can anyone show me ANY proof that multiple sets are more productive than single sets taken to failure?
My physique proves it I would say? 6’6" 280lbs 10% Body fat. I have never doen JUST single sets to failure, thats why I posted a thread about HD training - I wanted to know about it.
keep an open mind, you will NEVER find ANY SCIENTIFIC proof that multiple sets are better than single sets to failure ( and I am NOT discounting your progress, you yourself said you have never tried it) I just find it funny that everyone sites this study and that study about nutrition (and they should) yet no one can site studdies showing multiple to be better than single sets to failure. I do not say multiple sets can not produce results, they have and they can (provideing progression, food and rest are adaquete) I just have NEVER seen any science to say they are BETTER. science shows again and again that single sets to failure are ATLEAST as productive. see how many people that slam HIT can site the science behind their beliefs. as always peace. hetyey225
It seems irrelevant to me what studies say about what works better, because I have trained with both protocols, and multiple sets has worked better for me. Different things work for different people, so a study on what works better for the subjects means crap to me. PJ
Scientific studies on humans are not possible. several reasons
- Control group, requires that test objects are exactly the same, identical twins are not the same, there is no way that anyone could limit their environment to 0% deviance.
- Must be reproducable. You can argue that any success or failure can be attributed to the application of everything prior, and that each is at the same starting value. (Precisely why I hate politics, economy is blamed or credited to the current office @ the same time as it is credited or blamed on the previous and is almost without fail along party lines, ooops, another thread).
all I can offer is my experience. One set to failure worked well temporarily, giving me wonderful strength gains. Its personal drawbacks were that I enjoy exercise, and once every 7 days or figuring that I should take an additional day off, or that I may be doing some subtle thing wrong was too restrictive for me. I enjoy brief periodized workouts so, SO much more. Hit the top end of a cycle? step back and get it again. If I have extra juice one day, try something new. squeezed something for all its worth, try something similar but different and do it again.
There most than likely is a best way for everyone, that is the science end of it all, but I enjoy even more the art side of it, and watch the changes that occur as a result.
I have gained a lot more strength and positive compostion changes DURING a sub maximal although high weight, low volume, high frequency approach than any other I have ever tried. Can this be attributed speciafically to this training method? No, re-read above.
There are so many theories about training and nutrition, they cycle like the stock market and swing back around in vogue and gobble up all the lemmings dying for something new to try and the more evangelical the presentation, the more sheep get herded.
Why not become your own human petri dish, watch what results you get with whatever approach, personalize it, tweak it fit your own interest and results, surrender it if it ceases to work or tweak it again. A fool is someone in whatever venue continually tries the same apporach to something and expects different results, be it dating, training, eating, golf.
So find those fools, dress up the presentation, decoy it as scientific, look how they want to look and then sell it to people. There is no bigger sucker than the person who wants to look better. Hell there is a infomercial about walking, breathing, bouncing. During the coarse of my writing this, there was a commercial about diet.
Your question is, no offence ignorant. Their is no definite proof which is better because it is easy to manipulate studies either way. It depends on what type of goals one wants. I myself wanted more mass and I’ve put on 20lbs of solid muscle in 2 years with multiples. But It would be better to alternate between singles and multiples, this way you shock the system into growth.
sure - 1) you do warm up sets, don’t you? You probably do 3 or so warm up sets for the big lifts before doing one set to failure. this gets you in the groove and allows you to psychologically and physiologically prepare for the heavy weight. Thus, multiple sets are more effective than, for example, walking in and doing one set of squats with 315 lbs to failure without doing any type of warm up. Or, to put it another way, if one set to failure was all you need, why wast time and energy with warm up sets? All you’re doing is cutting into your recovery ability by doing meaningless sets. 2) The Jones “trio” - leg extensions to failure followed by leg press to failure followed by squats to failure. Hmmm, so three sets to failue are more effective than 1 set to failure. 3) The Mentzer rest/pause set. Do a set of curls to failure, put the bar down for 15 seconds, do as many more curls as possible, put the bar down, do a couple more curls. This is one set to failure, followed by a second set to failure, followed by a third, and sometimes fourth set to failure. 4) Curls. If you do pulls ups, pulldowns or rows to failure, you’re working your bicep to failure. So why bother doing any type of curling movement? yet i still see curls in HIT routines. If one set to failure was all that was needed, you could do 3 exercises and be done with it. The deadlift (hips, thighs, hamstrings, calves, traps, forearms, lower back) dips (chest, shoulders, triceps) and pull ups (lats, biceps, forearms) yet how many HIT routines are based on one set to failure of these exercises? uhm, none?
