[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Dylanj wrote:
not buying this, maybe a little exaggerated? to each his own i guess. but, one set?
Why not?
One set period? I agree, probably too little. One “working” set? Then it’s certainly possible.[/quote]
I figured that’s what we were talking about here. If that’s the case and you’re an advanced lifter, I feel 1 set is enough if done right.
Then again I’m a DC Disciple, so take that for what you will.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Dylanj wrote:
not buying this, maybe a little exaggerated? to each his own i guess. but, one set?
Why not?
One set period? I agree, probably too little. One “working” set? Then it’s certainly possible.
That’s what I was thinking as well.
[/quote]
Yes, sorry, I meant one working set. 
Not counting the warmups.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Dylanj wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
I don’t understand how people are getting any results from a predetermined amount of sets in the first place. Keep doing sets until the muscle feels like it has been worked enough.
If it is 1 set so be it, if it is 16 so be it. I am only so blunt on the subject because ever since I stopped following some stupid set/rep scheme I have been feeling a lot more confident that what I am doing is better.
not buying this, maybe a little exaggerated? to each his own i guess. but, one set?
Agreed. Even of this haphazard way of training worked, how would you measure your progress? [/quote]
Much easier to measure progress this way actually. 1 set of db bench press at 60lbs for 7 reps (that is 100% physical failure). NExt week you can do 8. That is progress.
Interestingly, Dylanj is an exception to the trend in that he is a big strong guy that actually uses straight sets.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
Interestingly, Dylanj is an exception to the trend in that he is a big strong guy that actually uses straight sets.[/quote]
I was thinking the same things. Straight sets. A lot of them. A lot of exercises too. Oh to be young again. 
8-15 not including warm up sets
[quote]trextacy wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Interestingly, Dylanj is an exception to the trend in that he is a big strong guy that actually uses straight sets.
I was thinking the same things. Straight sets. A lot of them. A lot of exercises too. Oh to be young again. ;)[/quote]
Yeah, the fact that there are lifters who also swear by straight sets leaves this debate open to some speculation.
From my point of view, it all boils down to whether a lifter feels that he/she will benefit more from that max effort top set or from more volume at a lighter but still challenging weight.
There definitely appear to be some differing opinions out there regarding this topic.
[quote]DanErickson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Dylanj wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
I don’t understand how people are getting any results from a predetermined amount of sets in the first place. Keep doing sets until the muscle feels like it has been worked enough.
If it is 1 set so be it, if it is 16 so be it. I am only so blunt on the subject because ever since I stopped following some stupid set/rep scheme I have been feeling a lot more confident that what I am doing is better.
not buying this, maybe a little exaggerated? to each his own i guess. but, one set?
Agreed. Even of this haphazard way of training worked, how would you measure your progress?
Much easier to measure progress this way actually. 1 set of db bench press at 60lbs for 7 reps (that is 100% physical failure). NExt week you can do 8. That is progress.
[/quote]
Yes, if you are tracking that and are increasing in reps, sets, load, etc.
As for the one set issue, I believe that it works for a short time. But due to the serious strain that it puts on the neurological system, it is self limiting and gains stop much more quickly than a higher volume approach. Cycling from high to low volume is the best option IMO.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Dylanj wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
I don’t understand how people are getting any results from a predetermined amount of sets in the first place. Keep doing sets until the muscle feels like it has been worked enough.
If it is 1 set so be it, if it is 16 so be it. I am only so blunt on the subject because ever since I stopped following some stupid set/rep scheme I have been feeling a lot more confident that what I am doing is better.
not buying this, maybe a little exaggerated? to each his own i guess. but, one set?
Agreed. Even of this haphazard way of training worked, how would you measure your progress?
Much easier to measure progress this way actually. 1 set of db bench press at 60lbs for 7 reps (that is 100% physical failure). NExt week you can do 8. That is progress.
Yes, if you are tracking that and are increasing in reps, sets, load, etc.
As for the one set issue, I believe that it works for a short time. But due to the serious strain that it puts on the neurological system, it is self limiting and gains stop much more quickly than a higher volume approach. Cycling from high to low volume is the best option IMO.
[/quote]
Totally. After a month or so of doing 1 set to failure the gains just stopped. Not to mention that it just doesn’t work well on some exercises. Though on some exercises like db press, flies, and leg press they are just excellent. When I tell people to train to 100% physical failure I am really just parroting what another bodybuilder has written. Concerning the nervous system thing he says 3 days a week max and never 2 days in a row. Every 4th week he recommends taking the entire week off with no training what so ever as you will certainly becoming over trained by doing so, not even cardio. Something to the effect of if your nervous system is not fully repaired your muscles won’t repair and by working out 2 days in a row you are only destroying possible gains.
