Single sets?

The American College of Sports Medicine published a study showing only minimum incremental gains for multiple versus a single set of each lift.

However 'popular' routines have 2-5 sets per lift.

Might a good alternative be single sets of multiple
lifts for the same muscle group? This way you work the group in different ways.

Example:
Biceps: 1 set curls, 1 set reverse grip curls, 1 set concentration or preacher curls
Triceps: 1 set skullcrushers, 1 set dumbell French curls, 1 set triceps extensions or perhaps kickbacks.


Opinions????

TIA
 
Evolution,

Maybe I am reading the great Mentzer wrong?
I thought intensity was key.
If volume is too high, intensity is less. This implies to me
that one set which leaves you quivering is a pretty good deal. Sort of like the hardgainer thing (which is like
what I am considering) - low sets (typicially one
'warmup' at lighter weights and one (or at most two?)
at weight which leads to failure on last attempted rep.
Of course, there is some moderation here. Since no rack/cage, squats to failure is a problem. The one time
I did deadlift to failure I was pretty messed up for a week or so. YMMV.
 
mreik,
Please be so kind as to enlighten me:

What is a 'DC type'?

Dumb Cretin?
District of Columbia?
Daft Cellist?

etc.

TIA!!!
 
mreik:
Thank you for the cryptic reply.
Is DogCrapp:
1) A philosophy unknown to Google?
2) A character unknown to Google?
3) An entity here that the search engine can not find?
4) Your opinion of me?
5) A hypothetical concept not well known outside your circles?
6) Other?

TIA.
 
Sorry, mreik

My google search was stupid. Got answer now.
It appears what I am proposing is a
hybrid of DC, Hardgainer and HIT. And it does in
fact bring in a wee bit of the MM philosophy. All of these seem to have in common:
1) Beat yourself up badly.
2) Recover sufficiently.
3) Repeat 1) and 2).

The differences seem to be in the interpretations of 1) and 2).

Given that I am 58YO and have been training for just under a year, and that I have had moderate success with this program (1.25 inch arm, 2.5 inch chest gain, 1.5-2x gain in 1MR for DL, BP), do you think this single-set to failure DC-ish, sort of HG-ish program makes sense for me?

Thanks In Advance for your what has proven to be so far sage advice.
 
I think with <1yr of training, no matter the age, you don't need sets that intense. But if you're currently doing it and experiencing good results, don't let anyone tell you to stop.

I do agree with evo, IMO DC has it's down side. By kicking the living crap out of a muscle group with one set I'm requiring myself to take almost a week off before I can work that muscle again.. Which, in my high frequency world, is too long.

Keep in mind that the studies you read did say there was more muscle to be had. Just because you get 80% of the gains from your first set, do you neglect the 20% you left in the gym? You need to find that balance, between all the factors.

If low vol, low freq, sick intensity is it, then run with it. But go a little more in depth as to how you're setting this up throughout the week with the different lifts and whatnot and 'the evolution' and I will assist a little more..
 
Aloha & Howizt!

What is important and what is "popular" is something only you will need to findout by studying and then applying. In this case. this means educating and learning the variables of progressive resistance exercises -choice of exercise, order or exercises, set-weight resistance- repetitions-rest intervals, frequency, duration and so on whether this be single or multiple sets.
The one thing I do stress to individuals is that the "high intensity" approach should be utilized when you have clear understanding of the performance/technique of the exercise and that the volumme is not based on the weight resistance but more on your present level of inner functional conditioning that determines the external amount of weight resistance to be used. In other words, good technique is useless without "substance/spirit/health." The stuff of life as we say in Hawaii.
If you are a beginner, the single set method is applicable but do not go beyond three different types of progressvie exercises per-body area.
You do not want to create any unhealthy side affects that will eventually cause your joints and muscle attachments to develop a "bad reaction" to exercsing. One cause of the "overtraining syndrome" or wanting to do something else.
The ACSM at times tend to put out information that still needs more observation and less judgement. I know this to be a fact...no, for real.
Anyway, if there are other issues that you would like to discuss, let me know.
Good Health To you and ALOHA!
mikey q.
 
Dang, mreik!

I think I am starting to appreciate you. You understand
we are all different and respond differently to different
programs.

BTW, the ACSM study showed the gains for 3+ sets vs
1 to be about 2% - is this really a big deal?