One scientific review reads, “Perhaps the most controversial element of any strength training programme is the number of sets required to increase muscular strength and hypertrophy. There is a prevalent belief that at least 3 sets of each exercise are required to elicit optimal increases in strength and hypertrophy. However, most of the studies that reported the results of training with single versus multiple sets do not substantiate this tenet. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests that for training durations of 4 to 25 weeks there is no significant difference in the increase in strength or hypertrophy as a result of training with single versus multiple sets. Because of the design limitations of these studies, conclusions concerning the efficacy of multiple sets should be tentative. However, there is little scientific evidence, and no theoretical physiological basis, to suggest that a greater volume of exercise elicits greater increases in strength or hypertrophy. This information may represent an important practical application of time-efficient, low-volume exercise.”
In spite of this study I still use multiple sets (2) because no study has taken into account the frequency of training (which is typically only 1 or 2 times per week per body part for most bodybuilders), nutrition, and the experience of the trainee, all of which may affect the optimal number of sets.
The latest studies are on Clarence Bass’s web site, but the bottom line is that most newbies can’t benefit fully from 1 all out set. It takes years to develope the skill to do this. You don’t have the connection between the nervous system and the muscle to fully work the movement. Dorian Yates didn’t do one all out set until the early 90’s when he had 5-7 years of consistant lifting under his belt. If you ever saw him train, you would probably count one or two warm up sets as work sets since they are so heavy. What I see is him priming the neural system for his last all out set of that movement. Same effect from Ian King’s routines when you do a 5/1/5/1 and then a back off set. You would perform better at the back off set after priming the neural system than you would if you would have done the back off set of 10 or so reps first. Prove it to yourself. Instead of one set to failure, do two. You will find that after the first set, providing you rest 3-5mins, you will perform better on the second set. This is because you primed the neural system with the first and you will recruit more fiber with the second. Hell yes single sets work after experience! Single all out sets which some may consider multiple sets since techniques such as drop sets, rest/pause, forced and negative reps are used, but they are “all out”. Someone starting out or even intermediate trainee’s can’t really train “all out”. They haven’t developed the skill.
BILL
Most studies on weight training are in general too short of duration to make any definitive long term conclusions. In a recent study, single set vs periodized training was compared for 24 weeks. Multiple tests were performed to measure strength,power, speed etc. At 12 weeks there were no differences in performance variables. At 24 weeks however, the periodized group showed greater improvement in strength power and speed. (Med Sci. Sport exerc.,33: 635-643,2001) So if the study only lasted 12 weeks, you would draw the conclusion that single sets are as good as multiple sets in inducing strength training improvements. This is how studies can be misleading, weight training studies need to be of significant duration for proper conclusions to be drawn.
In finland at a international weight training conference, american researchers wanted to present studies comparing single set vs multiple set protocals. The Europoean,s wanted to know why the studies needed to be presented at all. Europeans (Soviets, Bulgarians Etc) have long ago concluded that multiple sets were vastly superior to single set training. As long as we (America England) have been studing the benefits of aerobic execise the soviets have been studing weight training. They are way ahead of us in knowledge. If you do not believe me get these two books, Supertraining by DR Mel Siff and Science and practice of strength training by Vladimir m. Zatsiorsky. (with a name like that you know that book kicks ass). Many studies that claim single set to be equal or better than multiple sets regarding strength are flawed because of the inappropriate definitions of strength. here are some different types of strength that can be measured. 1. absolute strength 2. maximal strength 3. starting strength 4. explosive strength 5. speed strength 6. strength endurance. How many of these single set studies make the distinction between the various types of strength that can be measured? Finally the term high intensity training is misleading. Scientifically intensity is defined as the % of your RM you are using. A 1RM would be considered high intensity. 8 to 12 Rm would be considered moderate intensity at the most. It is certainly difficult and fatiquing but it is not high intensity. Recently speed of movement has been included in formula’s for determining intesity.
Can you give a study using experienced trainers that says one set is all you need?
well from a strength standpoint you totally know that multiple sets are a must. The empiricle (Sp?) evidence is overwhelming-- every single OLing champion did many sets and actually almost never to failure, at that. Now for muscle growth, it gets complicated. I am pretty sure that multiple sets are superior (although at times you may want to cut volume on them), but the problem is no one knows exactly how and why muscles hypertrophy. It used to be theorized that there was a direct link between protein degradation and a following hypertrophy (supercompensation), but it recently has been found that this isnt the case. Once know the mechanism better we can apply it to HIIT and standard training.
Great point, eag!
Also, another example- this isn’t scientific proof, but rather, an extreme example of the effective nature of multiples- is Charles Poliquin’s One Day Arm Cure. I would sure be curious to see the likes of this done HIT style. HIT is just a result of overtraining hysteria. Seriously, there are days when I train muscle groups days in a row and I do quite well with it. I hate hearing of how people do a specific muscle group just once a week and then whine about not getting ripped or big. TO HETHEY: I’ve always wondered how HIT maniacs train their abs. Is that done 1 set to failure too? If so, please post us a pic of your washboard and I’ll gladly compare it with mine (you’ll be ashamed). I think- and this is just my opinion- that HIT was created for the average American to delude him into thinking that even HE can get that dreamed of V-shaped, spliced up, ripped crazy physique in just “3 sessions a week, 15 minutes a session.” That sounds so dirt cheap that it compares finely with those ab-doer commercials. Please, I’d really like to know what Coach Davies thinks of HIT.
