QUANDO LA SCIENZA PARLA I POMPATORI DEVONO TACERE
Ragazzi quello che segue è uno studio universitatio del dottor Carpinelli e Otto dell'Adelphi University.
Questo studio rappresenta la prova provata della fondatezza della metodologia BII.
E la prova provata che tutti i pompatori utilizzano metodi preistorici per aumentare (quando l'aumentano)massa e forza.
Per chi non avesse come me la pazienza di leggere tutto il documento in inglese ecco qui il succo.
I ricercatori universitari hanno vagliato 35 studi scientifici sull'aumento della forza e dell'ipertrofia... nei vari studi venivano utilizzate diversi schemi di serie e ripetizioni 1, 2,3 4 persino 15...ebbene i risultati ottenuti tra quelli che facevano 1 sola serie e chi 3 o 15 erano pressocche'uguali. Si avevano risultati sovrapponibili di massa e forza sia in chi faceva una sola serie sia in quelli che facevano 3 serie.
33 studi su 35 davano risultati di questo tipo. Solo in 2 studi i pompatori l'avevano vinta tuttavia in queste due ricerche gli sperimentatori avevano lasciato molti dati aleatori e non avevano ricontrollato i massimali alla fine dello studio.
LA SAPETE UNA COSA IRONICA? PERSINO CHI VENIVA ALLENATO CON UNA SOLA SERIE MASSIMALE UNA VOLTA ALLA SETTIMANA METTIAMO NELLA PANCA E NELLO SQUAT AVEVA RISULTATI DEL TUTTO IDENTICI A CHI FACEVA + RIPETIZIONI CON UNA SOLA SERIE.
Strength Training
Single Versus Multiple Sets
Ralph N. Carpinelli and Robert M- Otto
Human Performance Laboratory, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York,
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
Contents
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………
1 Support for Multiple Sets …………………………………………………………………….
2 One Set Versus Two Sets……………………………………………………………………
3 One Set Versus Three Sets …………………………………………………………………
4 More Than Three Sets ……………………………………………………………………….
5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………….
6 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………
Abstract Perhaps the most controversial element of any strength training programme is the number of sets required to increase muscular strength and hypertrophy. There is a prevalent belief that at least 3 sets of each exercise are required to elicit optimal increases in strength and hypertrophy. However, most of the studies that reported the results of training with single versus multiple sets do not substantiate this tenet. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests that for training durations of 4 to 25 weeks there is no significant difference in the increase in strength or hypertrophy as a result of training with single versus multiple sets. Because of the design limitations of these studies, conclusions concerning the efficacy of multiple sets should be tentative. However, there is little scientific evidence, and no theoretical physiological basis, to suggest that a greater volume of exercise elicits greater increases in strength or hypertrophy. This information may represent an important practical application of time-efficient, low-volume exercise.
Strength training has been shown to be an effective method for increasing muscular strength and hypertrophy. It is often prescribed for general fitness, athletic conditioning, health and prevention or rehabilitation of muscular and orthopaedic injuries. An essential component of any strength training programme is the number of sets required for each exercise. The prevalent recommendation is to perform multiple sets (at least 3) of each exercise in order to elicit increases in muscular strength and hypertrophy. This recommendation appears at
all levels in the scientific literature, including strength training reviews and exercise physiology text- books. Reviews by Atha,(1) Behm,(2) Clarke,(3) Fleck and Kraemer,(4) Kraemer and Fleck,(5) Kraemer and colleagues,(6) Lillegard and Terrio(7) and McDonagh and Davies,(8) and books by Berger,(9) Enoka,(10) Fleck and Kraemer(11,12) Fox and Colleagues,(13) Wilmore and Costill(14) and McArdle and colleagues(15) all claim that multiple sets are superior to a single set With the exception of a study by Berger,(16) which is discussed in this review, there was no training
study referenced in any of the above mentioned strength training reviews or exercise physiology textbooks that would support the claim that multiple sets are superior to a single set. The absence of compelling evidence to support this training philosophy, as well as the abundance of evidence that suggests a single set of each exercise is just as effective as multiple sets, is discussed below.
It should be recognized that many of the studies cited may have design limitations with confounding variables such as different numbers of repetitions, amount of resistance, specific muscle groups, exercise equipment and types of muscle actions within a specific investigation. The purpose of this review is to present an objective, comprehensive account of all the studies which have been published, albeit some of them as abstracts, that have reported the results of training with single or multiple sets. The reader may decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support the widely held belief that multiple sets are required.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
1. Support for Multiple Sets
In the most frequently cited strength training study, published in 1962, Berger(16) reported that 9 groups of males (approximately 20 in each group) exercised 3 times per week, for 12 weeks. In addition to their regular weight training programme, which was not described in the report, participants performed different combinations of sets and repetitions (sets x reps) of the free-weight bench press exercise. Because the groups were not initially matched, an analyses of covariance was applied to adjust the means of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press in each group. All of the groups showed a significant increase in 1RM for the bench press exercise (table I).
Berger(16)reported that the maximal rate of strength development resulted from a training programme of 3 sets of 6 repetitions (3 x 6). However, a comparison of the individual groups which performed the same number of repetitions (2, 6 or 10) showed that the increase in strength for the 3 x 6 group was significantly greater than the 2 x 6 group but not significantly greater than the 1 x 6 group. Similarly, the 3 x 2 group had a significantly greater increase in strength compared with the 2 x 2 group but the 3 x 2 group was not significantly greater than the 1 x 2 group. Nor was there any significant difference in 1RM between the following groups: 1 x 6 and 2 x 6, 1 x 2 and 2 x 2, 1 x 10 and 2 x 10 and 1 x 10 and 3 x 10, 2 x 10 and 3 x 10. Seven out of the 9 possible comparisons (groups performing the same number of repetitions) showed no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains as a result of performing single or multiple sets (table II)
Berger(16) also compared the results of training with 1,2, or 3 sets of repetitions by combining the 9 groups according to the number of sets performed. Training with either 1 set or 2 sets produced similar improvements in strength (22.3 and 22.0% respectively), while training with 3 sets elicited an increase in 1RM of 25.5% (table III). The difference in 1RM between 1-set and 3-set training programmes was 3.2% (1.8gk) at the end of 12 weeks of training in apparently untrained, healthy, college-age men (pretraining 1RM bench press = 56.6kg).
If 3 sets of 6 repetitions are superior to other training protocols for this exercise, subsequent studies should have replicated these results, but they have not. A follow-up study by Berger(17) failed to support his conclusion that 3 sets of 6 repetitions was the best training protocol. In the later study, 3 groups trained 3 times per week for 9 weeks,
Table I. Increases in single repetition maximum (1RM) for the free-weight bench press exercise in 9 groups of men training 3 days per week for 12 weeks using a protocol of 1,2 or 3 sets of repetitions(16).
