multiple sets important?

[Lol]

<div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 25 2006,22:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Training to failure can make you grow. No doubt about it. It also is a pretty good way to get injured.  

</div>
O&amp;G: I suppose I asked for that!  

But I did then attempt to qualify what I meant.

Maybe I'm being pedantic but I think saying that training to failure can make you grow gives the wrong impression. Maybe it's just me? but the implication seems to be that it's the failure bit that's important. That's what HIT advocates would have us believe (and that's what I got suckered into thinking for too long). I think if you had said, &quot;Training can make you grow (whether to failure or not)&quot; I would have been happy.

About the injury thing: I never got injured when training to failure HIT style so perhaps you had a bad experience?  

Most of the time the loads used in HIT are around the 8-12 rep range which means they are not particularly heavy. If good form is maintained injury should not be an issue. I find the likelihood of injury much more likely with HST when you are doing 5RM loads or greater. You just have to be constantly aware of what your body is telling you during sets with these heavy loads.

At the first indication of a problem you should immediately curtail your set. If you are aware that your form is dropping off (say with deads) you should stop, take a bit of a breather and then go for the rest of your reps.

 

[Cova]

Well what I was doing was this:
3x a week about every other day i would do a full body workout to failure. On every recovery day and sometimes before I lifted weights I did 45 minutes of taekwondo-sparring &amp; drills are what injured my arms. I just could not recover because I burned out my arms so badly and wasnt eating much of a surplus.

Just kind of a personal horror story that could have been a lot worse if I hadn't realized what I was doing wrong.

So, then is training to failure not a good way to build muscle mass? I mean the plus is I never have to do another set unless i underestimated my gains from the previous workout.

 

[Lol]

The 'definition' of failure is different under HST than what it is for HIT. In HIT it's all about 'momentary muscular failure' and is achieved when you can't shift the load no matter how hard you try/strain/puke etc!

Under HST, failure is when your form drops off significantly and you know you can't get another rep - somewhat saving your CNS.

Training to failure is part of HST (end of each mesocycle/2 week block) although you might not get to true failure until you are past the end of 5s and trying for a new 5RM. Training to failure all the time can impede progress for some folks and is not necessary for good progress.

An HST cycle, when set-up as in the example program, is designed to help you stay away from failure most of the time because HST is about muscle hypertrophy not strength or endurance (although you will get decent strength increases too). You don't need to hammer your CNS into the ground to get your muscles to grow! On the contrary, by managing fatigue better you will be more likely to get more work done and be able to keep frequency high.

So, with HST you are thinking more in terms of muscle strain than CNS drain.

Make sense?

 

[lcars]

<div>
(Lol @ Nov. 26 2006,00:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The 'definition' of failure is different under HST than what it is for HIT. In HIT it's all about 'momentary muscular failure' and is achieved when you can't shift the load no matter how hard you try/strain/puke etc!  

Under HST, failure is when your form drops off significantly and you know you can't get another rep - somewhat saving your CNS.

Training to failure is part of HST (end of each mesocycle/2 week block) although you might not get to true failure until you are past the end of 5s and trying for a new 5RM. Training to failure all the time can impede progress for some folks and is not necessary for good progress.

An HST cycle, when set-up as in the example program, is designed to help you stay away from failure most of the time because HST is about muscle hypertrophy not strength or endurance (although you will get decent strength increases too). You don't need to hammer your CNS into the ground to get your muscles to grow! On the contrary, by managing fatigue better you will be more likely to get more work done and be able to keep frequency high.

So, with HST you are thinking more in terms of muscle strain than CNS drain.

Make sense?</div>
good post lol,i have found myself once again experimenting with my training routine.ive spent a year doing hst and im gonna change it up for a few months and come back to it later.but ive taken some principles from hst that i think are important,such as rep ranges decending while weight accends each week,also not training to failure like i used to.

ive gone back to a conventional split using the above principles and i think its working well,ive been doing multiple sets for each exercise and have found that my stamina has dropped since ive been doing hst(1-2 sets per exercise).as apposed to when i trained 3-4 sets per exercise,but thats fine,one can expect this,but avoiding failure in this new routine has allowed me to train harder and with less fatigue which is the crux of my post.

 

[need2eat]

So to sum up the whole rep concept in a nutshell.

If your a perfectionsist, you try and nail an equal number of reps across all two week blocks, how many set/reps it takes you is unimportant, as long as your not overdoing it.

If your free spirited, use the 15/10/5 or RM's of ur choice, progress each two week block to your RM, do two sets each exercise for as many reps as you can with good form, the number of reps are unimportant.

The latter sounds too good to be true, but thats whats being said.

 

[quadancer]

<div>
(Lol @ Nov. 26 2006,00:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The 'definition' of failure is different under HST than what it is for HIT. In HIT it's all about 'momentary muscular failure' and is achieved when you can't shift the load no matter how hard you try/strain/puke etc!  

