1 set per body part

  • Thread starter imported_fearofthedark
  • Start date
I

imported_fearofthedark

Guest
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There is no problem with a single set per body part as long as it is a maximum effort and/or the rep tempo and form is strictly controlled or the weight is extremely heavy preventing further sets

This was in the HST official method article

I want to train every other day, but I find that I can't do this with multiple sets per body part. I only do 1 set per exercise now, so what I really mean is multiple exercises per body part. For instance, I can do a set of bench press every other day, but just adding 1 more set, incline for example, I am still sore when the 48 hours is up.

My question is, to keep up with every other day frequency, I am just going to try 1 exercise per body part now. Ill still add more weight each workout. Should I be alright with just 1 exercise, 1 set per body part. I'm trying to compromise volume for frequency, which is the whole drive home point of this routine
 
If you are new to weight training one set will probably be fine. If you've been training for some time, it may not be enough. Don't worry about the soreness, though -- you can still train even if you are still sore from the last workout.
 
Yeah, I totally agree with the other guys. You are the only one who can decide what is enough/productive for you and what is not. As the FAQ says, if you are unsure about the volume, start with 1 set and work your way up from there if necessary. Do not worry about soreness, though. It is not a reliable indication of hypertrophy.
 
oh, soreness i know is not related to hypertrophy. i just dont want to be sore when the 48 hours is up. the HST vanilla routine was making me overly sore

i have just come off a diet and a history of eating disorders. im certain my strength is bad right now. maybe 1 set will be good for me to start with
 
one set is fine, i do one set of all exercises. It works well, in fact, in my humble opinion, multiple sets of the sam exercise offer so little benefit there not worth the time, better to do another exercise that works the muscle (slightly) differently.

only 2 out of 35 studies have shown a statistically significant benefit to multiple as opposed to single sets. In some studies, the single set group gained more in size or strength than the multiple setters!!!

http://www.cbass.com/NEWEVIDE.HTM
 
style,

i have done single sets per exercise for over a year now. it works every time. so my question is, only 1 exercise per body part? im finding that as little as 2 exercises per body part (say like bench and incline as opposed to just bench) will leave me too sore to repeat 48 hours later. i know if i do just 1 exercise per body part, ill be good to go every 48 hours
 
depends on the body part, I do chin ups and rows for back but thats the only muscle group I work from multiple angles. If you are too sore from two sets I would only do one. Why are you so sore, is this only in the eccentrics and really heavy stuff or all the time? Is your diet ok? I take a tonne of vitamins and never get sore with one set. I should mention that in those studies they trained to muscular failure but that at least backs up that towards the end of the cycle's training one set is all good.
 
Any of those studies performed on previously trained athletes? Usually they use untrained people. Most of us know (from experience) that almost anything will work when you are completely unaccustomed to weight training.
 
some of them used untrained athletes, but then to address that criticism they started using trained ones

Hass et. al. (2000) compared the effects of one set verses three sets in experienced recreational weightlifters. Both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition during the 13 week study. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between groups for any of the test variables; including muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition.

During the 1980s, we conducted a much larger research project comparing the Nautilus principle of single-set strength training with two and three sets of strength exercise (Westcott, Greenberger, & Milius, 1989). The 77 subjects were experienced strength trainees who agreed to participate in a ten-week program of bar dips and chin-ups. All of the subjects were pretested for the maximum number of bar dips and chin-ups they could perform with proper technique. The subjects were divided into three training groups. Group One performed one set of bar dips and chin-ups, Group Two performed two sets of bar dips and chin-ups, and Group Three performed three sets of bar dips and chin-ups, three days per week throughout the study. The only difference between the three training groups was the number of sets performed during each exercise session.

The final study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S115, 1998) addresses the training experience issue. As you'll recall, some have suggested that experienced trainers might benefit from higher volume. In other words, after you've been training for a while, you need increased volume to continue progressing - more is better. According to this study, those people should think anew.

The researchers recruited 40 adults who had been performing one set to muscular fatigue, using nine exercises, for a minimum of one year; average training time was six years. The participants were randomly assigned to either a one-set or three-set group; both groups did 8-12 reps to failure three days per week for 13 weeks.

Both groups significantly increased their one-rep maximum strength and endurance. There was no significant difference in the gains made by the two groups in the leg extension, leg curl, bench press, overhead press and arm curl. The researchers concluded: "These data indicate that 1 set of [resistance training] is equally as beneficial as 3 sets in experienced resistance trained adults."

Another research group, K.L. Ostrowski and colleagues, tested "the effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function" in experienced trainers. (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 11(3): 148-154, 1997) Thirty-five males, with one to four years weight-training experience, were assigned to one of three training groups: one-set, two-sets, or four sets. All participants did what I would call a periodized routine; they changed the rep range every few weeks. They did free-weight exercises four times a week for ten weeks using 12 reps maximum (week 1-4), 7 reps max (week 5-7) and 9 reps (week 8-10). All sets were performed to muscular fatigue with three minutes rest between sets. The only difference between the three programs was the number of sets.

As in the Pollock group studies, no significant differences in results were found. The authors concluded: "...A low volume program ... [one set of each exercise] ... results in increases in muscle size and function similar to programs with two to four times as much volume."
 
I think I posted this is another similar thread but don't all these studies use subjects training to failure as opposed to using sub maximal weights in a hst fashion? Also no weight progression.