Group (sets x repetitions)
Mean increase in 1RM
%
kg
1x2
1x6
1x10
2x2
2x6
2x10
3x2
3x6
3x10
20.0
25.5
21.6
17.3
22.9
25.1
23.5
29.6
23.0
11.3
14.5
12.2
9.3
12.9
14.2
13.3
16.7
13.0
Table II. Comparison of the increase in mean repetition maximum between groups performing differing numbers of sets of the same number of repetitions of free-weight bench press exercises(16)
Comparison Groups (sets x repetitions)
Statistical significance
3x6 and 2x6
3x6 and 1x6
2x6 and 1x6
3x2 and 2x2
3x2 and 1x2
2x2 and 1x2
3x10 and 2x10
3x10 and1x10
2x10 and 1x10
SD
NS
NS
SD
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = no significant difference between groups: SD = significant difference at the p = 0.05 level
performing either a 6 X 2, 3 X 6 or 3 X 10 protocol in the bench-press exercise. All groups showed significant increases in 1RM bench press (16.9, 21.3 and 20.0% respectively), with no significant difference among the groups. That is, contrary to Berger’s earlier investigation(16), the 3 x 6 protocol was not shown to be superior to the 3 x 10 protocol. In the textbook Applied Exercise Physiology,(9) published 20 years after his original training study, Berger claimed that 3 sets were more effective than fewer sets for maximising strength, and the only reference cited for this was his first training study.(16)
Kraemer and colleagues(18) randomly assigned 43 weight-trained males to either a single-set (1 x 12 RM), multiple-set (3 x 10 repetitions at a target weight) or varied multiple-set group (1 to 5 sets of 2 to 10 repetitions at a target weight). They performed 7 free-weight exercises 3 times per week for 14 weeks. The single-set group performed each exercise to muscular fatigue. The target weight was set by the investigators for the multiple-set and varied multiple-set groups. The multiple-set groups did not exercise to muscular fatigue. All groups showed significant increases in 1RM for the squat exercise. The multiple-set and varied multiple-set groups showed significantly greater increases in 1RM for the squat exercise that the single-set group (25, 22 and 12% respectively). There were no significant changes in body mass of body composition for any of the groups. No data were reported for the changes in 1RM strength or amount of resistance for the other 6 exercises.
Kraemer and colleagues(19) (published abstract) randomly assigned 24 females to a single-set, a varied multiple-set or a control group. Both of the training groups performed the same exercises 2 to 3 times per week for 9 months. The single set group performed 1 set of 8 to 10RM for all of the exercises.. The multiple set group performed 2 to 5 sets of repetitions for each exercise and varied the number of repetitions on different days (3 to 5RM, 8 to 10RM and 12 to 15 RM). After 4 months of training, both groups showed increases in 1RM for bench press, military press and leg press exercises. The authors claimed that only the multiple-set group continued to show further significant increases in strength. However, no absolute values or percent increases in strength were reported, nor were any statistically significant differences in strength observed between the 2 training groups for any of the exercises at any of the 1RM evaluation points (0, 4, 6 and 9 months). The lack of data and statistical analyses leave this report open to different interpretations.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
2. One set Versus Two Sets
A number of studies have investigated the increases in strength gained by training protocols using one set and two sets of repetitions (table IV). Based on the equipment manufacturers’ recommended training protocols. Coleman(20) trained participants on Nautilusâ machines using a 1 x 8 to 12RM protocol, or on a Universalâ Gym for 2 sets: 10RM on the first set, 8RM on the second set. They trained 3 times a week for 10 weeks. Both groups showed significant increases in 1RM strength for all the exercises tested: bench press 12.4 and
Table III. Combined mean percentage increase in repetition maximum for the 9 groups performing 1,2, and 3 sets of repetitions in the free-weight bench press exercise(16)
1 set
2 sets
3 sets
22.3
22.0
25.5*
*= significantly greater compared with 1 and 2 sets at the p = 0.05 level
Table IV. Studies comparing strength increases after programmes using 1 set versus 2 sets of repetitions
Reference
Programme duration (wk)
Modality/exercise
Frequency
(days/wk)
Strength
measure
Training protocol
(sets x repetitions)
Strength
increase (%)
Results
Coleman(20)
10
Nautilusâ
bench press
biceps curl
lateral pull
leg press
Universalâ
bench press
biceps curl
lateral pull
leg press
3
1RM
1 x 8-12RM
1 x 10RM + 8RM
12.3
15.9
20.2
17.9
12.4
15.1
20.0
17.4
NS
Graves et al(21)
12
MedX/Lumbar extension
1
Maximum IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
2 x 8-12RM
1 x IM
2 x IM
1 x 8-12RM +1 x IM
(Range from 18.0 to 63.0)a
NS
Hurley et al(22)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
43.1
43.8
NS
Ryan et al(23)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
Peak torque
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
51.4
35.6
NS
Treuth et al(24)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
39.2
40.8
NS
Ryan et al(25)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
37.9
37.5
NS
Miller et al(26)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
64.2
40.4
NS
Koffler et al(27)
13
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
41.0
45.0
NS
Rubin et al(28)
13
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
40.0
41.0
NS
Nicklas et al(29)
13
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
37.0
39.0
NS
Pollock et al(30)
12
MedX/cervical extension
2
Resistance loads
Peak IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM+1 x IM
40.9
43.5
21.9
22.3
NS
NS
Westcott(31)
3
5 Nautilusâ machines
3
Total strength
1 x 10
2 x 10
56.0
54.0
NS
Caper(32)
12
5 exercises (equipment type not reported)
3
Total strength
1 x 8-15RM
1 x 8-15RM + 1 x5RM
18.8
20.9
NS
a Specific data not reported
FW = free -weight; IM = isometric; LB = lower body; NS = no significant difference between protocols; RM = repetition maximum; UB = upper body
12.3%, biceps curl 15.1 and 15.9%, lateral pull 20.0 and 20.2% and leg press 17.4 and 17.9%. in the Universalâ and Nautilusâ groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups. Significant increases in fat-free mass were reported for both groups (3.9 and 3.2% for Universalâ and Nautilusâ groups respectively), with no significant difference between groups.
Graves and colleagues(21) randomly assigned 67 men and 43 women to one of 6 groups: 1 set dynamic 2 sets dynamic, 1 set isometric, 2 sets isometric, 1 set dynamic and 1 set isometric or control. Dynamic lumbar extension exercise consisted of 8 to 12 repetitions through a 72° range of motion (ROM) performed to volitional fatigue. Participants in the isometric groups were instructed to hold each maximal isometric muscle action for 3 seconds. After 12 weeks, all training groups significantly increased maximal isometric torque (18 to 63%) for all angles tested, with no significant difference among the groups at any angle.
Eight studies performed by a group of investigators, in different male and female participants for each investigation, examined the effects of resistance exercise on body composition,(22-24) bone mineral density,(25) insulin action,(26) gastrointestinal transit time,(27) urinary chromium excretion(28) and hormonal responses.(29) It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the specific aspects of each of the investigations; however, there were some notable results concerning increase in strength. The participants trained 3 times per week for 16 weeks performing 14 exercises using Keiserâpneumatic (air) resistance machines and free-weights. Although the rationale for the training protocol was not stated in any of the reports, all of the individuals performed a 1 x 15 programme for each of the 9 upper body exercises and a 2 x 15 programme for each of the 5 lower body exercises. Similar significant increase in upper body (1 set, 43.6%) and lower body (2 sets, 40.5%) strength (3RM) were observed in all 8 studies.(22-29)
Pollock and colleagues(30) trained male and female volunteers twice a week for 12 weeks on a ‘MedX’ cervical extension machine. One group performed 1 x 8 to 12RM dynamic repetitions throughout a 126° ROM to volitional fatigue. Another group performed 1 x 8 12RM dynamic repetitions plus a set of maximal isometric muscle actions (1 to 2 seconds each) at 8 positions in the ROM. Dynamic training loads increased 40.9 and 43.5% for the 1-set and 2-set groups, respectively, with no significant difference between groups. Both groups had significant increases in isometric torque at all 8 angles (mean = 21.9 and 22.3%, 1-set and 2-set groups, respectively), with no significant difference between groups at any angle.