[quote]DanErickson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Dylanj wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
I don’t understand how people are getting any results from a predetermined amount of sets in the first place. Keep doing sets until the muscle feels like it has been worked enough.
If it is 1 set so be it, if it is 16 so be it. I am only so blunt on the subject because ever since I stopped following some stupid set/rep scheme I have been feeling a lot more confident that what I am doing is better.
not buying this, maybe a little exaggerated? to each his own i guess. but, one set?
Agreed. Even of this haphazard way of training worked, how would you measure your progress?
Much easier to measure progress this way actually. 1 set of db bench press at 60lbs for 7 reps (that is 100% physical failure). NExt week you can do 8. That is progress.
Yes, if you are tracking that and are increasing in reps, sets, load, etc.
As for the one set issue, I believe that it works for a short time. But due to the serious strain that it puts on the neurological system, it is self limiting and gains stop much more quickly than a higher volume approach. Cycling from high to low volume is the best option IMO.
Totally. After a month or so of doing 1 set to failure the gains just stopped. Not to mention that it just doesn’t work well on some exercises. Though on some exercises like db press, flies, and leg press they are just excellent.
When I tell people to train to 100% physical failure I am really just parroting what another bodybuilder has written. Concerning the nervous system thing he says 3 days a week max and never 2 days in a row.
Every 4th week he recommends taking the entire week off with no training what so ever as you will certainly becoming over trained by doing so, not even cardio. Something to the effect of if your nervous system is not fully repaired your muscles won’t repair and by working out 2 days in a row you are only destroying possible gains.[/quote]
The problem is that you are working two systems that require different stimuli. One set to failure blasts the hell out of your nervous system, but does not really tax the muscle tissue enough to stimulate the most gains. But you can’t get to the muscle tissue if your nervous system is overworked.
So the only way to make 1 set to failure work, IMO, is to cycle. Either multiple sets to one set, or no training at all for a while and then 1 set. Personally I think multiple sets produce better results over time.
About DanErickson
Weight: 220 Lbs
Height: 184 cm (6 feet)
Body fat %: Probably 20%
About Lorisco
Weight: 205
Height: 6’1’
Body fat %: 8%
Years Training: 15
Quiet, one-set people, the “experts” are talking…
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The problem is that you are working two systems that require different stimuli. One set to failure blasts the hell out of your nervous system, but does not really tax the muscle tissue enough to stimulate the most gains. But you can’t get to the muscle tissue if your nervous system is overworked.
[/quote]
You have the right to your opinion. But I personally don’t thinks it’s as black and white as this paragraph makes it out to be.
You cannot completely separate the nervous system and the muscles. Yes, some kinds of training (has more to do with rest periods IMO, but whatever) are more “CNS intensive” while others are more “structurally (muscular system) intensive”. But, no matter which you use, the other will be taxed.
If you are lifting more weight, or the same amount of weight more times, then regardless of how many sets you are doing, your muscle fibers will be forced to do more work than they have done before, thus causing the stimulus for growth.
Building bigger muscles is about getting stronger, while eating enough to allow your body to synthesize new tissue (muscle) and resting enough for this to happen. It’s not about doing the most number of sets.
The key principle in building muscle is progressive resistance (I know some people say progressive overload, but the overload needs to be of a specific type, i.e. more resistance). Yes, you can use more volume as a way to help you increase resistance, but the goal is still more resistance. You won’t find a single training program worth doing out there that doesn’t have the principle of progressive resistance in it. You will however find numerous training programs that do not have progressive volume as one of their key principles.
I’m not saying that volume is bad, but to suggest that programs built around progressive resistance, while keeping the volume low enough to be able to increase the frequency, are inferior to programs with higher volume, purely because of the volume, just doesn’t make sense to me.
Also, what produces the “most” gains is somewhat based on individual recovery abilities, and needs to be looked at over the long term.
Yes, a workout consisting of 12+ work sets is going to put a lot of strain on the muscle tissue, as well as the CNS (again, it’s foolish to think that more volume is going to mean less CNS fatigue). But it’s also going to take a while for the muscles/CNS to fully recover from. Let’s say that on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the most amount of growth stimulus) this workout provides a level 10 stimulus. But, it also takes the individual 14 days to recover fully and be able to beat their last performance.
Now. let’s take a workout consisting of 1 workset (per muscle). Since there is considerably less volume, there will be less stress put on the CNS, and also less of a growth stimulus. Let’s say that this workout results in a 4 on the scale. But, it only takes 5 days to recover from before the individual can again beat their last performance.
