Key result
Planned trial compares cluster-set and traditional resistance training for mental health and sleep quality.
Why the study?
Does cluster-set resistance training improve mental health and sleep quality in sedentary female college students compared to traditional resistance training or no exercise?
RCT (n=48)
Single-blind
Computer-generated permuted-block randomization with variable block sizes
No
Does cluster-set resistance training improve mental health and sleep quality in sedentary female college students compared to traditional resistance training or no exercise?
This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of cluster-set versus traditional resistance training on mental health and sleep quality in sedentary young women.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Protocol for RCT testing cluster-set RT on mental health and sleep in sedentary women; leaves open comparative efficacy versus traditional sets.
Background: Mental health and sleep problems are highly prevalent among sedentary young women and substantially impair their well-being. Resistance training has shown promise in improving mental health and sleep outcomes. However, traditional set structures often induce high levels of fatigue and perceived exertion, which may reduce exercise tolerability and compromise sustained participation. By redistributing rest within sets, cluster-set resistance training may attenuate fatigue while preserving comparable training stimuli, thereby potentially enhancing benefits for mental health and sleep. Methods: This single-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial will recruit sedentary female college students. Participants will be randomly allocated (1:1:1) to (1) a non-exercising control group (CON), (2) traditional resistance training (TR), or (3) cluster-set resistance training (CS). The intervention will last 8 weeks (3 supervised sessions/week for TR and CS). Training exercises, weekly load progression, and total rest time per exercise will be identical between TR and CS; only set structure and the distribution of rest intervals will differ. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, week 4, and week 8. The co-primary outcomes are DASS-21 total score and PSQI global score. Secondary outcomes include POMS total mood disturbance, actigraphy-derived sleep parameters, maximal dynamic strength, anthropometrics and body composition, and blood biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, cortisol, and serotonin). Discussion: This trial will evaluate whether TR and CS improve mental health and sleep compared with CON, and whether rest-redistribution cluster sets provide additional benefits over traditional set structures under comparable overall training stimuli. The findings may inform the design of future supervised resistance-training interventions and longer-term trials for sedentary young women. Clinical trial registration: This trial was registered at the China Clinical Trials Registration Center (www.chictr.org.cn), registration number is ChiCTR2500110077.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiang et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Mental health and sleep problems (n=48). Cluster-set resistance training vs. Traditional resistance training and non-exercising control was evaluated on DASS-21 total score and PSQI global score at week 8. Cluster-set resistance training and traditional resistance training will be evaluated for their efficacy in improving mental health and sleep quality among sedentary young women in this planned trial.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: