• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
I've whacked this in here not because it has anything to do with powerlifting more so with just strength training as in hard workouts to improve strength , flexibility and muscle size which is a byproduct of strength but that's another topic.

over the past 40 years more than 50 studies have compared the strength building effects of one set with those to multiple sets.
some research favored two or three sets and some favored single sets as superior but the vast majority of studies revealed no significant differences between doing one set and doing multiple.

They were all equally effective

For all these studies to be effective and make sense would have to apply similar repetitions and define momentary muscular fatigue identically for which I don't think this happened.

what does this mean to you and why do you justify multiple set protocol?
 
Not having ever been interested in pure strength training, I may not be qualified to have much of an opinion but here it is anyway.

Strength is primarily determined by neural efficiency. Neural efficiency is developed through repetition. Multiple sets equals more repetition equals more cns conditioning equals more strength adaption.

Multiple sets will also result in increased training volume which should increase cross sectional area of the muscle which is proven to be proportionate to force generation i.e. strength.

I'm surprised that single set training can even get close to the same result of multiple sets.
 
some research favored two or three sets and some favored single sets as superior...
That in itself is cancellation through elimination. In other words (and without having to delve into which research favoured what), the mere fact that the results were not conclusive, nullifies all these studies.

but the vast majority of studies revealed no significant differences between doing one set and doing multiple.
That is great news for lifters (and coaches) who live by studies, I am not one of those.

They were all equally effective
More reason to be suspicious.

what does this mean to you and why do you justify multiple set protocol?
I justify a multiple set protocol because that's what has been working in real life (with real lifters) since day one. Why would a sane lifter put himself through hell in order to make progress, when he could just as easily apply the one set method and get his training over and done with.

In my response to your post Andy, I've chosen a totally different approach from the norm. That is (as is evident) by my reply, I've kept it real. No science, no fancy words, no "this research or this Doctor of physiology etc. says so", nothing like that. If a single set works, Olympic weightlifters world wide would have jumped onto that scientific discovery, but it obviously doesn't. And it doesn't for many more reasons than just one.

This whole thing reminds me a bit of a muscle contraction. We've all seen those commercials where someone (usually a scientist/doctor/"expert"), is trying to sell us a machine that causes our muscles to contract, without having to do any work. No one is even talking about one set or multiple sets here, not even a weight to be lifted or an arm to move from point a to point b no. Simply attach those probes and let them send those electrical impulses that cause a shock to our nerve endings and cause them to fire, sending a signal for a muscle fiber to contract. Oh, if it was so easy huh!

So it's obvious from the above example re muscle contraction, that it takes more than simply muscle contraction to make a muscle stronger, bigger, or both. It takes stress, and not just stress, but stress that is applied either continuously (as in TUT), or stress that is applied multiple times as in a heavy set done multiple times.

Let's look at real world training, both bodybuilding and strength/power orientated.

In bodybuilding , you have two major camps, both (arrogantly) claim to have the holly grail when it comes to their method of training. On the one hand you've got the high volume camp, and on the other hand you've got the high intensity group. Yet when it comes to the topic of this OP, both of this camps would agree on multiple sets to get the job done.

Moving on to Olympic weightlifting, you've also got two camps, one following the former Soviet Union method of periodisation based on the lifter's 1RM, whilst the other camp following the Bulgarian system where your 1RM is based on your daily's 1RM, applying what is now termed as self-autoregulation, and maintaining that only the two competition lifts are to be performed, with only one strength specific exercise for assistance work, namely the formant squat. Again we see an agreement between this two vastly different camps, where more than just the one set is applied in training to get the job done. Even if the lifter is restricting himself to single lifts, he does a multiple sets of that single lift, over and over again for about 6x/day 6x/week (if you're a Bulgarian or a Bulgarian system follower) as i am (in favour of over the Russian system). But that's another topic.

Point is, with all these diversities, all agree on a multiple set over a single set method.
 
Last edited:
I would probably justify doing multiple sets purely for the purpose of skills building. I don't think it matters what program, sets/reps etc...
As long as you are going hard and heavy, largely doing compound exercises, eating and sleeping....you will make progress.
 
