

Three studies compared conventional and drop-set protocols by comparing limbs. A pilot study by Ozaki et al. compared 9 male novice exercisers (age: 26.0 ± 1.0 year) with no history of tobacco or medication use. Participants' arms were randomly assigned to 2 of 3 groups: conventional sets with 80% of 1 RM load, conventional sets with 30% of 1 RM load, or drop-sets, for 8 weeks, 2-3 sessions/week, for a total of 22 sessions. The conventional set with 80% of 1 RM load group performed 3 sets/exercise, with long (3 min) rest between sets. The conventional set with 30% of 1 RM load group performed 3 sets/exercise, with moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise, with 80% of 1 RM load, and then 4 drop-sets with 65/50/40/30% of 1 RM load/set, with no rest between drop-sets. All protocols included bicep curls, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that the 30% of 1 RM load group performed the most exercise volume, the most reps/session, and the longest session duration. The 80% of 1 RM load and drop-set groups exhibited similar exercise volume and reps/session; however, the drop-set group exhibited shorter session durations. The 80% of 1 RM load group and the drop-set group exhibited significant and similar increases in bicep curl 1 RM and isometric strength, and the conventional set with 30% of 1 RM load did not. However, the conventional sets with 30% of 1 RM load group exhibited the largest increases in bicep curl endurance (reps to failure with 30% of 1 RM load, 2:0:1 rep tempo), followed by the drop-set group, and the conventional sets with 80% of 1 RM load group did not exhibit a significant increase in endurance (13). Angleri et al. compared 32 healthy male experienced exercisers (age: 27.0 ± 3.9 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injuries or anabolic steroid use. Participants had 1 leg assigned to a conventional set protocol and the other leg randomly assigned to a pyramid set or drop-set protocol for 12 weeks. Note that all protocols were volume-equated. The conventional set protocol included 3-5 sets/exercise, 6-12 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM loads/set, and reps to failure during the last set/exercise. The pyramid set protocol included 3-5 sets/exercise, 15/12/10/8/6 reps/set, 65/70/75/80/85% of 1 RM loads/set, and reps to failure during the last set/exercise. The drop-set protocol included 1 set with reps-to-failure with 75% of 1-RM load, followed by 1-2 drop-sets with reps-to-failure, and each drop-set decreased load by 10%. All protocols included unilateral leg press and knee extensions, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that all groups exhibited significant and similar increases in unilateral leg press and knee extension 1 RM strength (14). Last, Varovic et al. compared 25 male novice exercisers (age: 19.21 ± 1.10 years) with no history of lower extremity injury. Each participant's leg was randomly assigned to either conventional or drop-set protocols for 8 weeks, 1-3 sessions/week, for a total of 21 sessions. Note that both limbs performed 1 session/week during week 1, 2 sessions/week during week 2, and 3 sessions/week during weeks 3-8. The conventional set leg performed 13-17 reps/set, with a 15 RM load/set, and reps to failure/set. The drop-set leg performed 5 RM loads/set, reps to failure/set, and each set was immediately followed by 2 drop-sets, 3-7 reps/set, a decrease of 20%/10-15% of 1 RM load/set, reps to failure/set. All protocols included knee extensions, 3-5 sets/exercise, moderate (2 min) rest between sets, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set limb performed more total exercise volume (reps × sets × load). However, both limbs exhibited significant and similar increases in knee extension 1 RM strength, peak torque, and average torque (15). These studies were purposefully separated from the studies above due to cross-over effects between limbs that have been demonstrated in several studies. That is, strength training in one limb results in strength improvements in the other, regardless of whether the other limb is trained. Unfortunately, this effect implies that strength training in one limb will have an effect on both limbs, and research using methodologies that attempt to compare different protocols on each limb are unlikely to demonstrate a difference between protocols. At the very least, it will likely be challenging to demonstrate a significant difference between limbs. It is the author's opinion that unless cross-over effects are specifically being investigated, this methodology should not be used in strength training research. It is likely that the lack of significant difference in the comparisons in these studies is due to cross-over effects, and although the Ozaki et al. (13) study demonstrated some difference, it is likely due to a relatively extreme difference in loads compared (30% and 80% of 1 RM strength).

