One set or multiple sets?

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy Research' started by nkl, May 10, 2008.

  1. nkl

    nkl Member

    Have we discussed this before?
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Excerpt from “New Evidence on Sets Controversy” by Clarence Bass
    A review of literature by Carpinelli and Otto found that 33 out of 35 strength-training studies showed no significant difference in strength or size gains as a result of doing one set or multiple sets. (Sports Medicine. 25(7): 1998) The two main criticisms of these studies, according to Dr. Carpinelli, are that they were too short, and that the participants were often untrained. The suggestion is that seasoned trainers might benefit from doing more sets. Dr. Carpinelli now reports in the October 1998 Master Trainer that those &quot;valid criticisms&quot; are addressed in a series of studies by Michael Pollock, M.D., and his colleagues at the University of Florida, and another research group.

    Five studies by Dr. Pollock's group were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine. Four of them address the duration issue; they extend for six months compared to only six to 12 weeks in the earlier studies.

    Two of the studies (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5); 116 &amp; 165, 1998) examine strength and size increases as a result of one set or three sets of 8-12 repetitions to muscular failure three days a week. Strength was assessed for both one rep max and reps at 75% of pretraining max, in the bench press, row, arm curl, leg extension and leg curl. Muscle thickness increases were measured by ultrasound in eight locations covering the upper and lower body.
    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. Dr. Carpinelli, who teaches the neuromuscular aspects of strength training at Adelphi University (Long Island, New York), says, &quot;IGFs are multifunctional protein hormones, whose production in the liver and other tissues is stimulated by growth hormones.&quot; They are important because, &quot;They stimulate glucose and amino acid uptake, protein and DNA synthesis, and growth of bones, cartilage, and soft tissue.&quot;
    The researchers concluded: &quot;The elevation of IGFs is no greater with high- than low-volume resistance training.&quot; That's noteworthy, because it's generally believed that high-set training results in more growth hormone secretion. (See Growth Hormone Synergism by Douglas M. Crist, Ph.D., 2nd Edition, 1991.  
    (Unfortunately this book is no longer in print.)

    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: &quot;These data indicate that 1 set of [resistance training] is equally as beneficial as 3 sets in experienced resistance trained adults.&quot;

    Another research group, K.L. Ostrowski and colleagues, tested &quot;the effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function&quot; 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: &quot;...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.&quot;
    Significantly, regarding hormone output, they concluded: &quot;High volume [four sets of each exercise] may result in a shift in the testosterone/cortisol (anabolic/catabolic) ratio in some individuals, suggesting the possibility of overtraining.&quot; In other words, high-volume training not only doesn't produce better results, it may also lead to overtraining.
    </div>So, why do we tend to add more volume if there is evidence on little extra benefit (except burning more cals)? What are your thoughts? Personal experiences? Other studies?
  2. Vin_G

    Vin_G New Member

    That is interesting. I guess that helps support what Mike Mentzer has been saying for years. Where I think Mike Mentzer got it wrong was his advocating these one-set workouts only every 14 days.

    These one-set exercises would work best with HST as you are keeping the volume low, but frequency high.

    I have read other studies (cited from magazines) that multiple sets are required to stimulate muscles enough for hypertrophy to occur. Hmmm, this is a confusing one.
  3. adb1x1

    adb1x1 Member

    Here are a few things to consider regarding these 'studies'

    1. the '2' mentioned were to muscular failure. Seems the researchers deemed this somehow necessary. CNS exhaustion is bound to have influenced the outcome

    2. the 3rd states 'to muscular fatigue'. That's a bit vague. This one also seems to only look at strength, not muscle size increases. They are not the same thing.

    3. the 4th seems to only be concerned with IGF increases.

    4. the 5th focuses on strength and endurance.

    5. the last one states 'to muscular fatigue' and only references hormonal output.

    It seems these 'studies' were grouped together with an agenda - to support the HIT idea of one set to failure rather than consider if multiple sets are beneficial for hypertrophy.

    This is typical of HIT thought (or lack of it)
  4. Vin_G

    Vin_G New Member

    Ahh. I am not a big advocate of training to failure. I have read that it mostly taxes your neurological system (as muscles have fatigued prior). The neuro. system requires a lot longer recuperation than muscle, therefore taxes your gains.
  5. beingisbeing

    beingisbeing New Member

    you sound like Bryan Vin...! Good for you [​IMG]
  6. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    Because Clarence is citing a paper that wasn't that great to begin with. The Series of papers by Otto and Carpineli, they've written rebuttals to about every peer reviewed literature that espoused anything other than one set to failure, aren't based on hypertrophy research and they ignored anything that disputes their HIT mentality.
  7. nkl

    nkl Member

    It is good to know. Thanks! [​IMG]

    (Moral: Don't believe everything you read - read more and eventually you'll get the bigger picture.)

Share This Page