The thing is though that it's all a bit ambiguous isn't it, when you say one set what does that mean?
What sort of set, how long a set, what type of set, is it just straight reps or a prolonged set, how many reps and so on.

I also ask myself, is there a person on the planet who can muster up enough intensity from one single set and do it effectively?
 
It's all a matter of volume isn't it. The more advanced a trainee is the more volume they can utilise. One set might me effective for a rookie briefly but they will outgrow that. Plus if the volume wasn't equated in the studies it's comparing apples and bananas.
 
The thing is though that it's all a bit ambiguous isn't it, when you say one set what does that mean?
What sort of set, how long a set, what type of set, is it just straight reps or a prolonged set, how many reps and so on.

I also ask myself, is there a person on the planet who can muster up enough intensity from one single set and do it effectively?

You bring up an important point Darkoz. For example, I could load a bar with 60% of my 1RM squat and hammer away 50 reps in a single set. The question then becomes, how long did that set take to complete and why? And was there any benefit derived from doing those 50 reps? The answer, and I can give one because I've done it, is that that type of set is extremely beneficial as far as muscle hypertrophy is concerned. But then, how long did that set take to complete, and can we call it one set, or a multiple set condensed into the one large 50 rep set?

The first 10 reps are done non stop whatsoever. Then things slow down accordingly. So by the time the last 10 reps are done, the lifter is taking about 5 seconds of breathing between each rep. Would that be now classified as a rest-paused set or not? I haven't let go of the bar yet, as it's still resting on my trapezius muscles. And we know that that in itself is taxing on ones whole body (and nervous system). So here we are, one set, extended beyond the time a normal set of 10 reps is done, but it is still just one set, or is it?

I personally haven't come across any study done using 60% of 1RM for a total of 50 reps, doing a compound movement such as the squat. I can say it works, but is it sustainable? Absolutely not! What does that mean ultimately? It means we stick with multiple sets to produce the results we require, because these multiple sets (when all is equal), do produce results based entirely on/and due to their inherent multiplicity/repetitiveness.
 
Last edited:
I would probably justify doing multiple sets purely for the purpose of skills building. I don't think it matters what program, sets/reps etc...
As long as you are going hard and heavy, largely doing compound exercises, eating and sleeping....you will make progress.

This is it. We can all fuck around with the 1% details but it's bullshit for us shit kicker gym rats. Do the big exercises. Put the effort in. Progression. That's the 99% of it.
 
Whether you're a "shit kicker gym rat" or not, you've got to do multiple sets if your aim is continuous progress, or at least progress to an elite level. I've yet to see or hear of a single Olympic weightlifter anywhere in the world who has gotten anywhere in his lifting career, basing his lifting on this one set method. Sure it may exist, but only in two places: dreamland, and some lab somewhere. In real life, there is no such thing as making full progress whilst relying on some hard ass one set compound movement exercise, it matters not how damn hard that set is. As I wrote above, the harder that set (since you'd be relying on only doing one set), the more you'd be pushed into the ground due to CNS exhaustion. It's that simple.

Not here to convince anyone one way or the other. Try it for yourself and see how far you'll go.
 
Problem with just doing big lifts week after week, year after year is it takes it's toll on the joints.
I prefer to train smarter these days if I wanna train for years to come.
 
I've whacked this in here not because it has anything to do with powerlifting more so with just strength training as in hard workouts to improve strength , flexibility and muscle size which is a byproduct of strength but that's another topic.

over the past 40 years more than 50 studies have compared the strength building effects of one set with those to multiple sets.
some research favored two or three sets and some favored single sets as superior but the vast majority of studies revealed no significant differences between doing one set and doing multiple.

They were all equally effective

For all these studies to be effective and make sense would have to apply similar repetitions and define momentary muscular fatigue identically for which I don't think this happened.

what does this mean to you and why do you justify multiple set protocol?

Yes, I agree with that.

Why do I do multiple sets for most of training? I find that all out intensity sets do not work for me, due to my inability to recover. I also a glad I can still do things at my age, probably because i never busted my balls with heavy weights much over the years. I use all out sets as one form of training within my micro-cycles.