Hypertrophy and Body Composition

  • Evidence-based Summary Statement: Drop sets with multiple drops and rest-pause sets result in significantly larger improvements in strength than conventional sets or drop sets with a single-drop. However, this increase in strength may not result in larger improvements in muscle hypertrophy or body composition. It may be worth noting that the research in this section included conventional set protocols that performed more sets (often 3 conventional sets to each drop set). Additional research is needed to compare conventional and drop-sets with similar sets/exercises. Although drop sets result in a significant increase in exercise volume, experienced exercisers would likely perform at least 2 drop sets for every 3 conventional sets that they would routinely perform.

Conventional Sets Compared to Drop Sets

Studies have compared the effects of drop sets and conventional sets on muscle hypertrophy. An RCT by Vilaca-Alves et al. compared 27 female intermediate exercisers (at least 3 months of resistance exercise experience) (age: 21.89 ± 2.85 years) with no history of medical issues or use of medications or supplements that could influence the outcomes of the study. Participants were randomly assigned to control (no upper body exercise), conventional sets, or drop sets groups for 12 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for 24 total sessions. The conventional set group performed 8 sets/exercise, 11 reps/set, with 75% of 1 RM loads. The drop-set group performed 4 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM loads, and each set was followed by 2 drop-sets, 10 reps/set with 55 and 35% of 1 RM load/set. Both intervention protocols included dumbbell bicep curls, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that both drop-set groups exhibited significant and similar increases in biceps brachii muscle thickness, and the control group exhibited a significant decrease (16). Fink et al. compared 16 male exercisers with less than 1 year of resistance training experience (age: 22.8 ± 3.9 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional or drop-set group for 6 weeks. The conventional set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 12 RM loads, and a moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise with 12 RM loads, and then 2 drop-sets, with a 20% decrease in load/drop-set, and minimal rest between sets. All participants performed tricep press downs, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that both groups exhibited similar total exercise volume/session (load × reps); however, the drop-set group exhibited a significant reduction in session length. Further, both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in tricep pressdown 12 RM strength and similar increases in triceps brachii cross-sectional area (CSA) (16). These studies demonstrate that conventional sets and drop sets result in similar muscle hypertrophy, even when performing 2-3 times as many conventional sets as drop sets.