Hopefully everyone reading this can already do a little math in their heads and sees where this is going, but if not, let’s look at this over a year’s time.
365 days/14 days= approximately 26 growth cycles, 26x10+ 260 total stimulus.
365 days/5 days= 73 growth cycles, 73x4= 292 total stimulus.
So, even though each workout of the one set program produced less stimulus, the total growth stimulus, when looking at things from a long term view point, winds up being more than the 12+ sets to failure program.
Now, yes these numbers are all theoretical, and once again individual recovery abilities will alter what is in fact the best volume to use for each individual. But what I’m trying to get at is, it’s not necessarily about having the biggest growth stimulus over a single workout, but finding your own personal “sweet spot” in terms of volume that will allow the biggest growth stimulus when viewing things from a long term perspective.
Once again, you are entitled to your opinion, and if you know what works well for you, great. But there are a lot of very big, strong guys out there who would disagree with this statement.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Something smart, like always.
[/quote]
A little off-topic, but who was that guy in your avatar again?
I remember you talking about him once, but I don’t recall any details…
Roy Leidelmeyer
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Roy Leidelmeyer[/quote]
Thanks, brother.
Edit: it’s Rory, though (weird name!?)
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The problem is that you are working two systems that require different stimuli. One set to failure blasts the hell out of your nervous system, but does not really tax the muscle tissue enough to stimulate the most gains. But you can’t get to the muscle tissue if your nervous system is overworked.
You have the right to your opinion. But I personally don’t thinks it’s as black and white as this paragraph makes it out to be.
You cannot completely separate the nervous system and the muscles. Yes, some kinds of training (has more to do with rest periods IMO, but whatever) are more “CNS intensive” while others are more “structurally (muscular system) intensive”. But, no matter which you use, the other will be taxed.
If you are lifting more weight, or the same amount of weight more times, then regardless of how many sets you are doing, your muscle fibers will be forced to do more work than they have done before, thus causing the stimulus for growth.
Building bigger muscles is about getting stronger, while eating enough to allow your body to synthesize new tissue (muscle) and resting enough for this to happen. It’s not about doing the most number of sets.
The key principle in building muscle is progressive resistance (I know some people say progressive overload, but the overload needs to be of a specific type, i.e. more resistance). Yes, you can use more volume as a way to help you increase resistance, but the goal is still more resistance.
You won’t find a single training program worth doing out there that doesn’t have the principle of progressive resistance in it. You will however find numerous training programs that do not have progressive volume as one of their key principles.
I’m not saying that volume is bad, but to suggest that programs built around progressive resistance, while keeping the volume low enough to be able to increase the frequency, are inferior to programs with higher volume, purely because of the volume, just doesn’t make sense to me.
Also, what produces the “most” gains is somewhat based on individual recovery abilities, and needs to be looked at over the long term.
Yes, a workout consisting of 12+ work sets is going to put a lot of strain on the muscle tissue, as well as the CNS (again, it’s foolish to think that more volume is going to mean less CNS fatigue). But it’s also going to take a while for the muscles/CNS to fully recover from.
Let’s say that on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the most amount of growth stimulus) this workout provides a level 10 stimulus. But, it also takes the individual 14 days to recover fully and be able to beat their last performance.
Now. let’s take a workout consisting of 1 workset (per muscle). Since there is considerably less volume, there will be less stress put on the CNS, and also less of a growth stimulus. Let’s say that this workout results in a 4 on the scale. But, it only takes 5 days to recover from before the individual can again beat their last performance.
Hopefully everyone reading this can already do a little math in their heads and sees where this is going, but if not, let’s look at this over a year’s time.
365 days/14 days= approximately 26 growth cycles, 26x10+ 260 total stimulus.
365 days/5 days= 73 growth cycles, 73x4= 292 total stimulus.
So, even though each workout of the one set program produced less stimulus, the total growth stimulus, when looking at things from a long term view point, winds up being more than the 12+ sets to failure program.
Now, yes these numbers are all theoretical, and once again individual recovery abilities will alter what is in fact the best volume to use for each individual.
But what I’m trying to get at is, it’s not necessarily about having the biggest growth stimulus over a single workout, but finding your own personal “sweet spot” in terms of volume that will allow the biggest growth stimulus when viewing things from a long term perspective.
So the only way to make 1 set to failure work, IMO, is to cycle. Either multiple sets to one set, or no training at all for a while and then 1 set. Personally I think multiple sets produce better results over time.
Once again, you are entitled to your opinion, and if you know what works well for you, great. But there are a lot of very big, strong guys out there who would disagree with this statement.[/quote]
Sentoguy- awesome post. I was wondering if you could break down what you think is optimal in terms of volume/frequency, etc. and how many bodyparts you hit per session and how many times per week.