And as far as beating up a group with one set - for me so far it seems that it REALLY requires 2 (sometimes 3) off days to recover. I can recover from a brutal arm workout with 2 days off, but deadlifts (and I really LOVE deadlifts and brutalize myself with them) are STRICTLY a once per week thing. I suspect that once I get my squats up to a decent weight range, they also we become a once a week thing (NOT on deadlift day!!!!)
 
MJ
Thanks for the info. I think you are saying something similar to mreik 'listen to your body'. You also tell me (like mreik) that the beginning is very much a learning experience. I realize that the 'high intensity' and 'hardgainer' approaches require a great deal of study, attention, understanding, patience, and discipline. This is where my advanced years come into play. I have had to learn the 'study, attention, understanding, patience, and discipline' routine to get this far without hurting myself or making unrecoverable mistakes. THANK YOU for your sage advice.
 
Good luck, Eric. I'm in the same boat as Mreik; we both love frequency-so volume and intensity is an accumulation over a certain time period. Also, keep in mind that as work capacity increases, so does the bodys adaption for increasing volume. It's an interesting game of finding out what works for you.
 
ericp, if you have access to a local library, you can look up numerous studies comparing multiple sets vs. single sets in the NSCA's research journal (National Strength and Conditioning Association).

It's always best to keep in mind the interests of the experimentor(s) when looking at the results of scientific studies, but the latest research has shown that multiple sets have greater results than single sets.

MAXX
 
MAXX,


Can you provide me some citations or at least a search argument likely to work with most civic library search engines (Luis, etc)?

BTW, what I originally proposed was not pure Mentzer HIT (which is probably a good method), but sort of an implied superset on top of HIT. Do you think this is whacko, or might it have merit?

Your sage advice is greatly appreciated.

What I am trying to accomplish is decent gains with no injury in a few (2-3) fairly short (40-60 minutes) sessions a week. Right now it is 1 full body workout 2x a week, same workout every time except for alternating Deadlifts and Squats or squat substitutes (I am afraid of squats due to bad balance and no rack/cage). Each full body workout is one set of almost aerobic light weight lifts, followed by 'working sets' which are done to failure in most cases (exception being deadlift, which is done to mere agony). Pretty much classical HIT. Reason I do deads not to failure is that if I hit DL failure, I may break some important stuff. I do try once every 3 months to do DL to find new 1MR. That is the ONLY thing I do during that workout. I usually whimper and cry for many hours after that. Best recent was 310 on 9/1. I dread the 12/1 challenge.
 
Copied from another web site--this is not my material. Info is by Dr. Fred Hatfield.

IS HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING BEST?


Dr. Fred Hatfield, aka Dr. Squat, starts the discussion with the following critique:


"HIT"

Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D., International Sports Science Association

HIT History:

It all started back in the early seventies with Arthur Jones of Nautilus fame. Arthur's chief mission, of course, was to sell equipment. His marketing plan was brilliant. My interpretation of his plan was that in order to sell his equipment he had to create a religion for the masses. To create a religion he needed 1) churches, 2) disciples, 3) a bible, and 4) clergy.

A scientist (Ellington Darden) wrote his bible, and a strength coach named Matt Brzycki put the Ten Commandments from that bible into lay language. The Ten Commandments are presented below. Then he paid a bunch of guys to follow the gospel (their test results were later incorporated into the bible). Later, a chosen few of them became his disciples.

The churches came next (Nautilus gyms sprang up all over the place... most are dead now, their respective flocks having flown the coop upon realizing that they were not making it to the promised land quickly enough -- in my humble opinion). His clergymen (gym owners) LOVED Arthur because he had really neat looking equipment and a way for them to rustle their clients in the front door and out the back real fast by convincing them that one set to failure was "the way."

The New HITters:

There is a small (but utterly vocal) band of Arthur Jones disciples who have, since the early seventies, clung desperately to the oft discredited notion that one high intensity set to failure is all you need to achieve your maximum potential in growing stronger or bigger. In fact, the contemporary interpretation (below) admits that one may profit from three sets, although one set is just as good as three. I say "desperately" for good reason.

These guys (who like to call each other "HIT Jedi") invested their hearts and souls (and, quite often, funds from their respective organizations) in the superiority of both Jones' equipment and his theories on how best to use it. Others have been or are "sponsored" by Arthur. It almost seems as if they are afraid of losing face (if not their jobs) if they were to back away from the tenets of the HIT theory now, despite the huge volume of scientific studies discrediting many of its tenets.