Comparing Conventional, 1 Drop, Multiple-drops, and Rest-Pause Set Protocols

Additional studies investigating drop sets have compared hypertrophy and body composition following conventional set, single-drop, multiple-drop, and rest-pause set protocols. An RCT by Fisher et al. compared 36 healthy, experienced male and female exercisers (control group age: 34 ± 12 years; 1 drop-set group age: 38 ± 7 years; 2 drop-set group age: 37 ± 13 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a 1 conventional set group, 1 set with 1 drop set group, or 1 set with 2 drop sets group for 12 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions. The control group performed 1 set/exercise, 8-12 reps/set. The 1 drop set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise, 8-12 reps to failure, and then 1 drop set/exercise, with a 30% decrease in load and minimal rest between the conventional set and drop-set. The 2 drop sets group performed 1 conventional set/exercise, 4 reps to failure, and then 2 drop sets/exercise, each drop-set included a 20% decrease in load, with minimal rest between conventional sets and drop sets. Participants performed a full body program (chest press, leg press, lat pulldowns, overhead press, adduction machine, abduction machine, crunches, back extensions, pec flys, pullovers, knee extensions, dips, bicep curls, calf raises, hamstring curls, and abdominal rotations), with a slow (4:0:2) rep tempo. Note that the drop-set groups only performed drop-sets for chest press, leg press, and lat pulldowns. The findings demonstrated that the conventional set and drop-set groups exhibited significant and similar increases in chest press, leg press, and lat pulldown endurance (number of reps to failure with 8-12 RM load established before the intervention). However, the conventional set group and 2 drop-set group exhibited a trend towards larger increases in chest press endurance when compared to the 1 drop-set group. Additionally, none of the groups exhibited significant changes in body mass, body fat percentage, or lean body mass (11). Fasihiyan et al. compared 27 male experienced exercisers (age: approximately 26 ± 8 years) with no history of medical issues that would affect muscle biology or imply exercise is contraindicated. Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set, single-drop set, or multi-drop set group for 8 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions. The conventional set group performed 4 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM load/set, and moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The single-drop group performed 1 set with reps-to-failure/set with 80% of 1 RM loads, followed immediately by 1 drop with reps-to-failure/set with 45% of 1 RM loads. The multi-drop group performed 1 set with reps-to-failure/set with 80% of 1 RM loads, immediately followed by 3 drops with reps-to-failure/set with 65/50/35% of 1 RM loads/set. All participants performed bench press and leg press, with long (3 min) rest between exercises and a moderate (1:1:1:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that the drop set groups exhibited larger increases in some measures of 1 RM strength, and the multi-drop set group exhibited larger increases in endurance. However, all groups exhibited significant and similar decreases in body fat percentage and increases in muscle mass (measured via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) (12). Enes et al. compared 28 male experienced exercisers (age: 18-30 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury or substance use that may affect muscular adaptations. Participants were randomly assigned to conventional set, drop-set, or rest-pause set groups for 8 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 16 sessions. The conventional set group performed 4 sets/exercise, 12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, and a moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 3 conventional sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM loads, moderate (2 min) rest between sets, and 1 drop-set/exercise, for 6 reps with 55% of 1 RM loads, with minimal rest between the 3rd conventional set and the drop-set. The rest-pause set group performed 3 conventional sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM load/set, moderate (2 min) rest between sets, and a rest-pause set for 6 reps with short (20 sec) rest between sets. All participants performed a lower body program (squats, leg press, knee extensions, stiff-legged deadlifts, and hamstring curls) and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. Note that all participants performed stiff-legged deadlifts and hamstring curls with 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM load, and a moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that all groups exhibited similar total exercise volume (sets × reps × load). Both the drop-set and rest-pause set groups exhibited similar increases in squat 1 RM strength that were larger than the conventional set group. Additionally, all groups exhibited significant and similar increases in proximal and middle vastus intermedius and vastus lateralis muscle hypertrophy (muscle thickness) but no increase in distal vastus intermedius or vastus lateralis hypertrophy (17). In summary, these studies imply that drop sets with multiple drops and rest-pause sets result in significantly larger improvements in strength than conventional sets or drop sets with a single drop. However, this increase in strength may not result in larger improvements in muscle hypertrophy or body composition. It may be worth noting that the research in this section included conventional set protocols that performed more sets (often 3 conventional sets to each drop set). Additional research is needed to compare conventional and drop-sets with similar sets/exercise. Although drop sets result in a significant increase in exercise volume, experienced exercisers would likely perform at least 2 drop sets for every 3 conventional sets that they would routinely perform.