Under HST, failure is when your form drops off significantly and you know you can't get another rep - somewhat saving your CNS.</div>
With MuscleNow, we went until we couldn't move the weight more than a couple of inches. I called that 'secondary' failure, since there are the two types. Now, most of my body was built on this system, so it DOES grow muscle...but I both hit a wall after a year the first time and after about 7 months the second, and my joints were screaming at me. I couldn't curl anymore, bench, or do shoulders.

HST has it's moments at the end, but nothing like that. My joints healed up while doing HST, and if you can't handle the fives after conditioning yourself for them with the 15's and tens, you shouldn't be lifting at all IMO.

 

[lcars]

<div>
(quadancer @ Nov. 26 2006,08:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ Nov. 26 2006,00:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The 'definition' of failure is different under HST than what it is for HIT. In HIT it's all about 'momentary muscular failure' and is achieved when you can't shift the load no matter how hard you try/strain/puke etc!  

Under HST, failure is when your form drops off significantly and you know you can't get another rep - somewhat saving your CNS.</div>
With MuscleNow, we went until we couldn't move the weight more than a couple of inches. I called that 'secondary' failure, since there are the two types. Now, most of my body was built on this system, so it DOES grow muscle...but I both hit a wall after a year the first time and after about 7 months the second, and my joints were screaming at me. I couldn't curl anymore, bench, or do shoulders.

HST has it's moments at the end, but nothing like that. My joints healed up while doing HST, and if you can't handle the fives after conditioning yourself for them with the 15's and tens, you shouldn't be lifting at all IMO.</div>
i too have had no injuries or stains to speek of since i started hst.firstly because i dont go to complete failure and secondly because(i believe)the high reps involved in the first part of my cycle help me to ease my joints into the heavy poundages.

i used to go to failure all the time,i felt like **** for 2 days after a workout,every workout id do assisted reps until i just couldnt move the bar.and although my form is more or less spot on every time i was severely over doing it.

having said that failure has its time and its place,just not every session.

 

[need2eat]

<div>
(need2eat @ Nov. 26 2006,08:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So to sum up the whole rep concept in a nutshell.

If your a perfectionsist, you try and nail an equal number of reps across all two week blocks, how many set/reps it takes you is unimportant, as long as your not overdoing it.

If your free spirited, use the 15/10/5 or RM's of ur choice, progress each two week block to your RM, do two sets each exercise for as many reps as you can with good form, the number of reps are unimportant.

The latter sounds too good to be true, but thats whats being said.  

</div>
Was I right or have I missed something again?

 

[Old and Grey]

Need, both those methods will work. Almost any method will work at some point in time.

I stay away from failure as the HITers define it as I have never myself nor have I ever seen any other person who can hit momentary muscle failure and still maintain proper form. By definition, it is impossible. When you combine poor form with being at your weakest point (momentary failure) you are more susceptible to injury. You may be lucky and not get hurt. Then again...

One's real goal should be to find the minimum amount of work you can do to hit your maximum muscle growth based on your diet. Anything over the minimum is, at best, wasteful and just burning calories and could even lead to stagnation, overtraining and also make you more susceptable to injury and even sickness.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

<div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 26 2006,10:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">One's real goal should be to find the minimum amount of work you can do to hit your maximum muscle growth based on your diet. Anything over the minimum is, at best, wasteful and just burning calories and could even lead to stagnation, overtraining and also make you more susceptable to injury and even sickness.</div>
Well said !

I have to remind myself of this often!

I think if growth is your goal then do just as O&amp;G said.

There is no reason to ever change this, unless you want to cut, and if thats the case just do the same routine with upper/ lower split with cardio.

But its really as simple as O&amp;G said!

 

[Cova]

<div>
(quadancer @ Nov. 26 2006,03:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ Nov. 26 2006,00:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The 'definition' of failure is different under HST than what it is for HIT. In HIT it's all about 'momentary muscular failure' and is achieved when you can't shift the load no matter how hard you try/strain/puke etc!  

Under HST, failure is when your form drops off significantly and you know you can't get another rep - somewhat saving your CNS.</div>
With MuscleNow, we went until we couldn't move the weight more than a couple of inches. I called that 'secondary' failure, since there are the two types. Now, most of my body was built on this system, so it DOES grow muscle...but I both hit a wall after a year the first time and after about 7 months the second, and my joints were screaming at me. I couldn't curl anymore, bench, or do shoulders.

HST has it's moments at the end, but nothing like that. My joints healed up while doing HST, and if you can't handle the fives after conditioning yourself for them with the 15's and tens, you shouldn't be lifting at all IMO.</div>
I feel HIT lifting is awsome for anybody for about 4 monthes. I started HIT in july and am starting HST.

I just finished my calculations last night and now i am ready to grow some more.

I will say that HIT is not for people that have to do a lot of lifting outside of weightlifting because you can hardly lift anything for the first 1 or 2 days afterwards doing it.

I think HIT is a good workout if you are bulking up because I have made some really good gains.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

Cova with all due respect...you are not seeing HIT correctly.

You say its a good program when bulking?

Well any halfway decent program when bulking should show some gains.

HIT works...but it works in a way were at first you take say 2 steps forward 1 step back.

then after months or years of HIT....its more like 3 steps forward 4 steps back.