I need some clarity re: ramping sets. I kind of do ramping but not. My goal is muscle size
My usual warm up is like this (only before 1st excersise)
Take 60% of what my desired 1st working set weight is and do 3 reps:
Then take 70-80% and do 2 reps
Then 90% and do 1 rep
Then my work set: (these numbers are just made upb)
Now set number 4 I will go up to 90lbs when set number 3 reaches 8-9 reps. I wait for that because I know I will fatigue in set 4 and the drop in reps will still be in my desired range of 6-10. If I go up to 90lbs in set 4 and the drop goes down to 5-6reps then I do a drop set back to 80lbs.
When I’m strong enough to do 90lbs for about 8-10reps on set 2-4. I then make:
1.90lbs
2.90lbs
3.100lbs
4. 90lbs
and do the same as above
This method has worked for me and I have seen results. My goal is to just always do more reps than last week until I can move the weight up by 10lbs.
Is that wrong, because after reading up on ramping this past week, I see that most start at point A and work towards there top weight
I’m giving it a try and will assess again in about 3 weeks (need time to go through it assess it and make changes until I feel it’s working or that it’s not for me.
What do you guys think of the way I’ve been doing it. Coz it works for me.
I hope that made sense. Also ALL my excersises aren’t exactly like that, My Squats I truly ramp, but if I go up to a weight I can’t move sufficient times, I do another set at a lower weight, Until I’m strong enough to move up
Sentoguy, we have had this discussion before and I do respect your opinion as you have posted very rational thoughtful posts. So I’m in no way putting you down or your training methodology. But I have to clear up a few things.
The first issue is that science clearly shows that the neurological system, metabolic system, and structural system (muscle fiber) are all separate and distinct systems that interact closely, but respond very differently to different types of training.
Neurological adaptations come from increased neurological efficiency; basically you are able to use more of your muscle fiber and use it in a more organized fashion.
These adaptations do not cause an increase in metabolic or structural adaptation. This is why when you first start lifting you get stronger, but not bigger.
Metabolic adaptations basically come from increases in The phosphocreatine-ATP complex, the glycolysis/glycogenolysis complex, and the lipolysis complex. Basically, the ability of your muscle to produce the energy needed to power the muscle is increased or improved. Again, these adaptations can take place with little structural hypertrophy. This is seen in endurance athletes.
Structure adaptations come from increases in the muscle cross-sectional area and are increases in both slow and fast twitch fibers.
Having said this, different methods of training produce different results on each of these systems. High intensity 1-set to failure training is very hard on the neurological systems because of the significant rate-coding that occurs.
And when you hit failure doing this it is not a failure of the muscle fiber or metabolic system, it is the neurological system. It is shutting you down.
This is why you can rest and do more reps and sets after going to failure; because it wasn’t a muscle tissue or metabolic failure, it was your neurological system failure. So this means that your muscle fibers have more juice in them, but you can’t get to it because your neurological system won’t let you.
This is what occurs in a 1-set to failure program and why the benefits stop after a short time; because while your muscle fiber is rested and ready to work your neurological system is not, so it will not let you continue to increase the load.
The result is that your muscles do not get the stimuli they require to cause continued hypertrophy or increases in the cross-sectional area.
Understand I’m talking about 1-set to failure, not 2-sets, 3-sets, etc. So I’m not saying that low volume high intensity is bad if it includes multiple sets, and yes, warm up sets count. So doing two warm up sets and then a final work set is ok, IMO. You just have to find the volume that works best over the long haul.
Of all the three systems involved in training the neurological system takes the longest to recover. So anything you can do to limit CNS overload while overloading the other two systems will work out in your favor.
Again, you cannot get to the muscle fiber unless your neural system lets you. And 1 balls to the wall set does more damage to the neural system than 3 less intense sets. Yet, three less intense sets allow for more muscle stimulation because the neural system is fresher, and as a result, allows more muscle to be worked.
Now there is a point where your load is too low with many multiple sets that you are basically working slow twitch fibers, which is ok if you want to be big but not strong. But to be big and strong you need to have a heavy enough load, and to do that you have to decrease the volume.
So what’s the best volume? I don’t know. That is an individual thing. My sweat-spot is between 3-5 sets, which is low for some and high for others.
So my main issue is that for most people 1-set to failure (as in the HIT methodology) does not work over the long haul.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Scott M wrote:
Roy Leidelmeyer
Thanks, brother.