Single Limb Studies

As mentioned in the "Strength and Endurance" section, several studies compared conventional and drop-set protocols by having a person perform a different protocol on each limb. Varovic et al. compared 25 novice male exercisers (age: 19.21 ± 1.10 years) with no history of lower extremity injury. Each participant's leg was randomly assigned to either conventional or drop-set protocols for 8 weeks, 1-3 sessions/week, for a total of 21 sessions. Note that both limbs performed 1 session/week during week 1, 2 sessions/week during week 2, and 3 sessions/week during weeks 3-8. The conventional set leg performed 13-17 reps/set, with a 15 RM load/set, and reps to failure/set. The drop-set leg performed 5 RM loads/set, reps to failure/set, and each set was immediately followed by 2 drop-sets, 3-7 reps/set, a decrease of 20%/10-15% of 1 RM load/set, reps to failure/set. All protocols included knee extensions, 3-5 sets/exercise, moderate (2 min) rest between sets, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set limb performed more total exercise volume (reps × sets × load); however, both limbs exhibited significant and similar increases in knee extension 1 RM strength, peak torque, and average torque. Additionally, both limbs exhibited significant and similar increases in vastus lateralis muscle thickness at the proximal, mid, and distal portions. However, the drop-set limb exhibited larger increases in rectus femoris muscle thickness at the proximal and midportions of the muscle (but were similar at the distal portion) (15). Angleri et al. compared 32 healthy male experienced exercisers (age: 27.0 ± 3.9 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injuries or anabolic steroid use. Participants had 1 leg assigned to a conventional set protocol and the other leg randomly assigned to a pyramid set or drop-set protocol for 12 weeks. Note that all protocols were volume-equated. The conventional set protocol included 3-5 sets/exercise, 6-12 reps/set, 75% of 1 RM loads/set, and reps to failure during the last set/exercise. The pyramid set protocol included 3-5 sets/exercise, 15/12/10/8/6 reps/set, 65/70/75/80/85% of 1 RM loads/set, and reps to failure during the last set/exercise. The drop-set protocol included 1 set with reps-to-failure with 75% of 1-RM load, followed by 1-2 drop-sets with reps-to-failure, and each drop-set decreased load by 10%. All protocols included unilateral leg press and knee extensions, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that all groups exhibited significant and similar increases in unilateral leg press and knee extension 1 RM strength, as well as vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle, and fascicle length (8). Last, a pilot study by Ozaki et al. compared 9 male novice exercisers (age: 26.0 ± 1.0 years) with no history of tobacco or medication use. Participants' arms were randomly assigned to 2 of 3 groups: conventional sets with 80% of 1 RM load, conventional sets with 30% of 1 RM load, or drop-sets, for 8 weeks, 2-3 sessions/week, for a total of 22 sessions. The conventional set with 80% of 1 RM load group performed 3 sets/exercise, with long (3 min) rest between sets. The conventional set with 30% of 1 RM load group performed 3 sets/exercise, with moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise, with 80% of 1 RM load, and then 4 drop-sets with 65/50/40/30% of 1 RM load/set, with no rest between drop-sets. All protocols included bicep curls, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that the 30% of 1 RM load group performed the most exercise volume, the most reps/session, and the longest session duration. The 80% of 1 RM load and drop-set groups exhibited similar exercise volume and reps/session; however, the drop-set group exhibited shorter session durations. The 80% of 1 RM load group and the drop-set group exhibited significant and similar increases in bicep curl 1 RM and isometric strength, and the conventional set with 30% of 1 RM load did not. The findings demonstrated that all groups exhibited significant and similar increases in biceps brachii and brachialis CSA (13). Again, these studies were purposefully separated from the studies above due to the cross-over effects between limbs that have been demonstrated in several studies. That is, strength training in one limb results in strength improvements in the other, regardless of whether the other limb is trained. Unfortunately, this effect implies that strength training in one limb will have an effect on both limbs, and research using methodologies that attempt to compare different protocols on each limb is unlikely to demonstrate a difference between protocols. Similar to the studies mentioned in the "Strength and Endurance" section, only one of these studies demonstrated a significant difference in hypertrophy, likely confirming the influence of cross-over effects.

Electromyographic (EMG) Activity

  • Evidence-based Summary Statement: Drop sets, pyramid sets, and conventional sets are likely to result in similar EMG activity. If supersets result in longer rest between sets for the same muscle group, resulting in more reps/set, then the average EMG activity and fatigue index scores for that muscle may increase.

