Our results agree with two previous studies comparing cluster set designs with continuous set designs . These designs observed higher increases in SBP response, with two to ten seconds of resting time in the middle of the set, in comparison with the continuous ones. Oddly, our data disagree with the lower values observed in an IRD with 3 s of rest between repetitions in comparison with a CD . The divergence of the results may be due to three different methodological reasons. Firstly, our leg press had an eccentric–concentric fashion in comparison with the concentric–eccentric structure of Baum et al. Secondly, in comparison with the work-to-rest ratio matched designs in our study, the protocols in the study of Baum et al. were unequal. They had the same resting time between sets but a greater total resting time in their IRD, because of the addition of the rests between repetitions, but without adjusting their CD. Additionally, while we collected the peak SBP value for every repetition, Baum et al. collected the whole SBP response (i.e., 50% resting time and 50% concentric and eccentric contractions time). These two reasons may have greatly reduced the SBP response in their study . Thirdly, the times participants lifted their feet in our IRD (i.e., one for every repetition, 40 times) might have affected SBP in a greater magnitude than Baum et al.’s (i.e., three times), since after every lifting of their feet, SBP shifted upwards .