Short Or Long Workouts For Strength?

Training Powerlifting
1

It seems that many studies have shown that there is not much difference for strength between 1 set and several sets.

What’s more think about this…

Let’s say you do a relatively big workout, let’s say 12 sets per bodypart. If your CNS recovers at a constant rate, let’s say 3 sets per day, it should take 4 days to fully supercompensate.

HOWEVER, isn’t it possible that the fibers which have supercompensated the first day start to get weaker before the last day of the recovery, in which case, they were useless?

On another hand, if you do only 4 sets, it all recovers in less than 2 days and you don’t have that problem.

So isn’t it better for strength to train like every 2-3 days with low volume than every 5-7 days with high volume?

2

The studies which have shown that one set is equal to multiple sets have always been done with untrained individuals.

On top of that, most studies compare 1 vs. 3 sets of training.

There is nothing on 1 vs. 10 sets, 3 vs 5 sets, etc.

K.I.S.S.

3

First of all I have a problem with assuming that your central nervous system cannot be trained in order to take more stress.

So many “gurus” bow to the central nervous system. If you can train your muscles to get larger, and your cardiovascular system to get more efficient why can’t you train your CNS as well? That is one reason why I believe in training to failure on occasion.

Secondly, there is a point of diminishing returns with everything in life. Have you noticed? You can spend two hours mowing your lawn and it looks fine. You can spend an additional two hours (double the time) doing all of the fine trimming, and while it looks better, does it look twice as good as it did at the two hour point?

You can give your girlfriend or wife one red rose, for no particular reason. She will be happy and you will probably get all sorts of party favors (wink)that evening. You can also go to the extra expense of giving her one dozen red roses. Now that would probably please her more, but how much more? Does it kick it up another 5%? Was the extra 5% worth an additional $50.00, maybe so…(another wink).

I think there is a point of diminishing returns relative to building muscle. It may be different for different people. With myself I have always noticed that somewhere between three and five sets on any one body part, I have gotten just about 97% of all the benefit I am going to get on that particular day relative to that particular body part.

You can go ahead and do another two or three sets beyond that to get the other 3% if you want. Personally I think it’s a waste of time and in some cases can lead to over training and burn out.

You also have what I call a residual effect occurring that cannot be ignored. For example when you perform Dumbbell Bench Pressing you are primarily doing them to work the chest (perhaps front delts as well). However, you are also working the triceps to a large degree.

In this case it might be smart to perform five sets of Dumbbell Bench Presses and only three sets for the triceps.

For the reasons stated above, I like the idea of performing lower sets, working quite hard on each set and leaving in under one hour. If you do this you can train more times per week. This will ultimately increase your muscle size and strength to a greater extent than training less frequently with higher sets.

If you disagree with the above, no problem. All I know is what has worked for me and those I have trained.

Take care,

Zeb

4

[quote]Cowboy92 wrote:
The studies which have shown that one set is equal to multiple sets have always been done with untrained individuals.

On top of that, most studies compare 1 vs. 3 sets of training.

There is nothing on 1 vs. 10 sets, 3 vs 5 sets, etc.

K.I.S.S.[/quote]

I just talked about the 1 set vs several set to show that gains diminish quickly with volume, not necessarily to defend the idea of doing 1 set.

5

zeb,

I tend to agree. But it doesn’t mean that there’s not a limit to the stimulus that the body can recover from of course.

Yes. And we can’t expect the body to respond linearily to a stimulus. The body is a biological system and usually adapts non-linearily to a stimulus.

HOWEVER, if someone does 10 sets instead of 5, he should logically stress his nervous system twice as much. The question is : by how much is the recovery time increased as well as the amplitude of the response?

There is surely a optimum at some point in terms of volume/frequency combination. For hypertrophy it seems to be around 3 times a week - see HST, as well as Chad’s hypertrophy programs -, and for strength around twice a week - Westside, Dual Factor, DC… -.

6

Shotgun:

I think there are limits that the body cannot recover efficiently from. However, I think we are far from those limits with the latest methodologies in place. Personally, I train as I do because of convenience and satisfaction.

There were many great strong men of the past: Saxon, Hackenschmidt, Sandow and so many others who trained for strength almost every day! Their capacity for recovery and levels of strength (Saxon did a one arm bent press with 386lbs. the record still stands!)were incredible. One more interesting point, their diets were less than stellar (I’ll save that for a different post).

How come they didn’t overtax their CNS? I think the body is an incredible machine which adapts to the various stresses that are continually put upon it. many of todays Coaches assume too much and take isolated short term experiments (one set to failure-CNS overtaxation) and go way to far with it.

I agree there is a limit to which the body can recover efficiently. However, if we continue to overly concern ourselves with the CNS, as is the latest trend among the gurus, I don’t think that we can begin to make progress in this area.

The body will ultimately adapt to what it has to do. By the way, I know of no long term studies that have been done that prove otherwise! If you know of any please post them, I would love to read them.

7

I don’t know what would happen if someone average trained every day. Something like 1-2 sets per day, alternating exercises, max effort and dynamic effort workouts.

The body is an amazing machine indeed. We may be surprised by the result.

I don’t either. I know there’s a study that show that 3x/week is 40% more effective than one a week however - all with the same workout however.

8

I think that three times per week would probably be more effective. I wonder how four times per week would be?

9

The single set protocols that prove just as effective as multiple set protocols are out dated and done on untrained populations. Throw this one in the same bag as super slow training.
“Everything works in theory, even communisim works in theory” Homer Simpson

10

Personally I like the accumulation , intensification thing varying both volume and intensity.

I also try to take into account what is happening outside my life besides the gym. Relationship, work or familiy stress that might affect my training, although this is easier said than done since I love training.

About these studies. How much do the individuals performing them know about the test subjects? Imagine someone is taking steroids or using recreational drugs or has a stressful situation in his job/ home. Are these things taken into account?

11

For me frequency is more important than volume for strength development.

Also you can’t have all three (i.e. intensity, volume and frequency).

Intensity is a must (90 + % of max effort). But due to time and energy it is a toss up between pairing it with volume or frequency. I prefer frequency and intensity thus for me short but frequent workouts work best.

12

The most accurate scientific research material that will tell you the best way to train will always be found between the covers of your own personal training journal,

I have kept one since 1978