Comparing Conventional Sets, Pyramid Sets, and Drop Sets

Two studies (mentioned previously) compared EMG activity following several set strategies. Angleri et al. compared 12 male experienced exercisers (age: 23.0 ± 2 years) with no history of cardiovascular disease, neuromuscular disorders, or a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m. Participants performed conventional sets, drop-sets, and pyramid-set protocols, separated by 3 days. Note that participant's legs were randomly assigned to each protocol. The conventional set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, and 75% of 1 RM load. The drop-set protocol included 3 conventional sets/exercise, reps to failure/set, 75% of 1 RM load, immediately followed by 3 drop-sets, with reps to failure/set, and load decreased by 20% with each drop-set, with short (15-sec) rest between drop-sets. And, the ascending pyramid set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10/8/6 reps/set, 75/80/85% of 1 RM load/set. All protocols included knee extensions with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that all protocols resulted in similar vastus medialis EMG activity (8). Keogh et al. compared 12 highly experienced male exercisers (rugby, powerlifting, and bodybuilding athletes) (age: 25.4 ± 4.8 years). Participants performed conventional sets, isokinetic sets, eccentric sets, and isometrics combined with isokinetic sets, slow reps, rest pause, drop sets, and low-load sets. Participants performed the 8 protocols within 2 sessions, and a 20-min rest separated each protocol. For the purpose of this course, only the conventional sets and drop-set protocols were included in the findings. The conventional set protocol performed 1 set/exercise, with 6 RM loads. The drop-set protocol performed 5 sets/exercise, 95/90/85/82.5/80% of 1 RM load, for 1 rep/load. All protocols included bench press with reps to failure/set. The findings demonstrated that both protocols resulted in similar eccentric and concentric pectoralis major EMG activity (5). These studies suggest that drop sets, pyramid sets, and conventional sets are likely to result in similar EMG activity.

Changes in Force Production

  • Evidence-Based Summary Statement: These studies suggest that drop sets result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise strength and power when compared to conventional sets. A single drop-set, with only 1 "drop," may not be sufficient to significantly increase immediate post-exercise decreases in force production. However, multiple drop sets, multiple drops/set, and/or drops resulting in low loads and high reps to failure may result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise force production. Further, it may be advised that drop-sets are performed on larger multi-joint exercises, in a routine with multiple exercises/muscle groups, if the goal is to maximize exercise volume.

Conventional Sets Compared to Drop Sets

The effect of drop sets on performance during and immediately following a session may have implications for resistance training program design. Fink et al. compared 16 male exercisers with less than 1 year of resistance training experience (age: 22.8 ± 3.9 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set group or drop-set group for 6 weeks. The conventional set group performed 3 sets/exercise, 12 RM loads, and a moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The drop-set group performed 1 conventional set/exercise with 12 RM loads, and then 2 drop-sets with a 20% decrease in load/drop-set, and minimal rest between sets. All participants performed tricep press downs, reps to failure/set, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that both groups exhibited similar total exercise volume/session (load × reps); however, the drop-set group exhibited a significant reduction in session length. Both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in tricep pressdown 12 RM strength. However, only the drop-set group exhibited a significant decrease in immediate post-exercise triceps brachii isometric strength (7). Keskin et al. compared 24 experienced exercisers (conventional set group age: 20.00 ± 1.12 years; drop-set group age: 21.00 ± 1.04 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set or drop-set group for 6 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 12 sessions. The conventional set group performed leg press and leg extensions, 4 sets/exercise, 8-12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The drop-set group performed 3 conventional sets with leg press, 8-12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and 2 drop-sets with knee extensions, 50/30% of 1 RM loads/set, reps-to-failure/set, and minimal rest between drop-sets. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set group exhibited larger increases in power output following the 6-week intervention (Wingate testing). However, only the drop-set group exhibited a significant decrease in Wingate performance immediately after exercise (18). These studies suggest that drop sets result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise strength and power when compared to conventional sets.