From a social-psychological view, it's utterly fascinating to watch the HIT men scramble. It brings to mind the great movie, "Lord of the Flies," in which a bunch of shipwrecked boys, left to their own devices, created a sort of Pagan society amongst themselves. Some of the Jedi who are more vocal than most, having written many passionate articles or books on their own cute little variants of the old Jones theory, bear mention. How they refer to each other as "Jedi" (which, I'm assured, means "priest") is yet more proof that HIT is a Pagan religion. I must say, however, I admire their zeal for lifting!

Meaning to cast no dispersion on these well-meaning gentlemen by identifying them to the readers on this list, and acknowledging that not all those listed may care to admit to their Pagan beliefs, here they are in alphabetical order (this is neither an exhaustive listing, nor is it mine -- it came from their web site):

Matt Brzycki (strength coach at Princeton University);
Ellington Darden, Ph.D. (Jones' longtime science advisor);
Ken Leistner, D.C. (New York chiro who runs a gym there);
Ken Mannie (strength coach at Michigan State);
Stuart McRobert (publishes a "Hardgainer" newsletter);
Mike Mentzer (former bodybuilder who fabricated his own "Heavy Duty" interpretation of Arthur's disproved tenets);
Dan Riley (strength coach of the Washington Redskins);
Rob Spector (keeper of a HIT web site); and
Wayne Westcott, Ph.D. (a YMCA fitness director)
Kim Wood (strength coach of the Cincinnati Bengals)

Just as Protestants split from Rome, some Jedi have gone their own way to create their own denominations of the HIT religion. The religious wrinkles provided by the various denominations after their split from Rome are quite interesting reading. I mentioned Mike Mentzer's "Heavy Duty" system of training is really no different than HIT with a few funky (read: "mystical") wrinkles added.

There's also the "Superslow" system created by the Protestant HIT Jedi Ken Hutchins, who actually provides a fitness trainer certification in his system. His peculiar wrinkle to HIT theory has to do with friction. Says he: "When you pull a trigger on a rifle or gun, you're supposed to pull with a slow, steady squeeze to the rear - if you jerk the trigger than the shot will be off. Same thing when lifting weights - each repetition should be a slow, steady squeeze of the muscle with no jerking. "...if an exercise has little friction, it's better to use a longer negative as you don't get the "partial respite" that you would from an exercise with lots of friction."

Now I'd like to introduce you to the HIT commandments and some pointed comments on each relative to some widely accepted laws of training.
 
continuation of the above article......

The Ten HIT Commandments according to Jedi Brzycki:

1. Train With A High Level Of Intensity.

"Intensity," according to HIT dogma, "relates to the degree of the "inroads"--or amount of fatigue--you've made into your muscle at any given instant. In the weight room, a high level of intensity is characterized by performing an exercise to the point of concentric muscular failure: when you've exhausted your muscles to the extent that you literally cannot raise the weight for any more repetitions. Failure to reach a desirable level of intensity--or muscular fatigue--will result in little or no gains in functional strength or muscular size. After reaching concentric muscular failure, you can increase the intensity even further by performing 3 to 5 additional post-fatigue repetitions. These post-fatigue reps may be either negatives or regressions and will allow you to overload your muscles in a safe, efficient manner."

There is no question that going to failure can constitute a more "intense" workout. But, in the real world -- in the gym -- intensity is so much more than that. Webster defines intensity as having or showing the characteristic of strength, force, straining, or (relative to a bodybuilder's focal point) other aspects of his or her effort to a maximum degree. The words intense and intent both have the same Latin root, intendere "to stretch out." If one is intent on doing something, he does so, by definition, with strained or eager attention -- with concentration! That intensity of effort is largely a function of the mind is not this writer's opinion. It is true by definition as well as by practical usage of the word!

"Intensity" is increased by:

* amplification of mental effort -- getting "psyched"

* approaching your training with a burning passion, as though it were your LIFE

* adding reps

* adding weight

* decreasing rest between reps

* decreasing rest between sets

* increasing the number of exercises per body part

* increasing the total number of exercises or body parts trained at one session

* increasing the number of training sessions per day

* increasing the speed of movement

* increasing the amount of work done at the anaerobic threshold (maximum pain

tolerance)

* increasing the amount of eccentric work your muscles are required to perform.

Perhaps most importantly, going to failure is NOT a prerequisite to adaptation!


