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.some research favored two or three sets and some favored single sets as superior...
That is great news for lifters (and coaches) who live by studies, I am not one of those.but the vast majority of studies revealed no significant differences between doing one set and doing multiple.
More reason to be suspicious.They were all equally effective
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.what does this mean to you and why do you justify multiple set protocol?
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?
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?