The single Vs multiple set argument is that one set will provide a training stimulus but 10 sets will provide a greater stimulus.
Now as we only have 100 units of adaptive energy then anything over what is required will result in serious overtraining. eh ?
Two weeks ago at the university of salford I put this question to a lecturer and ASS manager under Dr. Steve Pearson. He basically said:-
"yes I've heard all the arguments for singles Vs multiple and in principle you might be right but... you can't argue with success". F**k me :eek: . "It's good that your questioning things (condescending smile) but we've seen the top guys train and this is what they do"
I had to restrain myself from launching an eraser at his shiny head. I decided not to push the issue he’s up there talking about things the equivalent to algebra & calculus but doesn’t even understand the basic 2 + 2’s of exercise. He’s a parasite.
Lets watch the language here, I’m noticing more and more of you using profanity which is simply not acceptable by any standards. We’re a family site not a gutter.
I admire your enthusiasm for the one set to failure principle and if it works for you stick with it. But I guarantee you in 12 months from now you will not be using that method - but like me you have to make mistakes to find answers.
Maybe the reason is that people with more knowledge and experience get frustrated with you continuing to go off on the same tangent, without really anything in terms of evidence to back it up. The effectiveness of the number of sets, as well as every other part of strength training periodization, has been studied in physiological research, and the results can be found on medline. For people who are untrained or have been training with weights for not more than 3 months, you can find citations indicating that both single set and multiple set methods work, although you cannot find a reference showing that single set methods are superior.
When subjects have been training for longer than 3 months, the situation changes. There appears to be only one study claiming that single set methods are superior to multiple set (and that one study used long-term recreational weightlifters, so the amount of time and/or desire to train may have been an issue), while there are several that have concluded that multiple sets are superior for experienced lifters:
KRAEMER, W. J. A series of studies—the physiological basis for
strength training in American football: fact over philosophy.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:131–142, 1997.
KRAEMER, W. J., N. RATAMESS, A. C. FRY, et al. Influence of
resistance training volume and periodization on physiological
and performance adaptations in college women tennis players.
Am. J. Sports Med. 28:626–633, 2000.
KRAMER, J. B., M. H. STONE, H. S. O’BRYANT, et al. Effects of
single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume,
intensity, and variation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:143–147,
1997.
SCHLUMBERGER, A., J. STEC, and D. SCHMIDTBLEICHER. Single- vs.
multiple-set strength training in women. J. Strength Cond. Res.
15:284–289, 2001.
If you want to poke an argument where there is science, experience, and results on both sides, you could compare Mo Green’s strength training (more reps, which increases hypertrophy, but limits CNS loading) with Barry Ross’ version, which is more or less the opposite of Mo’s. But you are on the losing side of the one you have chosen. My impression is that either you don’t “get it,” or you haven’t been lifting long enough to get it.
I really don’t have any kind of emotional investment in this H.I.T thing, honestly i’m concerned only with what works. It’s just this 3 x 10 stuff seems rather arbitrary. With O-lifts the power output is much greater but the CNS stress is the same so theoretically why wouldn’t a sigle set of cleans to momentary failure work ???
I appreciate your comments LKH really, but if you think it’s volume affecting hypertrophy then I respectfully say that maybe you don’t get it.
Think about a champ like Tommy Kono he had to move up several weight classes as he got stronger, because he unavoidably grew bigger.
Ok, lets take your example, 1 set of cleans to momentary failure. What if the athlete can do more? (This is especially true will lesser qualified athletes). What if the line between momentary failure and injury is very blurry? Considering that in order to obtain adiquate CNS stress, one must be using >85% of 1RM, do you ask an athlete to attempt to work to failure in this range?
The other thing, it is nice to question authority, but you need to have grounds to question it. Swearing and ad hominem attacks are not substitutes for evidence. If single sets are so good, explain why the studies that do not support it had fallacies in the experimental design that confounded their conclusions. Explain why there are multitudes of athletes using multiple set at the elite level and still succeed. Be careful, on this last one, the “they would be better if they listened to me” argument has been overused by gurus and does not have any evidence to validate it. I would enjoy discussing this topic if you are willing to address the above.
The weaker muscles on the lift will fatigue before the stronger ones. This will have long-term consequences to the development of proper technique which will inevitably keep the lifter from reaching their potential.
Ok lets go, your first question : What if an athlete can do more ?
My argument with the multiple set approach is that it is based on an arbitrary no of reps/sets. After the first High Intensity workout I conduct with a certain athlete, the first thing he will always say is “Sean that’s it, but I feel I can do more”. As if what is required by nature to elicit an adaptive response had anything to do with what you ‘felt’ like doing on a given day. You need to perform the minimum amount of work it takes to achieve a response, anything more than this is overtraining (simple logic). And obviously the minimum amount of work you can perform is one set
If 10 sets are good then wouldn’t 100 be better, in fact why stop there… why not take time off work perform 1000 sets, and in a month you’ll be able to show Asafa a clean pair of heels. I’m not taking the pee here, this is taking the multi set approach to it’s logical conclusion.