The SAID Principle is violated by the first commandment of HIT. Their idea is to go to failure all the time, but certain "specific" training objectives mitigate against it (e.g., speed training). And, the GAS Principle, which states that there must be a period of low intensity training or complete rest following periods of high intensity training, is violated. These guys go to failure all the time!


2. Attempt To Increase The Resistance Used Or The Repetitions Performed Every Workout.

"...every time you work out you should attempt to increase either the weight you use or the repetitions you perform in relation to your previous workout. This can be viewed as a "double progressive" technique (resistance and repetitions). Challenging your muscles in this manner will force them to adapt to the imposed demands (or stress)."

The SAID Principle is violated. Sometimes, lighter weights done rapidly is required. And sometimes heavier weights done for 3 reps is required. (If your training requires that you go to failure with a weight that's so heavy you can only do three reps, you are BEGGING for a MAJOR injury if that takes you to failure!) The GAS Principle is also violated. Alternating periods of high versus low intensity is a better way to go. If you wait until total recovery is accomplished in any given muscle, atrophy place.


3. Perform 1 To 3 Sets Of Each Exercise.

"...numerous research studies -- which I once again am probably viewed as dreaming up--have shown that there are no significant differences when performing either one, two or three sets of an exercise..."

Yep! You're dreaming pal! Dr. Richard Berger (my mentor during my doctoral studies at Temple) years ago showed that there IS a significant improvement in gains with three sets as opposed to one. Other studies have shown the same results. Nowadays, many athletes (bodybuilders included) do as many as 10 or more sets. Even Arthur Jones --the original HIT man --showed that people with white, fast-twitch muscles require fewer reps, sets and workouts per week than people with predominantly red, slow-twitch muscles.

Apparently, all HIT men are white muscle fiber guys? I think not! So, while none of the seven laws are violated here, some (especially the overload principle and the SAID principle) are not being applied to their maximum potential.


4. Reach Concentric Muscular Failure Within A Prescribed Number Of Repetitions.

"Repetition ranges differ from body part to body part and from coach to coach. In the course of training hundreds of collegiate athletes over the past eleven years, these are the ranges I usually assign: 15 to 20 (hip exercises), 10 to 15 (leg exercises) and 6 to 12 (upper body exercises). Other HIT strength coaches are pretty much in that neighborhood, with a few electing slightly lower ranges but not less than six."

Woah! You guys should be blushing on this one! The SAID principle as well as the principle of individual differences are quite specific in recognizing that not everyone is alike. Not everyone responds in the same way to any given rep/set scheme. Look again at my response to Commandment Three.


5. Perform Each Repetition With Proper Technique.

"A quality rep is performed by raising and lowering the weight in a deliberate, controlled manner. Lifting a weight in a rapid, explosive fashion is ill-advised for two reasons: (1) it exposes your muscles, joint structures and connective tissue to potentially dangerous forces which magnify the likelihood of an injury while strength training and (2) it introduces momentum into the movement which makes the exercise less productive and less efficient. Lifting a weight in about 1 to 2 seconds will guarantee that you're exercising in a safe, efficient manner. It should take about 3 to 4 seconds to lower the weight back to the starting/stretched position.

First, I grow weary of the HIT business of being "safe." Where in the book does it say that going slow and deliberate with a heavy weight is safer? I think otherwise. What about predisposing an athlete to greater harm on the playing field as a result of this sort of nonsensical preparatory training?

And, certainly, these slow, deliberate movements are not as effective as other methods in many instances. SOME reps are well performed in the manner described above. However, this commandment clearly disregards the importance of cheating movements, explosive lifting (e.g., the Olympic lifts), and many other techniques of lifting.

Further, slow, deliberate movements are nowhere NEAR as effective for forcing an adaptive response in connective tissues as are more explosive (and yes, often "ballistic") movements. So much for their claim to "safety!" Deinhibition of the Golgi tendon organ's protective feedback loop can be moved back far more effectively with controlled ballistic movements than with slow, deliberate movements. Clearly, this commandment is in violation of the Overcompensation, Specificity and SAID principles.


6. Strength Train For No More Than One Hour Per Workout.

"If you are training with a high level of intensity--and you should--you literally cannot exercise for a long period of time. ...Training with a minimal amount of recovery time between exercises will elicit a metabolic conditioning effect that cannot be approached by traditional multiple set programs. Don't ask me why cause I've been makin' all this stuff up as I go along."

