I never have my volume up past 80%, it's too loud....
Is this silly argument still going on.....
so.. you can do 1 set instead of 8, and still get 92% of the benefit?
All groups were significantly stronger. It doesn't say how much stronger the 1 set group were after 3 weeks, or what the difference was at later times in the study. But, let's say for argument's sake that after 3 weeks, the 1 set group was 5% stronger. 8% of 5% brings us all the way up to 5.4% stronger. I realise that over the course of a year or years, getting an extra 8% progress will add up to being stronger. But, 8 times the work for only 8% more benefit isn't a big selling point to most human beings. If you're absolutely set on being the best of the best, it makes sense to do it. If powerlifting isn't your religion, however, and if there's more important things in life than numbers on a piece of metal, making the most out of much less work is appealing.
I typically train about 8 hours a week. If I could be guaranteed 10% PBs on the main lifts 3 times a year while maintaining that schedule, I'd be pretty pleased with that. If you told me that I could make 10.8% PBs instead by doubling my workload, I would not consider it worth it. There's a point for each person at which the benefits of reaching for the next level are not worth the cost.
From the full paper:
Time Point 1-Set 4-Set 8-Set
PostWashout 149±7.8 157.3±12.2 162.0±11.8
3 Weeks 155.7±8.8 174.1±12.0 179.5±13.9*,a
6 Weeks 165.5±9.2* 178.2±11.8* 194.0±14.3*,a
Post peaking 166.4±12.0* 179.1±11.8* 199.0±13.7*,a
The plus/minus is the range with the number being the average of the range
That's an average 17.4KG strength gain with one set and an average 37KG strength gain with 8 sets.
Yes, I am lost where the 8% figure comes from as well- but this table is from the full paper
Those numbers are a wee bit more compelling.
I notice that the 1-set group start out generally weaker, and the 8-set group start out generally stronger. I also notice that there's a small improvement from 1 set to 4 sets, and a huge improvement from either of the above to 8 sets. All things being equal, you'd expect the stronger person to progress at a slower rate, and you'd expect that each successive set would promote less of a training benefit than the previous set (so, the second set might only provide an additional 50% benefit of the first set, the third set might only provide an additional 50% benefit of the second set, and so on). So, I would have predicted that there'd be a much bigger jump in progress between the 1-set group and the 4-set group than the 4-set group and the 8-set group, both due to their starting points and due to the principal of diminishing returns. The fact that this isn't the case raises additional questions about the test subjects and about the benefits of additional sets.
If the 1-set guys were all 70-80kg and the 8-set guys were all 110-130kg (quite possible, given the requirement that they all be able to squat 130% of their bodyweight), we then have to consider how much of the progress occurred due to the workload, and how much occurred due to what was being worked with. If we can confirm that the huge difference in results is due to programming rather than the bodies doing the program, this data would suggest that we re-evaluate our understanding of diminishing returns, at least at an acute level. It would also prompt us to investigate further what happens as the sets go on to cause such an excess in results.
still looks like double the gains... thats worth doing! and much bigger gain than 7.9%
does 23% increase in 1RM seem right for a couple (3?) months training?
so.. 3x8/5x5 vs 8sets to failure?
You have to take these studies with a grain of salt, when it comes to people who can go 140/100/180 they tend to become too advanced for studies like this.
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?