I will answer one more question until tomorrow. I’m off to bed…
The fact that elite athletes use this approach and have success PROVES NOTHING. I haven’t said that multiple sets don’t work only I would like to hear some science as to why they do. “well that’s how all the champions train” is all i’ve heard so far. Oh yea that’s real scientific. Genius these men. :rolleyes:
It’s really not that arbitrary. You just have to read the literature from the experts. Ian King would be a good start. One of the most rational coaches you will ever find.
That all depends on what type of response you are trying to get. If you can do a weight as many times as you describe, are you really working maximum strength or power? I think not. From a safety perspective, is it a good idea to put an athlete into a situation where they may lose form and injury themselves? If you can do a weight for 10 reps max, but instead you do 3x3 with the same weight, the speed will undoubtedly be higher and overall power output will be much higher. This also keeps down the risk of injury (reps are not performed when seriously fatigued).
If 10 sets are good then wouldn’t 100 be better, in fact why stop there… why not take time off work perform 1000 sets, and in a month you’ll be able to show Asafa a clean pair of heels. I’m not taking the pee here, this is taking the multi set approach to it’s logical conclusion.
That is a very poor argument. 10 sets may be good to ellicit a particular response–that does not mean 100 will give the same response. This is not at all the logic of a multi-set approach and you are making very unreasonable arguments at this point.
The fact that elite athletes use this approach and have success PROVES NOTHING. I haven’t said that multiple sets don’t work only I would like to hear some science as to why they do. “well that’s how all the champions train” is all i’ve heard so far. Oh yea that’s real scientific. Genius these men. :rolleyes:
Studies were posted–read them. Geniuses? Looking for science is great (plenty was posted here), but go with what works first as science in athletics normally is done without looking at what actually works. Pseudo-scientists also say arms don’t matter in sprinting and have studies to try to prove it, but ask ANYBODY who has ever run to stop driving their arms and they will laugh at you. Try it for yourself and you will embarass yourself. Just one example here.
How do you know you have done enough work? What you are describing is similar to saying that if i work once a day i will make $5 anything more is overworking. Nothing real is ever boolean (black and white) or even linear. There is a point of diminishing returns, but that doesn’t make the minimum the optimal solution.
Then why do one set? Why not extend your idea of minimum work to one rep. How many reps in each set? Only doing one set is as arbitrary as doing 3x10 as you are describing it.
As i stated above, there is a point of optimal stimulus. Anything outside of this (both less and more work) are less optimal. I don’t claim to know where this is, but i do know that it changes based on the athlete. In this statement you are commiting the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. You are looking at this as if they were black and white. If this were the case, it would be trivial to train athletes (which it obviously isn’t.
Yet another ad hominem attack. I have yet to hear anything from you that doesn’t have a logical fallacy. Every athlete is a data-point on a large mult-variate non-linear manifold. In other words, this is pretty complex stuff to analyze. Information is information, it does not matter where it comes from (formal experiment or not). Statistically,No one has proven that cigarettes cause cancer, as no one has run an experiment randomly picking people to smoke and not smoke. (Try to get human subject testing approval on that test ). However, that doesn’t mean that Cigarettes are not bad for one’s health. There are experiments that have concluded that multiple sets are better, i have yet to hear you point out fallacies in their design yet. You will have to read the journals on your own though.
I hear you Davan. It is rather amazing how many poorly designed experiments exist is the exercise science communty. I know that this is hard stuff to test, but they could at least learn some statistics.
Kind of depends on what ’failure’ means for the whole training session. Going for failure @ 75 percent of 1-RM max will not be the same as doing 2x 95 percent and fail on the third attempt. There’s usually no coming back (in the same session) from the 75 % failure. With 3x 95 %, the second set (after a 7-10min. pause), could indeed heighten the neural excitement so that the athlete manages to clean 3x 95% on the second set, although such approach should perhaps be used sparingly.
It’s very much dependent on intensity; doing cleans at such intensities that allows for long rep ranges is pretty much useless. With cleans we want high intensities, thus multiple short sets for maximizing benefits. The numbers of sets are not written in stone, nor are they arbitrary; they depend on “neural investment” in the particular training session/modality in regards to the microcycle as well as the macrocycle.
2x 95 % might not be enough, Nx 75% to failure is too much and the intensity is too low for the benefits one is looking for.
Your earning £5 example would be true only if we had infinite recovery ability. This £5 is an arbitrary number, the number of reps in a single set to failure is not. Once you have achieved a stimulation you don’t have to do it again. It’s like when you flick a switch to turn on a light-once it’s flicked the mechanism is in motion, and you don’t have to stand there flipping it up and down.