Ol' Jedi Brzycki continues to put his sandalled foot on top of his golden tongue. Here, I think (one can't really tell) he's claiming that doing one set of squats, then one set of benches, then one set of pulldowns, then one set of curls, and one set of 3, 4, 5 or so additional exercises, and you're outta the gym. C'mon!

Clearly, this commandment is in violation of the Overcompensation, Specificity and SAID principles. Re-read my response to Commandment Three.

People are DIFFERENT!


7. Emphasize The Major Muscle Groups.

"The focal point for most of your exercises should be your major muscle groups (i.e. your hips, legs and upper torso)."

Oh? Have we lost sight of training weaknesses first? Bodybuilders know this instinctively. Most athletes do as well. Clearly, this commandment is in violation of the Specificity and SAID principles.


8. Whenever Possible, Work Your Muscles From Largest To Smallest.

"Exercise your hips first, then go to your legs (hams, quads and calves or dorsi flexors), upper torso (chest, upper back and shoulders), arms (biceps, triceps and forearms), abs and finally your low back."

Duhhhhh! Am I missing something? In the Eighth Commandment, you told us NOT to focus on smaller muscles! In addition to violating one of your own commandments, this commandment is in violation of the Specificity and SAID principles.


9. Strength Train 2 To 3 Times Per Week On Nonconsecutive Days.

"...a period of about 48 to 72 hours is necessary for muscle tissue to recover sufficiently from a strength workout. A period of at least 48 hours is also required to replenish your depleted carbohydrate stores.

...Performing any more than three sessions a week can gradually become counterproductive due to a catabolic effect. This occurs when the demands you have placed on your muscles have exceeded you recovery ability. Recovery time is adequate if you continue making gains."

Sometimes 48-72 hours is sufficient, and sometimes it's not. Depending upon the muscle involved it may be less or it may be more.

Remember:

* Big muscles take longer to recover than smaller ones

* Fast twitch muscles (your "explosive" muscles) take longer to recover than slow twitch muscle fibers ("endurance" muscles);

* Guys recover faster than girls;

* You recover faster from slow movements than from fast movements;

* You recover faster from low intensity training than from high intensity training.

* The older you get, the longer it takes to recover


By carbohydrate stores, do you mean glycogen? Not 48 hours...something closer to 2 or 3 hours! I, and every athlete I've ever trained, often trained twice a day! The Russian athletes do, the Bulgarian weightlifters train 3-6 times a day! And, even if there were (as Bryzcki put it) a "catabolic" effect, wouldn't that call for a "periodized approach to training?

Grand daddy laws violated with this one are the SAID, GAS and Specificity Principles.


10. Keep Accurate Records Of Your Performance.

"Records are a log of what you've accomplished during each and every strength session. Record keeping can be an extremely valuable tool to monitor progress and make your workouts more meaningful. It can also be used to identify exercises in which a plateau has been reached.

OK. I'll give the HIT men this one.

On the other hand, HIT folk will have to use their logs to refer back more often than other (non-HIT) trainees. They're bound to be hitting plateaus a lot more than others.

Jedi Bryzcki ended his "Sermon On The Web" with these words: "Don't be misled by the brevity or simplicity of a program that calls for one set of an exercise done with a high level of intensity.

Strength Coach Ken Mannie has stated that HIT is "the most productive, most efficient and without a doubt, the most demanding form of strength training known to man." Of course, I read that in Nautilus magazine. And Mannie was drunk at the time."
 
Alright, here is some data to support multiple set training. I will also be posting some research data on training volume, another key component of this whole debate. I'll be posting the abstracts of these research articles which come from the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) website at . The NSCA, in my opinion, is one of the leading training organizations. The NSCA's journals--"The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research" and "The Strength and Conditioning Journal" are prominent research journals. The full text of these articles are available online if you are a member, or you can view them at most college and university libraries.
 
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 660–667. 2004.

Single- vs. Multiple-Set Resistance Training: Recent Developments in the Controversy
Daniel A. Galvão and Dennis R. Taaffe


School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT

The number of sets in a resistance training program remains a major point of discussion and controversy. Studies prior to 1998 demonstrated inconsistent findings between single-set and multiple-set programs; however, recent evidence suggests that multiple sets promote additional benefits following short- and long-term training. The rationale supporting multiple sets is that the number of sets is part of the exercise volume equation, and the volume of exercise is crucial in producing the stimulus necessary to elicit specific physiological adaptations. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of recent resistance training studies comparing single and multiple sets.
 
Back
Top