What Is the History of Multi-Set Training?

I have a history question I don’t have an answer to, but maybe you do. When did multi-set training come about?

Many of the early programs 1890-1920 were structured something like full body, 10-15 exercises, single set of each, 3x a week. Often targeting 45-60 minutes in the gym.

Then by the 1950s people were writing about full body, 5-10 exercises (or at least usually a bit more abbreviated), multiple sets, 3x a week. Still usually targeting 45-60 minutes.

Who introduced the idea of multi-set training? Where did it come from? Why did everything go that direction?

My guess (which is truly just a guess) is that it came from the early olympic weightlifting world, and then experimented with in other contexts like strength/physique.

It’s interesting that single-set training essentially disappeared (in writing) for a very very long time.

I do not have a definite answer.

I suspect that …

It started when people started to do lifting exercises with big weights which required the need for several warm-up or preparation sets. Strongmen likely didn’t do that, at least not those who lifted only on weird implements in which the load could not be adjusted. At first “physical culture” for non-strongmen was using bodyweight/gymnastics movements and light dumbbell work. They didn’t have easily adjustable weights (the only adjustable weights were weigths in which you could add lead pellets inside the weighted globes. Which worked for strongman exhibits but were impractical for training. Plate-loaded barbells began to be used around 1910. This now made it possible for people training in “commercial” gyms to focus on increasing load over time (which was not a big driving force in the early iterations of training). It truly became “progressive resistance training” at that point. And the use of heavier and heavier loads did, for most, required to use of gradually heavier sets before hitting the top weight.

From that point on, it probably just naturally evolved toward doing multiple work sets. Humans being humans, they would, like most of us, have assumed (correctly or not) that doing more sets would lead to more improvements.

Prior to the era of the possibility to easily apply progressive resistance training, getting stronger (in terms of lifting heavier and heavier weights over time) was not really a thing nor was developing big muscles. And as such, people were not really looking for ways to build more muscle from the session and mutliple sets were thus not required nor desired (even though you have guys like Eugen Sandow who was doing plenty of sets).

So the shift to a progressive overload approach likely led to the addition of more work sets as they believed that it would make them progress faster.

I do not believe that it specifically comes from the actual sport of weightlifting, which was first done with those lead pellets barbells (as well as dumbells) and was not popular among the lay population but when progressive overload training became more popular among non-strongmen individuals.

But even then, multiple sets were more common than you think. Arthur Saxon used to gradually ramp up his weight over several sets:

From Thomas Inch’s book “Thomas Inch Strength Secrets” in the section about Arthur Saxon’s training:

“…always working up from a light weight to his heaviest lift”

Arthiur Saxon had his peak performances around 1898 - 1910

I have read a lot of old-school strength books from the late 1800s and early 1900s and very few actually give recommendations for the number of sets. Most give a list of recommended exercises and their descriptions, but not actual sets of recommendations (even the rep recommendation are pretty vague). I think that many assume that they only did one set because of that. But they very well might have done more.

3 Likes

As far as I have seen, Most early training systems listed mulitple exercises with a number of reps to do but not multiple sets. It does seem reasonable though that people would do more sets as either a warm up or to get more effect.

I think Alan Calvert 1911 book The truth about weightlifting was one of the first publications in the US to prescribe what would later be called the double progressive method. In this book he talks about adding one or 2 reps per workout until you hit the target number and then increasing the weight by 10lbs and going back to 5 reps. Still no mention though of multiple sets at this time.

2 Likes

Milo Barbell (Calvert’s company) provided adjustable barbells, both shot loaded and plate loaded. With those he gave away a barbell course which had… 15 exercises? Those were all to be done with double progression. Some for 3-6 reps then add 10 pounds, others 5-10 or 12-24, and even others (deep-knee bends) 20-40 then add 5 pounds. The lower ranges added 1 rep every other workout and the higher added 2.

But a single set of each.

If I remember the history right, Mark Berry then took over Milo’s operations after Calvert. I know Mark Berry’s 20 rep squat bit, and I know he wrote his own course, but I haven’t read it.

Later on, Milo was sold to Bob Hoffman and renamed it to York Barbell. And some point after that, Hoffman was publishing lots of multiple set full-body programs.

As for exactly when or why that happened, I haven’t quite figured it out. The Inch quote about Saxon is interesting though; I hadn’t come across that.

