1 set per body part

[robefc]

I would agree with that, I design my workouts according to the principles laid out in Vicious's e-book so I would up frequency before volume.

For example if you were doing 6 sets of chest exercises split between 3 sessions then I would go to 6x a week and one set first before increasing volume.

I tend to do one set of compounds for 15s, one set of compounds and add isolation movements in the 10s (chest, back, shoulders, bis and tris) and then 2 sets of compound movements in the 5s and one set of isolation movements plus pulses.

I don't feel I'm doing enough if I only do one set of 5s, I'd drop the isos before dropping the extra set.

I like the idea of not worrying too much about sets and clustering though so doing maybe 10 reps in how many 'clusters' it takes.

Cheers

Rob

 

[style]

Cool, yeh I'v read the e book too. I never really got the whole 'iso's are for stretch thing' though. I'll start doing 5x a week HST , sweet cause I live right next to the gym and love working out so it'll be sweet!!!!

It sounds strange but i can understand that two sets of bench press work the muscle better than one, its just after reading these studies (far from ideal as they are) and from my own personal experience of growing just fine from one set I dont really feel the need or desire to add more sets.

 

[robefc]

The isos for stretch thing (&#33 is just that there is no point using isolation movements that don't stretch the muscle more than compound movements as you can simply use compound movements which will subject the muscles to more load.

However, because the muscles are susceptible to greater strain when they are stretched, isolation movements that stretch the muscle more than compound movements can still be useful as although the weight may be lighter the effect of the load may be comparable to that of a compound movement.

At least that's it in layman's terms, I'm not qualified to get scientific about it!

And carry on with the single sets, it's good to get in and out the gym quickly!

 

[semajes]

Ok, so, upon closer inspection, only one of the studies measured increases in size -- this one was with untrained subjects. The others measured strength and IGF. The last study mentioned size in its conclusion, but only spoke specifically about strength -- no mention of how size was measured (which usually means that it wasn't. most researchers don't differentiate between strength and size improvements, they assume they are the same). Also, we have no idea what everyone's respective diets were.

It's surprising how astonishingly inept most fitness "researchers" seem to be.

Ultimately, though, if you are lucky enough to still be sensitive to just one set, then there's no real reason to beat yourself up with more sets or more frequency. If it ain't broke ...

 

[smf]

Quote[/b] (robefc @ Jan. 19 2006,9:28)]I would agree with that, I design my workouts according to the principles laid out in Vicious's e-book so I would up frequency before volume.
For example if you were doing 6 sets of chest exercises split between 3 sessions then I would go to 6x a week and one set first before increasing volume.

Very interesting. I hadn't heard to up frequency before volume, and I'm not familiar w/ the ebook you mentioned. What is the rationale for increasing frequency first?

 

[robefc]

Check out the e-book in the customising thread in the general training forum - it will tell you much more about it than I ever could.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

8-->

Quote[/b] (semajes @ Jan. 19 2006,5

8)]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 find the full references for the Carpinelli and Rhea stuff on my Training and Strength research forum.

 

[smf]

Quote[/b] (robefc @ Jan. 19 2006,8:25)]Check out the e-book in the customising thread in the general training forum - it will tell you much more about it than I ever could.

Thanks for the reference. You're right, it contains a wealth of information.

 

[imported_fearofthedark]

Quote[/b] (semajes @ Jan. 19 2006,7:24)]Ok, so, upon closer inspection, only one of the studies measured increases in size -- this one was with untrained subjects.  The others measured strength and IGF.  The last study mentioned size in its conclusion, but only spoke specifically about strength -- no mention of how size was measured (which usually means that it wasn't.  most researchers don't differentiate between strength and size improvements, they assume they are the same).  Also, we have no idea what everyone's respective diets were.  
It's surprising how astonishingly inept most fitness "researchers" seem to be.  
Ultimately, though, if you are lucky enough to still be sensitive to just one set, then there's no real reason to beat yourself up with more sets or more frequency.  If it ain't broke ...

Quote[/b] ]Ultimately, though, if you are lucky enough to still be sensitive to just one set, then there's no real reason to beat yourself up with more sets or more frequency. If it ain't broke ...

Me thinks if im using a very challenging load (failure in the hypertrophy rep range of 6-12), i am exposing my muscle to this load every other day, and i am eating to support my efforts, i see no reason why you need to do more than 1 set per body part

honestly, im scared to do more than a set per body part. than what next, 3 sets per body part? ill just want to keep tweaking it. every time ive done 2 sets per body part, i have been unable to come back in 48 hours. i almost noticed that for each additional set, i need another day off

 

[semajes]

If that's the case, and you can still grow from just one set, then that's fine. For many of us who have been doing this for a long time, more sets are required. Take a look at Bryan's routine, for example. He works out (as I recall) twice on workout days AND does more than one set.