Comparing Different Types of Drop Sets

Research comparing different drop set protocols may aid in determining which variables have the largest influence on immediate post-exercise strength and force production. Goto et al. compared 8 male recreationally active exercisers (age: 20-23 years) with no history of supplement use, anabolic steroid use, or drug use that may affect serum concentrations of growth hormone. Participants performed 2 conventional set protocols and 2 drop-set protocols, separated by at least 7 days. All protocols included knee extensions for 5 sets, 90% of 1 RM loads, reps-to-failure/set, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a fast (2 sec/rep) rep tempo. One protocol did not include a 6th set, 1 protocol included a 6th set of the same load, 1 protocol included a 6th set of 70% of 1 RM loads, and 1 protocol included a 6th set of 50% of a 1 RM load. Note, only a 30 sec rest was permitted between the 5th and 6th sets. The findings demonstrated that the protocols resulted in similar reps/set for the initial 5 sets/exercise. However, for the 6th set, the 50% of 1-RM load resulted in the most reps, highest exercise volume, and the lowest work rate; the 70% of 1-RM load resulted in fewer reps, less exercise volume, and a higher work rate, and the 90% of 1-RM load resulted in the fewest reps, the least exercise volume, and highest work rate. All protocols resulted in similar decreases in knee extension isometric strength (3). Fisher et al. compared 8 healthy male experienced exercisers (age: 27.2 ± 7.4 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury and no history of medications or performance-enhancing substance use. Participants performed high-load, low-load, forced reps, and drop-set protocols, separated by 7 days. The high-load protocol included 80% of 1 RM loads, and the low-load protocol included (unknown sets/exercise) 30% of 1 RM loads. The forced reps protocol included assisted reps once participants reached failure, starting with 80% of 1 RM loads and continuing with assisted reps until the participant could not maintain a 1-sec isometric hold in full extension. The drop-set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 75/60/45% of 1 RM load/set, and minimal rest between sets. All protocols included knee extensions, reps to failure/set, and a slow (3:0:2:1) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that the low-load protocol resulted in the largest post-exercise decrease in maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVIT), followed by the drop-set protocol, and the forced reps and high-load protocols exhibited the smallest decrease in MVIT (19). Bentes et al. compared 22 male experienced exercisers (age: 22.5 ± 3.04 years) with no history of upper extremity injury. Participants performed 4 protocols, separated by at least 2 days. Two protocols included drop sets followed by conventional sets, and the other 2 protocols included conventional sets followed by drop sets. The conventional set protocol included 1 set/exercise and a 10 RM load. The drop-set protocol included 1 conventional set/exercise, 10 RM load, and 2 drop-sets, with reps to failure/set, and 80/60% of 10 RM load/set. Participants performed bench press and chest flies with moderate (2 min) rest between exercises. Note that the 4 protocols were as follows: Protocol 1: bench press with drop-sets, followed by chest flies with conventional sets; protocol 2: bench press with conventional sets, followed by chest flies with drop sets; protocol 3: chest flies with drop sets, followed by bench press with conventional sets; protocol 4: chest flies with conventional sets, followed by bench press with drop-sets. The findings demonstrated that all protocols resulted in a similar total number of reps/session (24-26 reps). However, the findings demonstrated that protocols 1 and 4 (Bench press with drop sets) resulted in similar and larger total volumes of work (total reps × workload) than protocols 2 and 3 (chest flies with drop sets), which also resulted in similar total work (20). In summary, a single drop-set, with only 1 "drop," may not be sufficient to significantly increase immediate post-exercise decreases in force production. However, multiple drop sets, multiple drops/set, and/or drops resulting in low loads and high reps to failure may result in a larger decrease in immediate post-exercise force production. Further, it may be advised that drop-sets are performed on larger multi-joint exercises, in a routine with multiple exercises/muscle group, if the goal is to maximize exercise volume.