Edit: it’s Rory, though (weird name!?)[/quote]
True, but with a 600 lb raw bench, and 800 lb raw squat and deadlift, I doubt many people would tease him about it.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy, we have had this discussion before and I do respect your opinion as you have posted very rational thoughtful posts. So I’m in no way putting you down or your training methodology. But I have to clear up a few things.
[/quote]
Yes, I know, and I wasn’t trying to put down you or your training methodology with my post. I was simply trying to state my opinion in as thorough as way as possible.
I never said that they were the same, only that one cannot function without the others, and that regardless of the style of training (assuming that effort is involved), stress will be placed on all three systems, thus causing an improvement in all three systems.
I also admitted that different types of training will place more or less emphasis on certain systems. Like I said though, what determines the emphasis is the load and the amount of rest/fatigue present.
Right, what you are referring to are “skill based” improvements. These require minimal fatigue to occur optimally and yes, do not greatly necessarily cause muscular adaptations.
Doing a single PR set to failure (after sufficient warm-up, or “ramping” if you like, sets) is not an example of this type of training. Something like Pavel’s GTG protocol is.
Yes, also true. But once again, if progressive resistance is applied, even so called “metabolic work” can produce muscular gains.
One ball busting set might be more CNS intensive than multiple half assed sets, but less than multiple ball busting sets. And like I said in my previous post, as long as your muscles are forced to do more work than they have previously done,
they will have no choice other than to grow (provided sufficient nutrients and rest is available of course), regardless of the number of work sets performed.
Notice that I also stated that 1 set might not be ideal for everyone. If you can recover just as quickly from 3 work sets as you can from 1, then definitely do 3.
My point again, was that it’s the progression (increased weight) that really matters, not just doing more sets for the sake of doing more sets. That and finding your individual “sweet spot” where you can create the greatest growth stimulus, while still allowing for relatively short recovery,
Now, as far as what causes failure, it’s a combination of things, regardless of what type of training you are doing, the nervous system will in some way be involved.
Metabolic waste may also plays some role in limiting the duration at which you can sustain a given effort. But the key limiting factor is generally metabolic in nature.
What “fails” during a traditional BB’ing set (or even a heavy triple) is that your muscle fibers effectively run out of available fuel. This has very little to do with the CNS, but more to do with how the muscle fibers use/make energy.
So, you fail during a set because all of the muscle fibers that were capable of performing the set have run out of available energy. This is precisely the mechanism by which creatine supplementation works. If it were truly the CNS that “failed”, then loading creatine would have no benefit.
No, it simply means that your body was able to once again synthesize more energy for your muscles to use.
There are again, many big, strong guys around the internet who would disagree with you on this. Many of them have used the same, basic, single set to failure (by the way, I’d still consider a triple drop, or triple “rest-pause” set a single set) program for literally years with continued gains.
Again, if you found this doesn’t work for you, then do what does, but it’s far from proven that a single ball busting PR set won’t result in continued growth.
Ok, well then we’re arguing semantics. Like I said in an earlier post, a single set period is not only stupid (as you would likely injure yourself very quickly, I know I would), but I agree probably would not result in optimal growth.
But I’ve said multiple times that I’m talking about “work sets”. That means that all of those warm-ups building up to the final all out PR set are only serving to warm the muscles/nervous system up to prepare them for the final set, due to them being less than what your muscles are capable of, and thus do not in and of themselves stimulate growth.
I agree, which is why I personally prefer a single ball busting set to multiple ball busting sets. If you aren’t going to perform ball busting sets at least on a regular basis (there could be times when “light days” can be incorporated to good effect), then IMO you’re wasting your time.
Gotta disagree. “Less intense” sets are a waste of time IMO. You need to force your muscles to adapt, not kindly ask them. If you aren’t making your muscles work as hard as they can, then they have no reason to improve, or at least will do so at a lesser rate.
Effort is the #1 most important component to any training program. If a program calls for you to use less effort than you are capable of, what should that tell you about that program?
How many people who ever got huge do you think didn’t put all of their effort into their training? How many of them do you think purposely avoided putting all of their effort into their sets?
Won’t disagree that if you want to be big and strong you must control the volume, but seriously, how many guys can you name who got really big without drastically increasing their strength? Probably not many if any.
Now how many can you name that got big as the result of getting drastically stronger? Probably more than you would care to count.
Totally agree, it’s an individual thing.
Do you mean 3-5 total sets? Or 3-5 “work sets”?
Again, are we talking about 1 set total, or 1 work set. If it’s one total I agree, I don’t know anyone who built a huge physique using that protocol.
If you mean 1 work set, after numerous warm-up sets building up to it, then I could name and show pictures of lots of guys who have had success with that over the long haul.