Westcott(31) trained 44 women and men 3 times a week for 4 weeks an 5 Nautilusâ machines: leg extension, leg curl, torso pullover, triceps and biceps. Half of the participants followed a 1 x 10 protocol and the other half performed a 2 x 10 protocol. The 1 x 10 group increased overall strength by 56.0%, while the 2 x 10 group increased by 54.0%.
In a multifaceted study involving 8 groups of men and 4 training protocols, Capen(32) had one of his groups perform different protocols for contralateral muscles. The men performed 1 x 8 to 15RM for their right elbow flexors, left elbow extensors, left shoulder abductors, right knee extensors and left knee flexors (programme 1). For the contralateral muscles (left elbow flexors, right elbow extensors, right shoulder abductors, left knee extensors and right knee flexors) they used 1 x 8 to 15 RM followed by 1 x 5RM (programme 2). All participants trained 3 times a week for 12 weeks. The average increases in strength for the 5 muscles tested were 18.8% for programme 1 and 20.9% for programme 2. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of strength gained in the contralateral muscle groups as a result of training with 1 set versus 2 sets.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
3. One Set Versus Three Sets
A number of studies have investigated the increases in strength gained by training
protocols using 1 set and 3 sets of repetitions (table V). Starkey and colleagues(33) compared strength and muscle thickness (using 2-dimensional ultrasound measurements) of the anterior and posterior
thigh muscles in 38 male and female
volunteers after training 3 days a week for 14 weeks. Both training groups performed dynamic bilateral knee extension and knee flexion exercises on 2 ‘MedX’ strength
Table V. Comparison of strength increases with programmes using 1 set versus 3 sets of repetitions
Reference
Programme duration (wk)
Modality/exercise
Frequency
(days/wk)
Strength
measure
Training protocol
(sets x repetitions)
Strength
increase (%)
Results
Kramer et al(16)
14
7 FW exercises
3
1 RM squat
1 x 12RM
3 x 10
1-5 x 2-10
12.0
25.0
22.0
SD
SD
Starkey et al(33)
14
MedX knee extension
MedX knee flexion
3
Peak IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
23.8
19.7
21.3
22.3
NS
NS
Tebizan & Bartels(34)
8
5 Universalâ gym exercises
3
1RM
1 x 6-9
1 x 10-15
3 x 6-9
3 x 10-15
a
NS
Silvester et al(35)
8
FW biceps curls Nautilusâ biceps
3
Peak IM strength
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 6RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 6RM
22.0
30.4
24.7
19.4
NS
NS
Reid et al(36)
8
9 Universalâ-type exercises
3
Peak IM strength
1 x 8-12 or 1 x 3-5
3 x 6-8RM
17.7
17.9
NS
Stowers et al(37)
7
FW bench press and squat
3
1RM
1 x a
3 x a
a
NS
Messier & Dill(38)
10
9 FW exercises 12 Nautilusâ exercises
3
Resistance loads
3 x 6
1 x 8-12 or 1 x 15-20
22.5
38.0
NS
Jacobson(39)
10
Nautilusâ knee extension
3
Dynamic strength
IM strength
1 x 6-10RM
3 x 6RM
1 X 6-10RM
3 x 6RM
31.9
39.2
7.6
7.6
NS
NS
De Hoyos et al(40)
10
11 exercises (equipment type not reported)
3
1RM chest press
1RM leg press
1 x 10-15RM
3 x 10-15RM
1 x 10-15RM
3 x 10-15RM
12.5
12.8
21.7
20.8
NS
NS
Westcott et al(41)
10
Gracitronâ dips and chins
3
Number of repetitions
1 x 5, 10, or 15RM
2 x 5, 10, or 15RM
3 x 5, 10, or 15RM
a
NS
Welsch et al(42)
14
MedX knee extension
MedX knee flexion
3
Peak IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
22.5
20.0
NS
NS
Leighton et al(43)
8
6 FW exercises
2
IM strength on 3
1 x 6
3 x 6
17.0
18.0
NS
Stadler et al(44)
8
7 exercises (equipment type no reported)
2 and 3
1RM on 7 exercises
2 x 10-12
3 x 8
17.0
17.0
NS
De Hoyos et al(45)
25
7 MedX exercises
3
1RM on 5 exercises
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
32.0
41.0
NS
Vincent et al(47)
25
MedX knee extension
3
1RM
Peak IM torque
Resistance loads
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
33.3
31.6
35.4
32.1
25.6
14.7
NS
NS
NS
Hass et al(48)
13
9 MedX exercises
3
1RM on 5 exercises
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
10.0
12.0
NS
a data not reported
FW = free-weight; IM = isometric; NS = no significant difference between protocols; RM = repetition maximum
machines. The low volume group performed 1 x 8 to 12RM to volitional fatigue; the high volume group performed 3 x 8 to 12RM to volitional fatigue. Peak knee extension torque at 7 angles significantly increased in both the low (17.5 to 36.1%) and high volume (13.2 to 27.1%) groups. Peak knee flexion torque at the same angles increased in both the low (13.0 to 34.8%) and high volume (7.8 to 40.7%) groups. There was no significant difference in the knee extension or flexion peak torques between the 2 groups (except at 24°, where the low volume group had a significantly greater increase in peak extension torque than the high volume group). Both groups had similar significant increases in dynamic training resistance for the 2 exercises. Ultrasound scans revealed significant increases in muscle thickness, with no significant difference between the 2 groups.
Terbizan and Bartels(34) (published extract) randomly assigned 80 women to one of 4 strength training protocols: 1 x 6 to 9, 1 x 10 to15, 3 x 6 to 9 or 3 x 10 to 15. They trained 3 times a week for 8 weeks, performing 5 different exercises on Universalâ Gym equipment. There were significant increases in lean body mass and strength (1RM) on all 5 exercises (data not reported). There was no significant difference between the groups.
In an attempt to support the hypothesis that 3 sets of 6 reps were optimal for strength gains, Silvester et al,35) trained 4 groups of men 3 times a week for 8 weeks. Two groups performed barbell curls: group I performed 1 x 8 to 12RM to muscular fatigue, group II performed a 3 x 6 protocol using 80% 1RM. Two groups used the Nautilus Omni Bicepsâ machine; group III performed 1 x 8 to 12RM to muscular fatigue, group IV followed the 3 x 6 repetition protocol. All 4 groups had significant increases in strength at all angles tested, with no significant difference between groups (group I = 22%, group II = 30%, group III = 25% and group IV = 19%).
Reid et al(36) trained male volunteers 3 times a week for 8 weeks. The participants performed 9 exercises on a Universalâ type machine (Supra Athletics Corporation). One group performed 3 x 6 to 8RM, and another performed 1 x 10 to 12RM for the first 2 sessions each week and 1 x 3 to 5 at the third session. Both groups showed significant increases in most of the isometric strength tests. The average increase in strength was 17.7% for the 1-set group and 17.9% for the 3-set group.
Stowers and co workers(37) compared the effects of training with free-weights 3 times a week for 7 weeks using either 1 set to exhaustion, 3 sets to exhaustion or periodisation training. Periodisation is a predetermined programme of variable combinations of sets, repetitions and resistance for specific durations. The periodisation group performed 5 x 10 (weeks 1 and 2), 3 x 5 (weeks 3 to 5) and 3 x 3 repetitions (weeks 6 to 7). All 3 groups (84 untrained men) showed significant increases in 1RM bench press, with no significant difference among groups. All participants significantly increased 1RM squat. The periodisation group increased 6 % more than the 3-set group and 11% more than the 1-set group, and the 3-set increased 5% more than the 1-set group after 5 weeks of training. However, there was no significant difference between the 1-set and 3-set groups at the end of the study.