Supersets, Pyramid sets, and Drop Sets

Two additional studies compared force production following supersets, pyramid sets, and drop sets. Sabido et al. compared 17 male experienced exercisers (age: 23.2 ± 3.6 years) who were included if they could bench press at least 100kg and had experience with the routines used in the protocols of this study. Participants performed conventional, descending pyramid sets, agonist/antagonist supersets, and agonist/agonist supersets protocols, separated by 3 days. The conventional set protocol included 4 exercises, 6 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, with 70% of 1 RM loads. The descending pyramid set protocol included 4 exercises, 6 sets/exercise, 6/8/10/10/12/14 reps/set, and 80/75/70/70/65/60% of 1 RM load/set. The agonist/antagonist superset protocol performed 4 exercises, 6 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, with 70% of 1 RM loads. And, the agonist/agonist superset protocol included 8 exercises, 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, with 60% of 1 RM loads. All protocols included 240 reps/session, moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets, and a slow (2:0:2) rep tempo. Note that the most assisted reps were performed during the conventional set protocol, the 2nd most assisted reps were performed during the agonist/antagonist set protocol, and the least assisted reps were performed during the descending pyramid set and agonist/agonist superset protocols (which resulted in a similar number of assisted reps). The findings demonstrated that compared to pre-exercise values, all protocols resulted in significant and similar decreases in peak velocity of post-exercise Smith-machine bench press throws (5 reps with 40% of 1 RM load) (21). De Vasconcelos Costa et al. compared 18 male experienced exercisers (age: 18-26 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury or ergogenic substance use within the previous 6 months. Participants performed conventional, descending pyramid, and drop-set protocols, separated by 7 days. The conventional set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 12 RM load/set, and long (3 min) rest between sets. The descending pyramid set protocol included 3 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 10/12/15 RM load/set, and long (3 min) rest between sets. The drop-set protocol included 2 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 12 RM load/set, long (6 min) rest between sets, immediately followed by 1 drop set/exercise, 5 reps/set, 15 RM load/set. All protocols included bench press and leg press, with a rep tempo ratio of 2:1. This study assessed countermovement jump (CMJ) height pre-exercise and 30-min post-exercise. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set protocol resulted in the largest decreases in post-exercise CMJ height, followed by the descending pyramid set protocol. Only the conventional set protocol resulted in no significant changes in CMJ height. Additionally, only the drop-set protocol resulted in a significant decrease in CMJ peak force and power (22). These studies suggest drop-sets are likely to result in the largest decrease in immediate post-exercise strength and power. Conventional sets, supersets, and pyramid sets will likely result in similar post-exercise decreases in power; however, descending pyramid sets, which finish with low-load/high-rep sets, may result in slightly larger decreases.

Power

  • Power: Conventional sets, supersets, and pyramid sets likely result in similar improvements in power outcomes. Drop sets may result in larger improvements in power; however, the significant decrease in power immediately following drop sets should be considered when scheduling routines for athletes.

Only one study compared the effects of drop-sets on improvements in power. Keskin et al. compared 24 experienced exercisers (conventional set group age: 20.00 ± 1.12 years; drop-set group age: 21.00 ± 1.04 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a conventional set or drop-set group for 6 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 12 sessions. The conventional set group performed leg press and leg extensions, 4 sets/exercise, 8-12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and a moderate (2:0:1) rep tempo. The drop-set group performed 3 conventional sets with leg press, 8-12 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, long (3 min) rest between sets, and 2 drop-sets with knee extensions, 50/30% of 1 RM loads/set, reps-to-failure/set, and minimal rest between drop-sets. The findings demonstrated that the drop-set group exhibited larger increases in power output following the 6-week intervention (Wingate testing). However, both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in peak and average power when calculated per body mass. Note that only the drop-set group exhibited a significant decrease in Wingate performance immediately after exercise (18).