(I’ve only read the first few issues of Strength magazine, published by Milo/Calvert, so maybe the transition happened before Hoffman bought it.)

1 Like

I am pretty sure even the early Bob Hoffman programs circa 1940’s still were 1 set per exercise. No idea when that progressed into multiple sets.

1 Like

Bros! Come On! You all know the answer!
image

2 Likes

I have an 80’s Body Building book by Robert Kennedy. He gives a brief history of lifting routines. He talks about the Mark Berry, 20 reps squat routine.

Then “The Adkins Multi Poundage System.” Which kinda looks like drops-sets, way back in the 40s. I found an article by Atkin on the “Tight Tan Slacks” blog.

After that Kennedy says the next big thing was Reg Park’s 5 x 5 setup.

The Atkin Multiple Poundage System
by Henry J. Atkin (1949)

It all happened as a result of a broadcast to schools by an eminent professor who explained the physiological effect of muscular energy used against resistance and how a muscle became fatigued as a result of continued pressing and relaxing while in constant contact with resistance.

I disagreed with certain of his explanations and proceeded to prove my points by testing my own reaction and the reaction of selected pupils to the fatiguing of certain muscle groups. The broadcast was on a Friday evening and proved me correct.

During the next day I found my mind wondering back to theories regarding muscular fatigue as explained by several physiologists, including the broadcaster of the previous day. Now, there are some body-building authorities who insist that a muscle must never be fatigued in body-building, and that exercising should be discontinued when it is felt that three or four further reps could be performed.

In the past two years I can rightly claim to have developed among the pupils training at my club some of the finest physical specimens in this country today, including Ken Kerridge, Adrian White, Alan Conway, “Wag” Bennett, Tom French, and a new sensation – Harry Fussell. These men are not only good to look at, they are strong; as it is a policy of the club not not only develop shapely muscular physiques, but to develop strength in proportion. One 15-year old youngster (Ken Cooper) recently performed two repetitions on the bent arm pullover with with 220 pounds, a dead lift with 415 pounds and a deep knee bend with 300 pounds. All these men, without exception, squeeze the last possible repetition out of a set, and they have all built their physiques at the Viking club in under two years of training.

There are many theorists who would, and do say (turning a blind eye to the results) that I work my pupils too hard, and there are other professional instructors who insist that I drive away certain clients because of this tendency. Be this as it may, I prefer to keep the men who are prepared to work hard and confidently, as I am not out to make a fortune from the ones who are willing to believe they can build a powerful muscular physique without hard work.

I have always felt that when performing 10, 15 or 20 reps, it was the last 3 in 10, the last 4 in 15, and the last 5 in 20 that had the greatest value, and that if one could perform those last few reps without the first reps that are normally performed easily, a much quicker result could be obtained.

My discussions with physiologists suggest to me that no one really knows what makes a muscle grow. We know, of course, that a muscle grows as a result of exercise, but not what chemical reaction builds muscular tissue or increases the size of muscular fibers. It is fairly well established that the number of muscle fibers never increases – it is the increase in size of the fibers that develops muscular bulk.

One of the leading physiologists in this country recently made a series of tests on developing the muscles of rats. He anesthetized these rats and at regular intervals sent electrical impulses into their systems. This caused muscles to react violently against one another without any movement of the limbs. In a short period of time, approximately one month, the muscular bulk of the rats had increased by a third. This is very interesting because it seems to bear out a theory of the experimenters that muscular tissue is developed by isometric contraction.

If this is so, it means that you can develop muscle tissue by attempting to move unliftable weights far beyond your physical capacity. In fact, to develop your biceps muscles, for an example, you can have a bar set into two concrete posts, then simply attempt to curl with the bar fixed in the appropriate central position of a normal curl, and by straining against the weight, develop the muscle. Such a theory as this is difficult for me to believe, but it will be put to the test at some date in the future, and I will inform readers of our findings. Meanwhile I will get back to my explanation of the Multi-Poundage System.

As I explained earlier, I believe in using muscles until not another rep can be squeezed out of them. During the conflicting thoughts and theories that flashed through my brain on this Saturday, was a theory that maybe I could incorporate certain ideas of physiologists regarding the building of muscular tissue with my own. “Wag” Bennett had asked if he could train at the club on the Sunday morning following. I had agreed that he could and decided that I would map out a special experimental program of training incorporating my new ideas. These ideas kept me awake most of Saturday night, and on Sunday morning I was so excited and confident of the scheme that i was unable to wait for “Wag” to arrive – I commenced experiments alone. This saved a certain amount of time, for when my training partner arrived I had decided the commencing poundages for us both on most exercises.