In a study by Messier and Dill,(38) a free-weight group performed 3 x 6 for 9 exercises, and a Nautilusâ group performed 1 x 8 to 12 for 8 upper body exercises and 1 x 15 to 20 in 4 lower body exercises. Both groups trained 3 days a week for 10 weeks. The Nautilusâ group increased their resistance by 30.0% for upper body exercises and 46.0% for lower body exercises; the free-weight group increased their resistance 22.0% for the upper body and 23.0% for the lower body. Because of the confounding variables it is not known whether the greater strength increases reported in the Nautilusâ group were a result of only performing 1 set of each exercise compared with 3 sets, the greater number of repetitions or the training mode Nautilusâ per se.
Jacobson(39) trained 2 groups on a Nautilusâ knee extension machine 3 times a week for 10 weeks. Group A used a 3 x 6 protocol with 80 to 85% 1RM. Group B performed 1 set to volitional concentric fatigue with a partner supplying additional resistance on the eccentric phase (3 to 4 seconds) of each repetition. They performed approximately 6 repetitions with 65% 1RM, followed by 3 to 4 additional repetitions to elicit volitional eccentric fatigue. Both groups had significant increases in dynamic strength (group A = 39.2%, group B = 31.9%) and isometric strength (group A = 7.6%, group B = 7.6%), with no significant difference between groups. The confounding variables in this study (number of sets, number of repetitions, manual resistance and eccentric fatigue) precludes speculation on the practical significance of the results. That is, it is not known whether the greater intensity in group B (performing the exercise to concentric and eccentric volitional fatigue) was required in order to produce similar results.
DeHoyos et al,(40) (published abstract) trained adolescent tennis players 3 times a week for 10 weeks with 11 weight training exercises. Trainees performed either 1 or 3 sets of 10 to 15 repetitions to muscular fatigue. There were significant increases in 1RM chest press and leg press in both training groups: chest press 12.5 and 12. 8%, and leg press 21.7 and 20.8%, for the 1-set and 3-set groups respectively. There was no significant difference in the strength increases between the 1 - and 3 - set groups.
Wescott and colleagues(41) trained 54 men and 23 women 3 times a week for 10 weeks on a Gravitronâ machine, which provides individualised programmed assistance for performing dips and chins within a desired range of repetitions. Participants chose 5, 10 or 15 repetitions within each of the 3 training groups of 1, 2 or 3 sets. The mean improvement in the number of repetitions (dips and chins) was 4, 8, 4, 1 and 5.2 for the 1-, 2,- and 3-set groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups.
Welsch and colleagues(42) (published extract) trained 15 volunteers on ‘MedX’ knee flexion and knee extension machines. Participants performed bilateral exercise to muscular fatigue following either a 1 x 8 10 12RM or 3 x 8 to 12RM protocol 3 times a week for 14 weeks. There were significant increases in maximal isometric torque at all measured angles for knee flexion (20.0%) and knee extension (22.5%), with no significant difference between the 1-set and 3-set groups.
Leighton and colleagues(43) trained 2 groups of participants who performed a 1 x 6 repetition protocol for each of 6 exercises, and 7 groups who performed various combinations of 3 x 6 protocols for each exercise, with different weights, rest periods between sets, super-sets (2 exercises for the same body segment with little rest between exercises), tri-sets (3 exercises for the same body segment with little rest between exercises),etc. All of the participants exercised twice per week for 8 weeks. The increase in strength in the 1-set groups (=17%) was similar to that in the 3-set groups (=18%) for the 3 isometric elbow flexion, elbow extension and leg-lift strength tests. There was no significant increase in arm and thigh girth measurements or body-weight in any of the groups.
In a study by Stadler and colleagues44) (published abstract), 14 participants performed 4 upper body and 3 lower body exercises for 8 week. One group performed a protocol of 2 x 10 to 12 repetitions twice a week, and the other performed a 3 x 8 protocol 3 times a week. The weekly volume of exercise for the 3-set group was 50% greater than for the 2-set group. Both groups had significant increases in 1RM strength for all of the exercises with no significant difference in strength gains (=17%) between the 2 groups. The greater volume of exercise did not elicit greater increases in strength.
Two valid criticisms of most strength training studies are that the durations of the studies are relatively short, usually about 6 to 12 weeks, and that the studies usually recruit untrained participants. These criticisms were addressed in the following investigation. De Hoyos et al.(45) and Pollock et al.(46) (published abstracts) investigated the effects of 1-set versus 3-set protocols for strength training over a 6-month period. Two groups performed 7 exercises to muscular fatigue in a 1 x 8 to 12RM or a 3 x 8 to 12RM protocol on 3 days per week. The 1RM strength was assessed for the chest press, rowing, arm curl, knee extension and thigh curl exercises. Muscle thickness at 8 sites (chest, subscapula, biceps, triceps and the anterior, medial, lateral and posterior thigh) was measured using ultrasound. Similar significant increases in 1RM strength were reported for all exercises for the 1-set and 3-set groups (=32 and =41% respectively),(45) as well as similar significant increases in upper and lower body muscle thickness (=14 and =13%, respectively).(46) The authors concluded that both training protocols produced increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy of the same magnitude.
Vincent and colleagues(47) (published extract) trained 42 participants who performed a 1 x 8 to 12RM of 3 x 8 to 12RM protocol of the knee extension exercise 3 times a week for 25 weeks. The 1-set and 3-set groups had significant increases in 1RM strength (33.3 and 31.6% respectively), isometric peak torque (35.4 and 32.1% respectively) and training resistance (25.6 and 14.7%, respectively), with no significant difference between the 2 groups.
Ostrowski and colleagues(48) randomly assigned 35 males who had been weight training for 1 to 4 years to one of 3 training groups: a 1-set, 2-set or 4-set programme. All of the participants trained on 6 free-weight exercises 4 times a week for 10 weeks, performing 12RM, 7RM and 9RM in weeks 1 to 4, 5 to 7 and 8 to 10, respectively. The exercises were all performed to muscular fatigue and the only difference between the 3 programmes was the number of sets. At the end of the programmes, significant increases in 1RM squat (7.5, 5.4 and 11.6%), 1RM bench press (4.0, 5.0 and 1.9%) and bench press throw power (W) [2.3, 2.3 and 3.1%] were observed for the 1-, 2- and 4-set groups, respectively with no significant difference between the groups. Significant increases in thigh circumference and cross-sectional area, triceps thickness and body mass were reported for all 3 groups, with no significant differences between the groups.
Hass and colleagues(49) (published extract) recruited 40 adults who had been performing 1 set of each of 9 exercises to muscular fatigue for at least 1 year before entering the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either a 1-set or a 3-set group who performed 8 to 12RM on 3 days per week for 13 weeks. Both of the groups significantly increased their muscular strength and endurance (1-set by 10% and 3-set by 12%), with no significant difference between the groups for any of the 5 1RM strength tests (knee extension, thigh curl, chest press, overhead press and arm curl). The investigators concluded that 1 set of resistance exercise was as effective as 3 sets in adults with strength training experience.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
4. More Than Three Sets
A number of studies have investigated the increases in strength gained by training protocols using more than 3 sets of repetitions (table VI). Withers(50) trained 3 groups of volunteers twice a week for 9 weeks. They performed either 3 x 7RM, 4 x 5RM or 5 x 3RM combinations of sets and repetitions for each of 3 free-weight exercises: curl, bench press and squat. All groups showed significant increases in overall strength (1Rm) of 19.3, 22,9 and 19.3% for the 3-, 4- and 5-set groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups.