However, I have no doubt that such training (few all-out sets) can work for bb's or lifters. For lifters, however, technique alone demands that more sets will be needed.
 
Whether you're a "shit kicker gym rat" or not, you've got to do multiple sets if your aim is continuous progress, or at least progress to an elite level. I've yet to see or hear of a single Olympic weightlifter anywhere in the world who has gotten anywhere in his lifting career, basing his lifting on this one set method. Sure it may exist, but only in two places: dreamland, and some lab somewhere. In real life, there is no such thing as making full progress whilst relying on some hard ass one set compound movement exercise, it matters not how damn hard that set is. As I wrote above, the harder that set (since you'd be relying on only doing one set), the more you'd be pushed into the ground due to CNS exhaustion. It's that simple.

Not here to convince anyone one way or the other. Try it for yourself and see how far you'll go.

Hahah. How many Olympic caliber lifters are getting training tips off Ausbb. Lol.

I agree multiple sets are probably better. For anyone reading here for training tips I'm betting it doesn't matter.
 
Problem with just doing big lifts week after week, year after year is it takes it's toll on the joints.
I prefer to train smarter these days if I wanna train for years to come.

No different to doing single joint lifts. All the stress is on around a single joint with them.

I didn't think you lifted any weights heavy enough to cause any stress on joints anyway.
 
I would probably justify doing multiple sets purely for the purpose of skills building. I don't think it matters what program, sets/reps etc...
As long as you are going hard and heavy, largely doing compound exercises, eating and sleeping....you will make progress.

Good stuff Dicko, I've found that with multi joint exercises one set to fatigue just didn't work for me.
however, using machines in particular my upper body benefits greatly using one all out set to fatigue.
 
The thing is though that it's all a bit ambiguous isn't it, when you say one set what does that mean?
What sort of set, how long a set, what type of set, is it just straight reps or a prolonged set, how many reps and so on.

I also ask myself, is there a person on the planet who can muster up enough intensity from one single set and do it effectively?

Yeah I think the intensity of work is key and to maintain that (intensity of work) it can't be maintained for long.

Yates adopted that type of work because it suited him and still maintains that work ethic today.
 
Not having ever been interested in pure strength training, I may not be qualified to have much of an opinion but here it is anyway.

Strength is primarily determined by neural efficiency. Neural efficiency is developed through repetition. Multiple sets equals more repetition equals more cns conditioning equals more strength adaption.

Multiple sets will also result in increased training volume which should increase cross sectional area of the muscle which is proven to be proportionate to force generation i.e. strength.

I'm surprised that single set training can even get close to the same result of multiple sets.

To me, strength is determined by the size of your muscle "neural efficiency" is developed through rep's only to. A point.
What determines ones ability to perform those rep's are determined by the twitch fibre ratio within the muscle.

single versus multiple?
if 5 sets 10 of bicep curls using a light weight is going to give a similar result or stimulation for growth to a single set of 10 to momentery muscular fatigue, then I'll choose that just out of the time saved.
 
Yeah I think the intensity of work is key and to maintain that (intensity of work) it can't be maintained for long.

Yates adopted that type of work because it suited him and still maintains that work ethic today.
Yes for sure and further to Yates' set, as you know his one set would last 4 times longer than a traditional set by extending it with drop reps, paused reps, reverse pyramiding, forced reps, negatives and other advanced techinuiques, so not a traditional set by any means.
 
To me, strength is determined by the size of your muscle "neural efficiency" is developed through rep's only to. A point.
What determines ones ability to perform those rep's are determined by the twitch fibre ratio within the muscle.

single versus multiple?
if 5 sets 10 of bicep curls using a light weight is going to give a similar result or stimulation for growth to a single set of 10 to momentery muscular fatigue, then I'll choose that just out of the time saved.
The size of a muscle represents potential strength rather than actual. You still need to get the message through and that's where neural efficiency comes in.

Strength athletes don't train for size.


Sent from my R7sf using Tapatalk
 
A lot has been talked about Yates one set style of training, but when you actually looked at his workouts, he usually ran 3-5 sets on with the weight increasing each set until his final one to failure or beyond. So not sure you would technically class this as one set anyway.
 
Top