Single sets?

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 35–47. 2004.

Quantitative Analysis of Single- vs. Multiple-Set Programs in Resistance Training
Brian L. Wolfe and Phillip J. Cole


Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania 17815

Linda M. LeMura


Department of Biology, Le Moyne College, Syracuse, New York 13214

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the existing research on single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs. Using the meta-analytic approach, we included studies that met the following criteria in our analysis: (a) at least 6 subjects per group; (b) subject groups consisting of single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs; (c) pretest and posttest strength measures; (d) training programs of 6 weeks or more; (e) apparently “healthy” individuals free from orthopedic limitations; and (f) published studies in English-language journals only. Sixteen studies generated 103 effect sizes (ESs) based on a total of 621 subjects, ranging in age from 15–71 years. Across all designs, intervention strategies, and categories, the pretest to posttest ES in muscular strength was ( = 1.4 ± 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.41–3.8; p < 0.001). The results of 2 × 2 analysis of variance revealed simple main effects for age, training status (trained vs. untrained), and research design (p < 0.001). No significant main effects were found for sex, program duration, and set end point. Significant interactions were found for training status and program duration (6–16 weeks vs. 17–40 weeks) and number of sets performed (single vs. multiple). The data indicated that trained individuals performing multiple sets generated significantly greater increases in strength (p < 0.001). For programs with an extended duration, multiple sets were superior to single sets (p < 0.05). This quantitative review indicates that single-set programs for an initial short training period in untrained individuals result in similar strength gains as multiple-set programs. However, as progression occurs and higher gains are desired, multiple-set programs are more effective
 
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 284–289. 2001.

Single- vs. Multiple-Set Strength Training in Women
ANDREAS SCHLUMBERGER, JUSTYNA STEC, and DIETMAR SCHMIDTBLEICHER


Institute of Sport Sciences, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, 60487 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

ANDREAS SCHLUMBERGER


EDEN Reha, Rehabilitation Clinic, 93093 Donaustauf, Germany.

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of single-set and multiple-set strength training in women. Twenty-seven women (aged 20–40 years) with basic experience in strength training were randomly allocated to either a single-set group (n = 9), a 3-set group (n = 9), or a nontraining control group (n = 9). Both training groups underwent a whole-body strengthening program, exercising 2 days a week for 6 weeks. Exercises included bilateral leg extension, bilateral leg curl, abdominal crunch, seated hip adduction/abduction, seated bench press, and lateral pull-down. The single-set group's program consisted of only 1 set of 6–9 repetitions until failure, whereas the multiple-set group trained with 3 sets of 6–9 repetitions until failure (rest interval between sets, 2 minutes). Two times before and 3 days after termination of the training program, subjects were tested for their 1 repetition maximum strength on the bilateral leg extension and the seated bench press machine. Data were analyzed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance, Scheffé tests, t-tests, and calculation of effect sizes. Both training groups made significant strength improvements in leg extension (multiple-set group, 15%; single-set group, 6%; p 0.05). However, in the seated bench press only the 3-set group showed a significant increase in maximal strength (10%). Calculation of effect sizes and percentage gains revealed higher strength gains in the multiple-set group. No significant differences were found in the control group. These findings suggest superior strength gains occurred following 3-set strength training compared with single-set strength training in women with basic experience in resistance training.
 
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 689–697. 2005.

Moderate Resistance Training Volume Produces More Favorable Strength Gains Than High or Low Volumes During a Short-Term Training Cycle
Juan J. González-Badillo


Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid, Spain

Esteban M. Gorostiaga


Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarra, Navarra, Spain

Raúl Arellano


Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Mikel Izquierdo


Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarra, Navarra, Spain

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of 3 resistance training volumes on maximal strength in the snatch (Sn), clean & jerk (C&J), and squat (Sq) exercises during a 10-week training period. Fifty-one experienced (>3 years), trained junior lifters were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: a low-volume group (LVG, n = 16), a moderate-volume group (MVG, n = 17), and a high-volume group (HVG, n = 18). All subjects trained 4–5 days a week with a periodized routine using the same exercises and relative intensities but a different total number of sets and repetitions at each relative load: LVG (1,923 repetitions), MVG (2,481 repetitions), and HVG (3,030 repetitions). The training was periodized from moderate intensity (60– 80% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and high number of repetitions per set (2–6) to high intensity (90–100% of 1RM) and low number of repetitions per set (1–3). During the training period, the MVG showed a significant increase for the Sn, C&J, and Sq exercises (6.1, 3.7, and 4.2%, respectively, p < 0.01), whereas in the LVG and HVG, the increase took place only with the C&J exercise (3.7 and 3%, respectively, p < 0.05) and the Sq exercise (4.6%, p < 0.05, and 4.8%, p < 0.01, respectively). The increase in the Sn exercise for the MVG was significantly higher than in the LVG (p = 0.015). Calculation of effect sizes showed higher strength gains in the MVG than in the HVG or LVG. There were no significant differences between the LVG and HVG training volume-induced strength gains. The present results indicate that junior experienced lifters can optimize performance by exercising with only 85% or less of the maximal volume that they can tolerate. These observations may have important practical relevance for the optimal design of strength training programs for resistance-trained athletes, since we have shown that performing at a moderate volume is more effective and efficient than performing at a higher volume.
 
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 73–81. 2006.

Moderate Volume of High Relative Training Intensity Produces Greater Strength Gains Compared With Low and High Volumes in Competitive Weightlifters
Juan José González-Badillo


Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid, Spain;

Mikel Izquierdo and Esteban M. Gorostiaga


Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarra, Navarra, Spain

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of 3 volumes of heavy resistance, average relative training intensity (expressed as a percentage of 1 repetition maximum that represented the absolute kilograms lifted divided by the number of repetitions performed) programs on maximal strength (1RM) in Snatch (Sn), Clean & Jerk (C&J), and Squat (Sq). Twenty-nine experienced (>3 years), trained junior weightlifters were randomly assigned into 1 of 3 groups: low-intensity group (LIG; n = 12), moderate-intensity group (MIG; n = 9), and high-intensity group (HIG; n = 8). All subjects trained for 10 weeks, 4–5 days a week, in a periodized routine using the same exercises and training volume (expressed as total number of repetitions performed at intensities equal to or greater than 60% of 1RM), but different programmed total repetitions at intensities of >90–100% of 1RM for the entire 10-week period: LIG (46 repetitions), MIG (93 repetitions), and HIG (184 repetitions). During the training period, MIG and LIG showed a significant increase (p < 0.01–0.05) for C&J (10.5% and 3% for MIG and LIG, respectively) and Sq (9.5% and 5.3% for MIG and LIG, respectively), whereas in HIG the increase took place only in Sq (6.9%, p < 0.05). A calculation of effect sizes revealed greater strength gains in the MIG than in HIG or LIG. There were no significant differences between LIG and HIG training volume-induced strength gains. All the subjects in HIG were unable to fully accomplish the repetitions programmed at relative intensities greater than 90% of 1RM. The present results indicate that short-term resistance training using moderate volumes of high relative intensity tended to produce higher enhancements in weightlifting performance compared with low and high volumes of high relative training intensities of equal total volume in experienced, trained young weightlifters. Therefore, for the present population of weightlifters, it may be beneficial to use the MIG training protocol to improve the weightlifting program at least in a short-term (10 weeks) cycle of training
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top