Ciriello and colleagues(51) trained 9 men (3 days per week for 16 weeks) using a Cybexâ II isokinetic dynamometer a t a velocity of 60°/sec. All volunteers trained the knee extensors of one limb with a 5 x 5 protocol and the contralateral knee extensors with a 15 x 10 protocol. Peak torque significantly increased at all 7 test velocities (no data reported). The greater total work performed (4.39 times greater) by the 15-set thigh compared with the contralateral 5-set thigh manifested a significantly greater increase in peak torque at only on speed of movement (30°/sec).
5. Conclusion
No study has compared exercise programmes using 1 set of repetitions with those using 5 or more sets, but perhaps a syllogistical inference can be applied. That is, most reports describe no significant difference in strength increases when comparing 1-set with 2-set,(20-32) 1-set with 3-set,(33-47, 49) 1-, 2- and 4-set,(48) 3-, 4-, 5- and 6-set,(17-50) and 5- and 15-set protocols.(51) Thus, it may be inferred that no significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains should be expected between 1-set and multiple-set, up to 15-set, programmes. The liter-ature lends support to the innovators of single-set strength training programmes such as Liederman,52) Jones,(53) Darden,(54) and Riley(55) who intuitively hypothesised that 1 set of repetitions of an exercise was as effective as performing multiple sets.
This review raises the question of whether the training study by Berger,(16) which reported on a single exercise (bench press), and one other report by Kramer et al.(18) on a single exercise (squat), should set a precedent for strength training. The opinion that multiple-set protocols are better than a single set of an exercise is not supported by the consensus of scientific evidence; 33 out of 35 of the comparative reports included in this review show no significant difference in strength increase between individuals performing single-set and those performing multiple-set (up to 15 sets) exercise protocols. One set of repetitions has been shown to be as effective as multiple sets, and more time efficient, for increasing muscular strength and
Table VI. Comparisons of strength increases with programmes using multiple sets
Reference
Programme duration (wk)
Modality/exercise
Frequency (days/wk)
Strength measure
Training protocol (sets x repetitions)
Strength increase (%)
Results
Berger(17)
9
FW bench press
3
1RM bench press
6 x 2
3 x 6
3 x 10
16.9
21.3
20.0
NS
Ostrowski et al.(48)
10
6 FW exercises
4
1RM squat
1RM bench press
1 x 7-12RM
2 x 7-12RM
4 x 7-12RM
1 x 7-12RM
2 x 7-12RM
4 x 7-12RM
7.5
5.4
11.6
4.0
5.0
1.9
NS
NS
Withers(50)
9
3 FW exercises
2
Total strength (1RM)
3 x 7
4 x 5
5 x 3
19.3
22.9
19.3
NS
Ciriello et al.(51)
16
Cybexâ knee extension
3
Peak torque
5 x 5
15 x 10
a
NS
a data not reported.
F W = free weight; NS = no significant difference between protocols; RM = repetition maximum
hypertrophy in males and females of different ages, for a variety of muscle groups and using various types of exercise equipment. In other word, there is insufficient evidence to support the prevalent belief that a greater volume of exercise (through multiple sets) will elicit superior muscular strength or hypertrophy than will the minimal volume (through a single set). By employing a single-set protocol, individuals can achieve similar results in less time and with less work and decreased potential for injury.
There is no evidence to suggest that the response to single or multiple sets in trained athletes would differ from that in untrained individuals. There is also no evidence to suggest that a single set of an exercise would be less productive that multiple sets for people in the general population or special populations, such as the elderly and cardiovascular and orthopaedic patients who, perhaps should not or will not perform each exercise to the point of muscular fatigue.
In addition to the increases in muscular strength and lean body mass, there are other potential health benefits of resistance exercise training. These benefits include increased bone mineral density,(25) connective tissue strength (ligaments and tendons),(56) functional capacity (ability to climb stairs and walking speed),(57) sports performance,(14) metabolic rate(23) and enhanced quality of life.(58) There can also be a concomitant decrease in body fat,(24) gastrointestinal transit time,(27) heart rate and blood pressure responses to specific activities.(59) There is no evidence that multiple sets are superior to a single set of each exercise in attaining these benefits.
6. Recommendations
Although it is often considered that multiple sets are required to properly warm up muscles during exercise, there is no evidence to suggest that an exercise specific warm-up is superior to a total body warm-up for producing increases in strength. If a low number of repetitions, such as 3 to 5, is desired for training, or if a competitive power-lifter or Olympic weight-lifter is attempting a 1RM, then a single warm-up set with a lighter resistance may be appropriate. Fitness enthusiasts, as well as recreational and competitive athletes, should attempt to attain the benefits of resistance exercise training by undertaking the minimal volume; that is, the minimal volume to achieve the desired response.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
References
1. Atha J. Strengthening muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1981: 9: 1-73
2. Behm D G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 1995: 9 (4): 264-74
3. Clarke D H. Adaptations in strength and muscular endurance resulting from exercise. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1973: 1: 73-102
4. Fleck S J, Kraemer W J. Resistance training: basic principles (part 1 of 4). Physician Sportsmed 1988: 16 (3): 160-71
5. Kraemer W J, Fleck S J. Resistance training: exercise prescription (part 4 of 4) Physician Sportsmed 1988: 16 (6): 69-81
6. Kraemer W J, Fleck S J, Deschenes M. A review: factors in exercise prescription of resistance training. Natl Strength Conditioning Assoc J 1988: 10 (5): 36-41
7. Lillegard W A, Terrio J D. Appropriate strength training. Med Clin North Am 1994; 78 (2): 457-77
8. Mcdonagh M N Davies C M. Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol 1984: 52; 139-55
9. Berger R A. Applied exercise physiology. Philadelphia (PA): Lea & Febiger. 1982: 1-46
10. Enoka R M. Chronic adaptations. In: Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology. Champaign
(I L): Human Kinetics, 1988: 303-49
11. Fleck S J, Kraemer W J. Designing resistance training programs. Champaign
(I L): Human Kinetics, 1987: 57-8
12. Fleck S J, Kraemer W J. Periodization breakthrough! Ronkonkoma (N Y): Advanced Research Press, Inc., 1996: 36-7
13. Fox E L, Bowers R W, Foss M L. Development of muscular strength, endurance, and flexibility. In: The physiological bases for exercise and sport. 5th ed. Madison (W I): Brown & Benchmark Publishers, 1993: 158-92
14. Wilmore J H, Costill D L, Neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training. In: Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign (I L): Human Kinetics, 1994: 66-89
15. McArdle W D, Katch F I, Katch V L. Muscular strength: training muscles to become stronger. In: Exercise physiology: energy, nutrition, and human performance. 4th ed. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Wilkins, 1996: 417-55
16. Berger R A. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Res Q 1962: 33 (2): 168-81
17. Berger R A. Comparative effects of three weight training programs. Res Q 1963: 34 (3): 396-8
18. Kramer J B, Stone M H, O’Bryant H S, et al. Effects of single vs multiple sets of weight training; impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J Strength Conditioning Res 1997: 11 (3): 143-7
19. Kraemer W J, Newton R V, Bush J, et al. Varied multiple set resistance training programs produce greater gains than single set program (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995: 7 (5): S195