We commenced with the press on back with a poundage that we could both normally perform about 7 reps. At the end of 5 reps, and without stopping, one 20 pound plate was removed from each end of the bar, making for a 40-pound reduction in the weight being used. It was then possible to perform another 6 reps. At the end of 5 of these, the weight was again reduced by 40 pounds, and it was found that another 5 or 6 reps could be performed, but with the last 2 reps, although the weight felt very light in the hands, great difficulty was experienced in locking the elbows because of the apparent choking of the muscles with lactic acid. It was discovered that a slightly longer rest than normal was required between sets. At the end of 3 sets the pectoral muscles of the chest and the anterior deltoids really felt as though they had a terrific work-out and were flushed with blood to the extent that they appeared abnormally large.

From the press on back we proceeded to the standing curl, and we adopted the same procedure, but owing to somewhat lighter weight being used the reductions were of 30 and 20 pounds. (an approximate 20% reduction between each no-rest set of reps seemed to be ideal.) Again we performed 3 sets of between 12 and 15 total reps and again the muscles were worked as they had never been worked before. No matter what the poundage was for the various reduced reps, it always felt as heavy as the weight used for the previous reps. Consequently, we used what appeared to be a maximum poundage all the time while performing 15 reps.

We then tried a similar test with the pulley-weight machine on latissimus developing. The reaction here was so unusual and the flushing of the muscles so extreme that I felt uncomfortable when trying to place my arms straight down the sides of my body. From the pulleys we switched to the pullovers to arms’ length on bench for triceps, performing 3 sets with a similar reaction.

The deep knee bend proved the effect to be the same, and for our last exercise we performed the press behind neck seated. This was the toughest of all exercises, and although the weight was reduced by 20% at the end of each 4 reps, great difficulty was experienced in completing 12.

The result of the first test of the new method of training was extremely exhilarating and gave us a new zest for bodybuilding. We agreed to plan a schedule and practice it four nights a week for a month to see what sort of result could be obtained. At the time of writing we have completed three weeks with excellent results, but although the muscular gains have been very good, the increases in strength have been remarkable. We increased the poundages on the first few reps of the press on back by 50 pounds, in the curl by 40 pounds, in the pullover to arms’ length by 40 pounds and in the press behind neck by 30 pounds.

I have switched several of my pupils to this method of training on two or three exercises of their schedules. The results obtained are excellent and prove the system is efficient and effective. It will most likely prove too intense for relative newcomers to the weights, but advanced men will find that they will get remarkable results from its practice. It takes an evening or two to get accustomed to knowing just when to reduce the weight – this should be when it is felt that only one more rep could be squeezed out.

The unfortunate part about this system is that on many exercises it is necessary to have one or two training partners working with you. The man training at home on his own would be restricted. Naturally he would have no one to slide the weights off for him. One or two of the lads have overcome this in exercises such as the curl, in which they have lowered the bar to a bench, slipped the discs off quickly, and carried on their reps with very little rest. Using preloaded dumbbells of varying weights would make it possible to put one pair of bells down and pick up another pair immediately. In the press on back one is stymied unless he has someone to assist.

Incidentally, I would point out here that it is extremely uncomfortable when handling heavy poundages on the press on back to have one end reduced in weight before the other – always try to whip them off quickly and together.

3 sets of 4 to 5 exercises are sufficient, and I would not recommend that any more be used.

2 Likes

Nice find! I didn’t know using strip sets and “training to/past failure” bits was that old of an idea.

I did more digging (I’m still digging) and found a few more clues.

While it seems both both Mark Berry and [early] Hoffman were still about single set work:

  • In 1937, Hoffman wrote in “The Best Way to Military Press”:

At one time the accepted practice was to make single attempts as few as seven times in the course of a training period. We press a great deal more than that. All of us perform a great many repetitions. Five being the usual limit, three with very heavy poundages. In my own practice I would usually press seven series of five with 135 pounds which system led up to my first success with 185 pounds.

  • In 1944, Hoffman wrote in “Better Military Pressing”:

Then make a number of heavy single attempts as near your record as possible. Ten single heavy presses is not uncommon. Perhaps work up to the heaviest press and then drop back down to many sets with a weight which will permit three to five repetitions.