Also possibly were the one setters using heavier weights as presumably you can do one set of 10 reps (or whatever) with a heavier weight thatn you can do 3 sets of 10 with.

Also I don't know much about strengh training but I would presume that would use one set to failure to lift the maxiumum about possible in anycase.

My point is basically the studies do not involve training on a way that we all agree optimises hypertrophy and therefore it's hard to apply it's conclusions on volume to hst.

I could be wrong though!
tounge.gif


cheers
rob
 
Measuring how effective a routine is for inducing hypertrophy by measuring strength is the traditional weakness in these studies. Strength gains don't necessarily have anything to do with an increase in muscle size.

The last sentence makes a conclusion about muscle size -- how was this measured? I have yet to see even a single well-designed, controlled study with measurable, reproducable results regarding this issue.

On a more personal, anecdotal note, I can report that the two times that I have hit major plateaus in my own growth (no increase for a year or more), adding a set is what finally started me growing again. It only makes sense: to grow you must lift frequently enough, with a weight that is heavy enough, for a long enough period of time. When you stop growing, you must increase one of these variables.
 
Strength has a lot to do with size when you implement it in a hst fashion. More strength leads to heavier weights at the end of a cycle, a heavier load and more hypertrophy.

Although hst doesn't implement training to failure on a regular basis, you do train to failure at the end of a cycle so as previously stated this at least implies that at the end of a cycle on set is sufficient.

To state my personal experience, eating more seems to stop my 'plateaus'.

I agree that these studies are far from ideal, but how long is it before we see similiar studies in a hst setting?
 
What I meant was, you can gain tremendous amounts of strength without actually gaining any mass, so measuring the success of any program based on how much strength you gained is pointless.  It doesn't prove anything.  Consequently, any of those studies that use strength as a measure, are worthless if you are trying to determine whether one set is as good as three for hypertrophy.  It's simply not what they were measuring.

As for eating more, ... yeah, I can gain more weight if I eat more -- mostly the soft, jiggly kind.  
laugh.gif
 
Ok, as previously stated, some of the studies did measure size gains as well as strength with multi sets and found no difference. Granted, the workouts were not hst so its pretty difficult to say, I suppose you saying that multiple sets stopped your plateau does provide evidence- unless as well as doing more sets, you suddenly started taking AAS, eating more and developed the testes of a bison ;).

It is a jump to go from saying, single sets are as good as multi sets in the vast majority of studies when all sets are taken to failure at increasing strength to saying multi sets are a waste of time when done hst style where most sets-except at the end of the cycle- are not taken to failure but this at least supports the idea that doing one set is a viable option.
 
Actually, upon re-reading my own post more closele :confused: . Pretty much all the studies measured size as well as strength.

The researchers found almost identical increases in upper and lower body thickness for both the one-set (13.6%) and three-set (13.12%) groups. Increases in one rep maximum were also essentially the same, for all five exercises, but the principle of specificity asserted itself on one exercise when it came to maximum reps or endurance. Both groups showed significant across-the- board increases in endurance, but the 3-set group showed significantly greater improvement in the bench press. At 25 weeks, the one-set group averaged 22 reps in the bench press compared to 27 for those doing 3-sets.

The third 6-month study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S163, 1998) focused on increases in knee-extension strength in three different modes: one-rep max, isometric peak torque and training weight. Again, there was no significant difference between the one-set and three-set groups. One-rep max increased 33.3% and 31.6% for 1 set and 3 sets, respectively; isometric increases were 35.4% versus 32.1%; and training weight increases were 25.6% compared to 14.7%

Even though the researchers apparently didn't find it significant, note that the one-set group gained slightly more strength in the first two modes and substantially more in training weight (25.6% versus 14.7%). It seems to me that specificity is at work again. When you do only one set there's nothing to keep you from doing your absolute best; but when you plan to do three sets it's natural to hold back and pace yourself. I believe that's probably why the one-set group gained more strength. They triggered more muscle fibers than the 3-set group, where pacing probably reduced intensity somewhat.

The fourth study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S274, 1998), also 6 months long, showed significant increases in circulating insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) in both one-set (34%) and three-set (30%) groups

After considering this new evidence, Dr. Ralph Carpinelli sums-up: "The lack of scientific evidence that multiple sets...produce a greater increase in strength or size, in itself, provides a rationale for following a single set training protocol."
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (style @ Jan. 19 2006,1:24)]When you do only one set there's nothing to keep you from doing your absolute best; but when you plan to do three sets it's natural to hold back and pace yourself. I believe that's probably why the one-set group gained more strength. They triggered more muscle fibers than the 3-set group, where pacing probably reduced intensity somewhat.
This is what I was referring to in my earlier post and the main reason why I don't think this sort of research applies to hst as much as to other working out methods that advocate training to failure.

Not that I think there's anything particularly wrong with doing one set, I just subscribe to the general view here that the higher the volume the better as long as it doesn't interfere with frequency (and that increasing frequency comes before increasing volume).

Cheers

Rob
 
Could you post a link to any of those studies? I'd love to take a closer look at what they did, but I can't find any of them.
 
You can't find them because I made them up....moo hoo ha ha
happy.gif


Heres the link http://www.cbass.com/NEWEVIDE.HTM

Rob,

Yeh sounds about right, I just wonder how much better multi sets are.... To be honest a lot of it just springs for my personal preference for one set, short workouts. Does this mean I should start working out with one set monday-friday before I start doing muliple sets?

cheers
 
Back
Top