20. Coleman A E. Nautilus vs Universal Gym strength training in adult males Am Corr Ther J 1977: 31 (4): 103-7
21. Graves J E, Holmes B L, Leggett S H. et al. Single versus multiple set dynamic and isometric lumbar extension training. Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of the ‘World Confederation for Physical Therapy: 1991: Jul 28-Aug 2: 1340-2
22. Hurley B F, Redmond R A, Pratley R E, et al. Effects of strength training on muscle hypertrophy and muscle cell distribution in older men. In: J Sports Med 1995: 16 (6): 378-84
23. Ryan A S, Pratley R E Elahi D, et al. Resistive training increases fat-free mass and maintains RMR despite weight loss in postmenopausal women. J Appl Physiol 1995: 79 (3): 818-23
24. Treuth M S, Ryan A S, Pratley R E, et al. Effects of strength training on total and regional body composition in older men. J Appl Physiol 1994: 77 (2): 614-20
25. Ryan A S. Treuth M S, Rubin M A, et al. Effects of strength training on bone mineral density: hormonal and bone turnover relationships. J Appl Physiol 1994: 77 (4): 1678-84
26. Miller J P, Pratley T El Goldberg A P, et al. Strength training increases insulin action in healthy 50- to 65-year old men. J Appl Physiol 1194: 77 (3) 1122-7
27. Koffler K G, Menkes A, Redmond R A, et al. Strength training accelerates gastronotestinal transit in middle-aged and older men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992: 24 (2): 415-9
28. Rubin M A, Miller J P, Ryan A S, et al. Acute and chronic resistive exercise increase urinary chromium excretion in men as measured with an enriched chromiom stable isotope. J Nutr 1998: 128: 73-8
29. Nicklas B J, Ryan A J, Treuth M, et al. Testosterone, growth hormone and 1GF-1 responses to acute and chronic resistive exercise in men aged 55-70 years. Int J Sports Med 1995: 16 (7) 445-50
30. Pollock M H, Graves J E, Bamman M M, et al. Frequency and volume of resistance training: effect on cervical extension strength. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993: 74: 1080-6
31. Westcott W L. 4 key factors in building a strength program, Scholastic Coach 1986: 55: 104-5, 123
32. Capen E K. Study of four programs of heavy resistance exercise for development of muscular strength. Res Q 1956: 27 (2): 132-42
33. Starkey D B, Pollock M L, Ishida Y, et al. Effects of resistance training volume on strength an muscle thickness. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996: 28 (10): 1311-20
34. Terbizan D J, Bartels R L. The effect of set-repetition combinations on strength gain in females age 18-35 (abstract). Med Sci sports Exerc 1985: 17 (2 Suppl): 267
35. Silvester L J, Stiggins C, McGown C, et al. The effect of variable resistance and free-weight training programs on strength and vertical jump. Natl Strength Conditioning Assoc J 1982: 3 (6): 30-3
36. Reid C M. Yeater R A, Ulrich I H. Weight training and strength, cardiorespiratory functioning and body composition. Br J Sports Med 1987: 21 (1): 40-4.
37. Sawers T, McMillan J, Scala D, et al. The short-term effects of three different strength power training methods. Natl Strength Conditioning Assoc J 1983: 5 (3): 24-7
38. Messier S P, Dill M E. Alterations in strength and maximal oxygen uptake consequent to Nautilus circuit weight training. Res Q Exerc Sport 1985: 56 (4): 345-51
39. Jacobson B H. A comparison of two progressive weight training techniques on knee extensor strength. Athletic training 1986: 21 (4) 315-8, 390
40. De Hoyes D V, Herring D, Garzarella L, et al. Effects of strength training volume on the development of strength and power in adolescent tennis players (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997: 29 (5 Suppl): S164
41. Westcott W L, Greenberger K, Milius D. strength training research sets and repetitions. Scholastic Coach 1989: 58: 98-100
42. Welsch M A, Brechue W F, Pollock M L, et al. Effect
of reduced training volume on bilateral isomectric
knee/extension torque(abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26 (5 Suppl.): S189
43. Leighton JR, Holmes D. Beason J. et al. A study on
the effectiveness of ten different methods of progressive resistance exercise on the development
of strength, flexibility, girth, and bodyweight. J Assoc Phys Mental Rehabil 1967:81 (3): 78-81
44. Sadller Jr LV, Stubbs NB, Vokovich MD. A comparison of a 2-day and 3-day per week resistance training program on strength gains in older adults (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997: 20 (5 Suppl.): S254
45. De Hoyos D, Abe T, Garzarella L, et al. Effects of 6 month of high- or low-volume resistance training on muscular strength and endurance (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.): S165
46. Pollock M L, Abe T, De Hoyos D V, et al. Muscular hypertrophy responses to 6 months of high- or low-volume resistance training (abstract) 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.): S116
47. Vincent K, De Hoyos D, Garzarella L, et al. Relationship between indices of knee extension strength before and after training (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.): S163
48. Ostrowski K J, Wilson G J, Weatherby R, et al. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J Strength Conditioning Res 1997: 11 (3): 148-54
49. Hass C J, Garzarella L, De Hoyos D V, et al. Effects of training volume on strength and endurance in experienced resistance trained adults (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.) S115
50. Withers R T. Effect of varied weight-training loads on the strength of university freshmen. Res Q 1970: 41 (1): 110-4
51. Cinello V M, Holden W L, Evans W J. The effects of two isokinetic training regimens on muscle strength and fiber composition. In: Knuttgen H G, Vogel J A, Poortmans J. edititors Biochemistry of exercise. Vol 13 Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1982: 782-93
52. Liederman E. Quality of muscle the basis of strength. In: Secrets of strength. New York (NY): Earle Liederman, 1925: 116-30
53. Jones A. Flexibility as a result of exercise. In: Peterson J A , editor. Total fitness: the Nautilus way. West Point (NY): Leisure Press, 1978: 134-41
54. Darden E Strength training principles. In: Peterson J A, editor. Total fitness: the Nautilus way. West Point (NY): Leisure Press, 1978: 157-74
55. Riley D P. How to organize a strength training program. In: Strength training by the experts. 2nd ed. West Point (NY): Leisure Press. 1977: 97-107
56. Fleck S J, Kraimer W J. Designing resistance training programs 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1997: 131-63
57. Fiatarone M A, O’Neil E F, Ryan N D, et al. Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people. N Engl J med 1994: 330 (25): 1769-75
58. Feigenbaum M S, Pollock M L. Strength training: rationale for current guidelines for adult fitness programs. Physician Sportsmed 1997: 25 (2): 44-64
59. McCartney N, McKelvie R S, Martin J, et al. Weight -training induced attenuation of the circulatory response to weightlifting in older men. J Appl Physiol 1993: 74: 1056-60
Correspondence and reprints: Dr Ralph N. Carpinelli, Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Health, Physical Education, and Human Performance Science, Woodruff Hall, Adelphi University, South Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530, USA.
E-mail: otto@adilbv.adelphi.edu
Are you visiting because of our leaflet?
Blue room
Main gym
Ladies only gym
Reception
Visit the staff
Prices
A free workout booklet
Opening times
Visit our Vertical tanning sunbed page!
Visit the boss
The boss meets past Mr Universes
New page gym guide
Sauna
Proof of single set training is the most effective method of training
Some links for you to read
Cardio-fitness
Email us
Local companies link page
Return to the John’s Gym home page
Questo studio rappresenta la prova provata della fondatezza della metodologia BII.
E la prova provata che tutti i pompatori utilizzano metodi preistorici per aumentare (quando l'aumentano)massa e forza.
Per chi non avesse come me la pazienza di leggere tutto il documento in inglese ecco qui il succo.