Bibliography

  1. Namango, R. O., & Ng’wena Gideon Magak, K. O. (2023). Acute Physiological Effects of Drop Set on IGF and GH in the Quadriceps Femoris Among Males in Kakamega County, Kenya. Sch Int J Anat Physiol, 6(7), 111-121.
  2. Alves, R. C., Enes, A., Prestes, J., Dias, Y. R., Coimbra, L. F., Lubas, H., ... & Junior, T. P. D. S. (2019). The acute effect of multiple-sets and drop-set systems on the hormonal and immunological responses. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 19, 1315-1322.
  3. Goto, K., Sato, K., & Takamatsu, K. (2003). A single set of low intensity resistance exercise immediately following high intensity resistance exercise stimulates growth hormone secretion in men. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 43(2), 243-249.
  4. Fink, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2018). Effects of drop set resistance training on acute stress indicators and long-term muscle hypertrophy and strength. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 58(5), 597-605.
  5. Keogh, J. W., Wilson, G. J., & Weatherby, R. E. (1999). A cross-sectional comparison of different resistance training techniques in the bench press. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(3), 247-258.
  6. De Almeida, F. N., Lopes, C. R., Conceição, R. M. D., Oenning, L., Crisp, A. H., De Sousa, N. M. F., ... & Prestes, J. (2019). Acute effects of the new method sarcoplasma stimulating training versus traditional resistance training on total training volume, lactate and muscle thickness. Frontiers in Physiology, 579.
  7. Fink, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Kikuchi, N., & Nakazato, K. (2018). Effects of drop set resistance training on acute stress indicators and long-term muscle hypertrophy and strength. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 58(5), 597-605.
  8. Angleri, V., de Oliveira, R., Biazon, T. M., Damas, F., Borghi-Silva, A., Barroso, R., & Libardi, C. A. (2020). Effects of drop-set and pyramidal resistance training systems on microvascular oxygenation: a near-infrared spectroscopy approach. International Journal of Exercise Science, 13(2), 1549.
  9. Gambassi, B. B., Queiroz, C., Nogueira, R., Novais, T. M. G., Costa, C. P. S., Almeida, F. D. J. F., & dos Santos, C. P. (2020). Response of the Autonomic Cardiac Control Induced by Resistance Training Using the Sarcoplasma Stimulating Training Method. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 23(3), 46-55.
  10. Singh, B., & Kumar, S. (2021). Significance of Training on Drop Sets In Various Sports Colleges. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(12), 4848-4856.
  11. Fisher, J. P., Carlson, L., & Steele, J. (2016). The effects of breakdown set resistance training on muscular performance and body composition in young men and women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(5), 1425-1432.
  12. Fasihiyan, M., Forbes, S., Taheri, M., Lopez, J. G., Babaie, M., Dejam, B., & Nourshahi, M. (2023). The effects of a single or multi-step drop-set training compared to traditional resistance training on muscle performance and body composition. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 2(3), 410-422.
  13. Ozaki, H., Kubota, A., Natsume, T., Loenneke, J. P., Abe, T., Machida, S., & Naito, H. (2018). Effects of drop sets with resistance training on increases in muscle CSA, strength, and endurance: a pilot study. Journal of sports sciences, 36(6), 691-696.
  14. Angleri, V., Ugrinowitsch, C., & Libardi, C. A. (2017). Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do not promote greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with traditional resistance training in well-trained men. European journal of applied physiology, 117, 359-369.
  15. Varović, D., Žganjer, K., Vuk, S., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2021). Drop-set training elicits differential increases in non-uniform hypertrophy of the quadriceps in leg extension exercise. Sports, 9(9), 119.
  16. Vilaça-Alves, J., Brito, J. P., Machado, B., Canário-Lemos, R., Moreira, T., Matos, F., ... & Reis, V. M. (2023). Drop Set versus Traditional Strength Training Protocols Equated in Volume on Muscle Thickness in Women.
  17. Enes, A., Alves, R. C., Schoenfeld, B. J., Oneda, G., Perin, S. C., Trindade, T. B., ... & Souza-Junior, T. P. (2021). Rest-pause and drop-set training elicit similar strength and hypertrophy adaptations compared with traditional sets in resistance-trained males. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 46(11), 1417-1424.
  18. Keskin, K., & Tokat, F. (2023). A comparative analysis of the effects of drop set and traditional resistance training on anaerobic power in young men. Turkish Journal of Kinesiology, 9(3), 225-232.
  19. Fisher, J. P., Farrow, J., & Steele, J. (2017). Acute fatigue and perceptual responses to resistance exercise. Muscle & Nerve, 56(6), E141-E146.
  20. Bentes, C. M., Simão, R., Bunker, T., Rhea, M. R., Miranda, H., Gomes, T. M., & Novaes, J. D. S. (2012). Acute effects of dropsets among different resistance training methods in upper body performance. Journal of human kinetics, 34, 105.
  21. Sabido, R., Peñaranda, M., & Hernández-Davó, J. L. (2016). Comparison of acute responses to four different hypertrophy-oriented resistance training methodologies. European Journal of Human Movement, 37, 109-121.
  22. de Vasconcelos Costa, B. D., Ferreira, M. E. C., Gantois, P., Kassiano, W., Paes, S. T., de Lima-Júnior, D., ... & de Sousa Fortes, L. (2020). Acute effect of drop-set, traditional, and pyramidal systems in resistance training on neuromuscular performance in trained adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(4), 991-996.

© 2025 Brent Brookbush (B2C Fitness, LLC d.b.a. Brookbush Institute)

Comments, critiques, and questions are welcome!

Comments

Guest