The reason I say you are not understanding HIT...is b/c it has nothing to do with the HIT program but more to due with how HIT advices going to failure every workout.

You see this puts considerable drain on your CNS.

This drain leads to overtraining with time.

I am sure you would be less draineed on a bulking program however you still run into the road block of failure and killing your CNS system.

There are only so many ways around not draining your CNS.

Some of them are:

HST..which has highs and lows with ziz zaging to give your body a break.

Also Dan Max-Stim allows you to lift heavy however limiting your fatique.

then of course you have steroids which puts you far away from overtraining...compared to the natural lifter.

I hope his helps your understanding!

 

[scientific muscle]

Also HIT tends to work fine for beginner's or people who haven't developed significant neural strength patterns. So a 17 year old doing HIT will grow fine as his CNS will not be nearly as drained as say a power-lifter/bodybuilder who has been lifting seriously for 5 years. Put the experienced lifter on an HIT program without drugs and you will see stagnation/burnout or worse.

 

[scientific muscle]

Scientifically, there is enough evidence that more than one set may not produce significantly different results than multiple sets.  Most of these studies looked at strength, some also at hypertrophy.
This study from 2000 used trained subjects and measured both muscle mass and strength increases, no difference was found between the one set group and the three sets group.  So my original question which started this thread-&quot;Is more than one set necessary?&quot;
I think the answer is 'NO.'

This is based both on scientific studies and real life people like Steve Jones who is probably the most muscular person to respond to this thread and who does only one top work set per exercise and is training naturally.

Here is a link to the study:RE volume study, 2000

(*edit-this conclusion is based on high-frequency training like 3/week such as HST advocates, plus doing a decent variety of exercises. If you are only doing 4-5 different exercises and training only twice/week or less, then multiple sets will most likely be superior. Other studies have shown a benefit to mutiple sets, but these were usually based on only doing a very few basic exercises.)

 

[Cova]

I am sorry, I wasn't taking into consideration that what works for a teenager can be significantly different from somebody much older.

 

[need2eat]

So what are you saying scientific dude, besides answering your own question....

So basically, whether your in a 15rm block or 5rm block, your suggesting a person should simply do one set, of as many reps as possible, using good form?

I know some people suggest doing as many reps as possible, coming within two reps of failure but unless they've went to failure, how do you know?

 

[Cova]

The best reason a person would do more than one set is because they didn't get a sufficient workout in the first set. This also could have to do with teh fact that the individual isn't giving enough time per rep, or just trying to speed through it.

If you can get the same amount of intensity out of one set as you can get with two less intense sets, why would you go for the less intense, more time consuming set?

I know this is a good question because I am seeing that a lot of people are adding sets to their workout with each time they lower their RM. Example: 2 sets for 15s and 10s but then 3 for 5s.

Is it necissary if you want optimum gains to split the intensity up into multiple sets?

 

[need2eat]

<div>
(Cova @ Nov. 26 2006,17:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Is it necissary if you want optimum gains to split the intensity up into multiple sets?</div>
Good question...


seems these folks are believers in clustering, which means, you keep at a specific exercise until you meet a target total reps, how you get there (number of sets) is unimportant, as long as your not over exerting yourself to accomplish it....


unless someone convinces me to do only one set per block/exercise, the next time I plan to do:

1X15
2X8/7  

3X5




HOOOOLLLD the phone, I just had a brain fart....uh oh...

If a person took the notion that one set was enough, wouldn't it make sense to do every block with the same number of reps, then this ensures your doing progressively more &quot;work&quot;.  Cause if you do what you can vs the RM block, your bound to do more reps with less weight but this doesn't guarantee your &quot;work&quot; would increase as your load increases, as obviously, your reps would.......decrease....

thoughts?


This would also confuse the chit out of everyone, as your not gonna want a target rep of 15 on your 5rm block. However, this would definitely make it easier in the beginning as obviouly 8 reps of your 15rm, is easier than 15 reps of your 15rm, would also make your 5's tricky, as youd be doing 3 more reps, hypothetically.

Id really like to know what others think of this, say, what if I did one set, using 8 reps across the board....but only getting bent out of shape if I can't meet 5 reps in the 5rm block once ive surpased my old target 5rm?

 

[Cova]

If you are going almost to failure with each decrease in RM, you are going to have to increase the load significantly to get that same intensity in one set.

Example: For 1 set of a 15RM you bench 200, when you drop it down to 10RM, you will have to bench anywhere from 225-250 to get that same intensity.

When you get to 5's you might have to do around 280 to get that same intensity.

 

[need2eat]

were your using the term intensity, I was using the term work. we are otherwise on the same page.


thats why I stated, if you wanna do one set, you have to keep the total reps done consistant.

example:

15 reps X 60 lbs = 900

5 reps X 90 = 450

think this is a method used to determine intensity or what I call work done.

it also shows that the only way to do one set across the cycle, the total reps done have to also be the same across the entire cycle, otherwise, your intensity will decrease as you add weight.