I ricercatori universitari hanno vagliato 35 studi scientifici sull'aumento della forza e dell'ipertrofia... nei vari studi venivano utilizzate diversi schemi di serie e ripetizioni 1, 2,3 4 persino 15...ebbene i risultati ottenuti tra quelli che facevano 1 sola serie e chi 3 o 15 erano pressocche'uguali. Si avevano risultati sovrapponibili di massa e forza sia in chi faceva una sola serie sia in quelli che facevano 3 serie.
33 studi su 35 davano risultati di questo tipo. Solo in 2 studi i pompatori l'avevano vinta tuttavia in queste due ricerche gli sperimentatori avevano lasciato molti dati aleatori e non avevano ricontrollato i massimali alla fine dello studio.
LA SAPETE UNA COSA IRONICA? PERSINO CHI VENIVA ALLENATO CON UNA SOLA SERIE MASSIMALE UNA VOLTA ALLA SETTIMANA METTIAMO NELLA PANCA E NELLO SQUAT AVEVA RISULTATI DEL TUTTO IDENTICI A CHI FACEVA + RIPETIZIONI CON UNA SOLA SERIE.
Strength Training
Single Versus Multiple Sets
Ralph N. Carpinelli and Robert M- Otto
Human Performance Laboratory, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York,
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
Contents
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………
1 Support for Multiple Sets …………………………………………………………………….
2 One Set Versus Two Sets……………………………………………………………………
3 One Set Versus Three Sets …………………………………………………………………
4 More Than Three Sets ……………………………………………………………………….
5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………….
6 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………
Abstract Perhaps the most controversial element of any strength training programme is the number of sets required to increase muscular strength and hypertrophy. There is a prevalent belief that at least 3 sets of each exercise are required to elicit optimal increases in strength and hypertrophy. However, most of the studies that reported the results of training with single versus multiple sets do not substantiate this tenet. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests that for training durations of 4 to 25 weeks there is no significant difference in the increase in strength or hypertrophy as a result of training with single versus multiple sets. Because of the design limitations of these studies, conclusions concerning the efficacy of multiple sets should be tentative. However, there is little scientific evidence, and no theoretical physiological basis, to suggest that a greater volume of exercise elicits greater increases in strength or hypertrophy. This information may represent an important practical application of time-efficient, low-volume exercise.
Strength training has been shown to be an effective method for increasing muscular strength and hypertrophy. It is often prescribed for general fitness, athletic conditioning, health and prevention or rehabilitation of muscular and orthopaedic injuries. An essential component of any strength training programme is the number of sets required for each exercise. The prevalent recommendation is to perform multiple sets (at least 3) of each exercise in order to elicit increases in muscular strength and hypertrophy. This recommendation appears at
all levels in the scientific literature, including strength training reviews and exercise physiology text- books. Reviews by Atha,(1) Behm,(2) Clarke,(3) Fleck and Kraemer,(4) Kraemer and Fleck,(5) Kraemer and colleagues,(6) Lillegard and Terrio(7) and McDonagh and Davies,(8) and books by Berger,(9) Enoka,(10) Fleck and Kraemer(11,12) Fox and Colleagues,(13) Wilmore and Costill(14) and McArdle and colleagues(15) all claim that multiple sets are superior to a single set With the exception of a study by Berger,(16) which is discussed in this review, there was no training
study referenced in any of the above mentioned strength training reviews or exercise physiology textbooks that would support the claim that multiple sets are superior to a single set. The absence of compelling evidence to support this training philosophy, as well as the abundance of evidence that suggests a single set of each exercise is just as effective as multiple sets, is discussed below.
It should be recognized that many of the studies cited may have design limitations with confounding variables such as different numbers of repetitions, amount of resistance, specific muscle groups, exercise equipment and types of muscle actions within a specific investigation. The purpose of this review is to present an objective, comprehensive account of all the studies which have been published, albeit some of them as abstracts, that have reported the results of training with single or multiple sets. The reader may decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support the widely held belief that multiple sets are required.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
1. Support for Multiple Sets
In the most frequently cited strength training study, published in 1962, Berger(16) reported that 9 groups of males (approximately 20 in each group) exercised 3 times per week, for 12 weeks. In addition to their regular weight training programme, which was not described in the report, participants performed different combinations of sets and repetitions (sets x reps) of the free-weight bench press exercise. Because the groups were not initially matched, an analyses of covariance was applied to adjust the means of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press in each group. All of the groups showed a significant increase in 1RM for the bench press exercise (table I).
Berger(16)reported that the maximal rate of strength development resulted from a training programme of 3 sets of 6 repetitions (3 x 6). However, a comparison of the individual groups which performed the same number of repetitions (2, 6 or 10) showed that the increase in strength for the 3 x 6 group was significantly greater than the 2 x 6 group but not significantly greater than the 1 x 6 group. Similarly, the 3 x 2 group had a significantly greater increase in strength compared with the 2 x 2 group but the 3 x 2 group was not significantly greater than the 1 x 2 group. Nor was there any significant difference in 1RM between the following groups: 1 x 6 and 2 x 6, 1 x 2 and 2 x 2, 1 x 10 and 2 x 10 and 1 x 10 and 3 x 10, 2 x 10 and 3 x 10. Seven out of the 9 possible comparisons (groups performing the same number of repetitions) showed no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains as a result of performing single or multiple sets (table II)
Berger(16) also compared the results of training with 1,2, or 3 sets of repetitions by combining the 9 groups according to the number of sets performed. Training with either 1 set or 2 sets produced similar improvements in strength (22.3 and 22.0% respectively), while training with 3 sets elicited an increase in 1RM of 25.5% (table III). The difference in 1RM between 1-set and 3-set training programmes was 3.2% (1.8gk) at the end of 12 weeks of training in apparently untrained, healthy, college-age men (pretraining 1RM bench press = 56.6kg).
If 3 sets of 6 repetitions are superior to other training protocols for this exercise, subsequent studies should have replicated these results, but they have not. A follow-up study by Berger(17) failed to support his conclusion that 3 sets of 6 repetitions was the best training protocol. In the later study, 3 groups trained 3 times per week for 9 weeks,
Table I. Increases in single repetition maximum (1RM) for the free-weight bench press exercise in 9 groups of men training 3 days per week for 12 weeks using a protocol of 1,2 or 3 sets of repetitions(16).
Group (sets x repetitions)
Mean increase in 1RM
%
kg
1x2
1x6
1x10
2x2
2x6
2x10
3x2
3x6
3x10
20.0
25.5
21.6
17.3
22.9
25.1
23.5
29.6
23.0
11.3
14.5
12.2
9.3
12.9
14.2
13.3
16.7
13.0
Table II. Comparison of the increase in mean repetition maximum between groups performing differing numbers of sets of the same number of repetitions of free-weight bench press exercises(16)
Comparison Groups (sets x repetitions)
Statistical significance
3x6 and 2x6
3x6 and 1x6
2x6 and 1x6
3x2 and 2x2
3x2 and 1x2
2x2 and 1x2
3x10 and 2x10
3x10 and1x10
2x10 and 1x10
SD
NS
NS
SD
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = no significant difference between groups: SD = significant difference at the p = 0.05 level
performing either a 6 X 2, 3 X 6 or 3 X 10 protocol in the bench-press exercise. All groups showed significant increases in 1RM bench press (16.9, 21.3 and 20.0% respectively), with no significant difference among the groups. That is, contrary to Berger’s earlier investigation(16), the 3 x 6 protocol was not shown to be superior to the 3 x 10 protocol. In the textbook Applied Exercise Physiology,(9) published 20 years after his original training study, Berger claimed that 3 sets were more effective than fewer sets for maximising strength, and the only reference cited for this was his first training study.(16)
Kraemer and colleagues(18) randomly assigned 43 weight-trained males to either a single-set (1 x 12 RM), multiple-set (3 x 10 repetitions at a target weight) or varied multiple-set group (1 to 5 sets of 2 to 10 repetitions at a target weight). They performed 7 free-weight exercises 3 times per week for 14 weeks. The single-set group performed each exercise to muscular fatigue. The target weight was set by the investigators for the multiple-set and varied multiple-set groups. The multiple-set groups did not exercise to muscular fatigue. All groups showed significant increases in 1RM for the squat exercise. The multiple-set and varied multiple-set groups showed significantly greater increases in 1RM for the squat exercise that the single-set group (25, 22 and 12% respectively). There were no significant changes in body mass of body composition for any of the groups. No data were reported for the changes in 1RM strength or amount of resistance for the other 6 exercises.