Thanks this helps,
Of course i’m mainly referring to limit strength exercises where the last rep is the safest. With O lifts then how do you design the set/rep range; is it to ensure LA buildup doesn’t prevent full contraction or is it replenshment of the ATP-CP ?
What I have to say on it is:if no one knows the magic number for an optimum how can you be sure you are achieving it ??? By going to 100%
No references to support ?? I’ve read about least ten this year here’s an excerpt from one :
Dr Ralph Carpinelli
Dep of Health, Phyisical education and Human Performance.
Adelphi University
“Twenty-four out of twenty-five strength training studies reported that there was no significant difference in the magnitude of muscular strength between training with single versus multiple sets (5 +)… There is no evidence that a greater volume of exercise will elicit a greater response”
LA build-up is not an issue with OLs; the modality itself is of such nature that it makes more sense to keep it near max strength/power output all the time, if that’s not the objective then skip the exercise all together. Hence we are playing with neural activation and ATP recovery and avoiding LA like the pest.
There is no universal rule for a set/rep range: The set/rep range is “optimal” when it’s internally coherent with the goals of the training session (and they are, in turn, coherent with the whole training plan). Like T. Leary would have said: “Let’s not confuse consistency with the truth”. Consistency and coherence in our training plan is all we can have.
Perhaps you should evaluate the ‘one set till failure’ from the opposite perspective: In what circumstances does it make sense to go for a total exhaustion of neural and metabolic resources, especially when strength training plays a supplementary role in the microcycle as well as in the mesocycle? Looking at the issue this way (especially with T&F athletes), it appears such requirements are almost never present - such role is reserved for other modalities.
Hence an “arbitrary” number of sets/reps might be far better than a mathematically solid one rep till 100% because the former at least finds some coherence with the plan (might be off with a rep or two… or a few sets from optimal) whereas the one-set-till-failure strategy doesn’t fit in anywhere in the plan.
The term ‘arbitrary’ becomes much less arbitrary when you make it into a system, such as starting with, for example, 4x6x 85%; then gradually increase intensity which results in a decrease in volume (3x4x 90%); then again going for higher intensity (2x3x 95%) etc. etc. The sets and reps are not arbitrary because they play a role in a progressive system, and the system, in turn, plays a role in the mesocycle. This particular example would indicate a rough closing in towards a peak for max strength, which in turn, would indicate the start of a maintenance period for strength training, and thus increased output in speed training etc. etc. etc… i.e. the system creates the sets/reps, not the other way around.
‘Optimal’ is always ‘relative’, hence “most optimal” when it’s “most relative” to what one is looking for.
I havn’t read the whole thread but most people (including the HIT crowd who are really into motor learning) agree that in order to develop skill the movement patterns need to be performed in a non fatigued state.
Now in many ways strength is a skill. If you want to get good at olympic lifting (a very complex skill) you had better practice it is a non fatigued state otherwise your mechanics will break down and you risk injury and suboptimal mechanical advantage.
However, if you are really only interested in addressing metabolic issues who cares if the skill is there (i’m not sure why you would want to do this other than to pass some weird science lab test for example).
Using 1 set to momontary fatigue using machine for example is perfectly possible and will lead to improvements via this metabolic conditioning phenominum (at least for a while). However it won’t really help with the skill element of the exercise (i guess this is intra/inter muscular co-ordination etc). I’ve played around with 1 set to fatigue training (because it is quick and i don’t have time to train - too much coaching) and i’ve found that periodising in some kind of skill training for the lifts i use (e.g. low reps and more sets at lower weights) makes a difference to the 1 set to fatigue at a set time under load, i hypothesise because i just wasn’t optimally able to address skill using the fatiguing protocol. Note that this skill training is non fatiguing but doesn’t take too much time because the weight is so low i don’t need to rest for too long. Perhaps only a minute between sets.
Still using the fallacy of the excluded middle. The human body is not a decrete system. None of the variables are discrete. The stimulus to the athlete is not discrete and the response to the stimulus is not discrete. The body is constantly reacting, there are no switches. Even failure is not a discrete event as there are many forms of failure. What deviation from perfect exercise form is considered failure?
Lets agree to the premise that there is a finite amount of recovery. (Which is not too far fetched). Then why use a lot of the recovery capacity of an athlete by training to failure in the weightroom. Even supposing that one set to failure was the best, it would still be non-optimal for the training of athletes as sports form is not optimally trained. (due mostly to an over-allocation with training to failure).
If no one knows the optimal number why is the minimum the solution? As i mentionned above, why should an athlete waist the majority of recovery energy on 100% limit excercises to failure when it matters how many points they score over how much they can squat?
). However, that doesn’t mean that Cigarettes are not bad for one’s health. There are experiments that have concluded that multiple sets are better, i have yet to hear you point out fallacies in their design yet. You will have to read the journals on your own though.