  • In 1945, Delorme came out with 7x10 in the context of a rehab protocol, and in 1948 switched it to 3x10. So that’s where that came from.
  • In 1944, Joseph Hise published an article " The Hise Deltoid Exercise" with 3x8-12:

Exercisers with large chests know how many repetitions they need. All others should try 8 to 12. As they advance in poundage they may find 12 impossible to do. Reduce to 8 reps and increase weight when succeeding with 10. Most should use 3 sets for each arm during the exercise period – the first 2 with standard weight and the 3rd with less (or the reps may be less than 8).

  • In 1940, from “That Pressing Problem” by Harvey Hill, talking about the [unnamed] Canadian lightweight record holder:

When specializing he pressed at least three times every day and made roughly fifty presses a day with near limit poundages. These were performed in series (sets) of threes as near as possible and a little wider than ordinary grip was used.

  • Also interesting was York’s “heavy-light” system. Which sounds a lot like Pavel’s Power to the People but as a strip set. From “What’s Wrong with the Skinny Man?” by Dick Zimmerman in 1939:

High repetitions are not needed in strength or muscle building. The best results in weight gaining are had with handling heavy weights for fewer repetitions. Only one or two a set is not enough. That will build great strength in the tendons and ligaments. toughen the muscles, but will not build sufficient of muscular size and shape. It’s necessary to continue a movement for enough repetitions to draw the blood to the working muscles with its rich load of replacing and building materials. This would require at least 10 consecutive movements.

Heavy weights cannot be handled by most men for 10 consecutive repetitions. That’s where the York Heavy and Light system comes into its own. Select a weight which is all one can handle for 7 or 8 repetitions. Almost immediately, perform the same exercise again with 10 to 20% less weight. Or another form of repetition would be to perform 3 or more series (sets) of five movements (repetitions) each with the key exercises.

So I think I basically have the answer. It seems to be from early Olympic weightlifting, but specifically for training the Two-hand Press. (Maybe even the One-hand press, but I think that was gone from competition by then.)

It’s also interesting that by 1939 the ideas “training for size” vs “training for strength” were already being teased apart.

I wonder if there’s an earlier reference than 1937.

3 Likes

Olympic Lifting has been contested in the Olympics since 1920. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone could become proficient in those technical lifts without doing multiple sets.

2 Likes

That’s fair.

I didn’t ask the question well, so I’ll make a late attempt to rephrase.

“When was multi-set training used as part of ‘developing programs’ for the ‘average man’?”

I think I just made it more cryptic. But, for instance, the Milo and York courses, targeted toward the “average man” (not the competitive athlete), had you do 10-15 exercises for only a single set. A single set of curls, presses, squats, etc., using double progression.

Sometime later, everybody’s program was using multiple sets for every “slow” exercise, not just the olympic lifts.

The when/where/why of that transition point has been what I’ve been trying to figure out.

All I have are what I would call logical probabilities.

As many know the clean and press was the first of the three Olympic lifts through the 1972 Olympics. There is no reason to believe that the clean and press were not also trained with sets, if only to improve proficiency in technique.

I would imagine that other people lifting weights would notice the Olympic lifters progress and incorporate sets into their program. The press portion of the clean and press is common to the overhead press of bodybuilding.

It should be noted that “the average man” did not lift weights. Weightlifting was an esoteric subculture up until the movie “Pumping Iron.” When I went to high school the coaches insisted that weightlifting made the athlete “muscle bound.” No one lifted weights when I went to high school, except a few non-athletes who followed the subculture of bodybuilding. While I was at NC State University, only two football players lifted weights the entire four years I was there. We had a small weight room under the main gymnasium that had numerous weighted barbells from 40lbs through 180lbs, and a set of dumbbells up to 50lbs, along with a few benches and other items.

There was no AAS use prior to 1955, when CIBA introduced Dianabol. So, most all those “average men” who followed the weightlifting subculture did what they saw others doing.

As best that I could find the USA had 10 athletes competing in Olympic weightlifting in the 1932 Olympics. I would think around that time most all those lifting weights began doing sets. Of course, depending how distant (sight, word of mouth or print) the person is from knowing the progress Olympic lifters were gaining doing sets, would influence how soon they began trying sets.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.