More productive for what?
I find it funny that I am often slamed (by some not by all) because I train and believe in HIT but when I ask for sciencentific studdies I get nothing back from the same people that will not eat soy because of a study, who will cut this or add that to their diet because of a study yet train the way they do because “they do in eastern europe” or “everyone that I know does” or alot of other NONscientific reasons. one quick question, if the easter block is so great at training for speed and strength than why was their last medal in a premiere sprinting event(100,200 or 400meters) of a non boycotted olympics a bronz in 1976? even in the moscow olympics the eastern block ONLY won 3 medals, one gold and 2 bronz. just a thought to all who believe in everything that says “easternblock” or “soviet union”. back to training w/wts. the studdies HAVE been done and I do not know why these studdies would not pertain to all(are you realy THAT special). again if you slam me show me proof. as always peace. how do I KNOW I will see NO proof from those people. again peace to ALL
Perhaps you missed my last post on the “Heavy Duty” thread. Here it is:
“What kind of proof are you looking for Hetyeh? Is a theoretical argument backed up with real world successes (ie empirical evidence) good enough for you? Or must you see a scientific study that shows in graphical format how people who wipe their ass smell better than those who do not, before you start wiping your ass? The point is, in this game theory and real world results are all you have. How’s about you PROVE to me that one set to failure is superior to multiple sets? It can’t be done either way, because to PROVE something implies scientific law. I can make an argument and back it up with real world results, and maybe even a related study or two. If you’re looking for more than that either way, you’ll never find it.” I’ll also say that scientific studies conducted in this country have generally been ludicrous, used on untrained individuals with no work capacity, along with unrealistic exercise guidelines. For example, one study I have seen quoted by pro-HIT guys had a bunch of people do either 1 set to failure or 3 sets to failure of the leg extension, 3 times per week. What they fail to realize is that the study conditions make the study obsolete for pro-HIT debaters. If someone asked me who I thought would make the best gains out of those, I would say the ones doing only one set, simply because they are using the same exercise so frequently (3 times per week). Obviously, doing 3 sets to failure, 3 times per week would be overtraining, but possibly not so much as with only 1 set to failure. Does this have any relevance to the trainee exercising each muscle group once a week instead of three? Probably not. This is only one example, but there are many like this. And there are in fact studies that do show the superiority of multiple sets versus one, but these too can be flawed and not very useful to us. So what do we have to rely on? REAL WORLD RESULTS AND THE RESULTS OF THE TOP COACHES THAT TRAIN ELITE ATHLETES.
By the way, I like the fact that you didn’t respond to my last post, thereby showing everyone that you are exactly as I say it, a blowhard who makes ridiculous claims and can’t back them up. But at least now we’re getting at something more useful, which is the validity of training one set to failure. Another element that you have failed to realize is that in many of these studies, every set has been taken to failure to keep the parameters equal between multiple sets and one set. Unfortunately, most advocates of multiple sets (including me) don’t recommend going to failure very often (if ever). This also completely changes the real world applicability of exercise studies. If you’ve found something that shows one set taken to complete failure is superior to 4 sets taken 2 reps shy of failure in a well-trained athlete or bodybuilder given a once or twice per week exercise frequency, then you may have something worthwhile and useful. If not, you might as well scrap it.
Heytey You just shot yourself in the foot. The soviets have not had a medal winner in track and field for awhile now. Yes you are correct, however who kicks ass in olympic weightlifing time and time again, soviet or eastern block athletes, not Arthur Jones single set trained athletes. And while western trained athletes do win most of the medals in track and field, they are also using multple set protocols in the weight room. Don’t believe me, just ask Charlie Francis. The main reason that academic’s in this country have embraced single set protocols is the research of DR Michael Pollock. A well known health fitness researcher, who also had a close association with ART Jones. Dr Pollock was a health researcher not a performance specialist, the single set protocols are much more attractive to the untrained, unmotivated decontioned person. So in order to get people to weight train a minimilist approach was taken. Also nearly all Exercise Scientist until a decade or so ago were profoundly biased against lifting. Ask any PHD who was studying exercise science and had interest in weight training what kind of attitude there was from there prof’s.
Multiple sets of the same exercise are better than single sets for practicing the movement, that much is obvious. I think Hetyes point here is “Will multi sets build more muscle than single failure sets?”. That raises some further questions for multi set trainers. Exactly how hard should you work the 1st, 2nd, 3rd … etc. How will you know if you are 1 or two reps shy of failure? Doesn’t every one here think at least that training hard is a requirement? The fact that muscle fibers work on an all or nothing basis makes me wonder why one would do additional (post failure) sets of the same exercise. Is it just for “more damage” to the same muscle fibers? If so, how much more damage? What kind of damage? How much stimulation is from training to failure versus not training to failure? Any answers are appreciated.