Kraemer and colleagues(19) (published abstract) randomly assigned 24 females to a single-set, a varied multiple-set or a control group. Both of the training groups performed the same exercises 2 to 3 times per week for 9 months. The single set group performed 1 set of 8 to 10RM for all of the exercises.. The multiple set group performed 2 to 5 sets of repetitions for each exercise and varied the number of repetitions on different days (3 to 5RM, 8 to 10RM and 12 to 15 RM). After 4 months of training, both groups showed increases in 1RM for bench press, military press and leg press exercises. The authors claimed that only the multiple-set group continued to show further significant increases in strength. However, no absolute values or percent increases in strength were reported, nor were any statistically significant differences in strength observed between the 2 training groups for any of the exercises at any of the 1RM evaluation points (0, 4, 6 and 9 months). The lack of data and statistical analyses leave this report open to different interpretations.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
2. One set Versus Two Sets
A number of studies have investigated the increases in strength gained by training protocols using one set and two sets of repetitions (table IV). Based on the equipment manufacturers’ recommended training protocols. Coleman(20) trained participants on Nautilusâ machines using a 1 x 8 to 12RM protocol, or on a Universalâ Gym for 2 sets: 10RM on the first set, 8RM on the second set. They trained 3 times a week for 10 weeks. Both groups showed significant increases in 1RM strength for all the exercises tested: bench press 12.4 and
Table III. Combined mean percentage increase in repetition maximum for the 9 groups performing 1,2, and 3 sets of repetitions in the free-weight bench press exercise(16)
1 set
2 sets
3 sets
22.3
22.0
25.5*
*= significantly greater compared with 1 and 2 sets at the p = 0.05 level
Table IV. Studies comparing strength increases after programmes using 1 set versus 2 sets of repetitions
Reference
Programme duration (wk)
Modality/exercise
Frequency
(days/wk)
Strength
measure
Training protocol
(sets x repetitions)
Strength
increase (%)
Results
Coleman(20)
10
Nautilusâ
bench press
biceps curl
lateral pull
leg press
Universalâ
bench press
biceps curl
lateral pull
leg press
3
1RM
1 x 8-12RM
1 x 10RM + 8RM
12.3
15.9
20.2
17.9
12.4
15.1
20.0
17.4
NS
Graves et al(21)
12
MedX/Lumbar extension
1
Maximum IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
2 x 8-12RM
1 x IM
2 x IM
1 x 8-12RM +1 x IM
(Range from 18.0 to 63.0)a
NS
Hurley et al(22)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
43.1
43.8
NS
Ryan et al(23)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
Peak torque
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
51.4
35.6
NS
Treuth et al(24)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
39.2
40.8
NS
Ryan et al(25)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
37.9
37.5
NS
Miller et al(26)
16
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
64.2
40.4
NS
Koffler et al(27)
13
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
41.0
45.0
NS
Rubin et al(28)
13
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
40.0
41.0
NS
Nicklas et al(29)
13
14Keiserâ machines and FW
3
3RM
1 x 15UB
2 x 15LB
37.0
39.0
NS
Pollock et al(30)
12
MedX/cervical extension
2
Resistance loads
Peak IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM+1 x IM
40.9
43.5
21.9
22.3
NS
NS
Westcott(31)
3
5 Nautilusâ machines
3
Total strength
1 x 10
2 x 10
56.0
54.0
NS
Caper(32)
12
5 exercises (equipment type not reported)
3
Total strength
1 x 8-15RM
1 x 8-15RM + 1 x5RM
18.8
20.9
NS
a Specific data not reported
FW = free -weight; IM = isometric; LB = lower body; NS = no significant difference between protocols; RM = repetition maximum; UB = upper body
12.3%, biceps curl 15.1 and 15.9%, lateral pull 20.0 and 20.2% and leg press 17.4 and 17.9%. in the Universalâ and Nautilusâ groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups. Significant increases in fat-free mass were reported for both groups (3.9 and 3.2% for Universalâ and Nautilusâ groups respectively), with no significant difference between groups.
Graves and colleagues(21) randomly assigned 67 men and 43 women to one of 6 groups: 1 set dynamic 2 sets dynamic, 1 set isometric, 2 sets isometric, 1 set dynamic and 1 set isometric or control. Dynamic lumbar extension exercise consisted of 8 to 12 repetitions through a 72° range of motion (ROM) performed to volitional fatigue. Participants in the isometric groups were instructed to hold each maximal isometric muscle action for 3 seconds. After 12 weeks, all training groups significantly increased maximal isometric torque (18 to 63%) for all angles tested, with no significant difference among the groups at any angle.
Eight studies performed by a group of investigators, in different male and female participants for each investigation, examined the effects of resistance exercise on body composition,(22-24) bone mineral density,(25) insulin action,(26) gastrointestinal transit time,(27) urinary chromium excretion(28) and hormonal responses.(29) It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the specific aspects of each of the investigations; however, there were some notable results concerning increase in strength. The participants trained 3 times per week for 16 weeks performing 14 exercises using Keiserâpneumatic (air) resistance machines and free-weights. Although the rationale for the training protocol was not stated in any of the reports, all of the individuals performed a 1 x 15 programme for each of the 9 upper body exercises and a 2 x 15 programme for each of the 5 lower body exercises. Similar significant increase in upper body (1 set, 43.6%) and lower body (2 sets, 40.5%) strength (3RM) were observed in all 8 studies.(22-29)
Pollock and colleagues(30) trained male and female volunteers twice a week for 12 weeks on a ‘MedX’ cervical extension machine. One group performed 1 x 8 to 12RM dynamic repetitions throughout a 126° ROM to volitional fatigue. Another group performed 1 x 8 12RM dynamic repetitions plus a set of maximal isometric muscle actions (1 to 2 seconds each) at 8 positions in the ROM. Dynamic training loads increased 40.9 and 43.5% for the 1-set and 2-set groups, respectively, with no significant difference between groups. Both groups had significant increases in isometric torque at all 8 angles (mean = 21.9 and 22.3%, 1-set and 2-set groups, respectively), with no significant difference between groups at any angle.
Westcott(31) trained 44 women and men 3 times a week for 4 weeks an 5 Nautilusâ machines: leg extension, leg curl, torso pullover, triceps and biceps. Half of the participants followed a 1 x 10 protocol and the other half performed a 2 x 10 protocol. The 1 x 10 group increased overall strength by 56.0%, while the 2 x 10 group increased by 54.0%.
In a multifaceted study involving 8 groups of men and 4 training protocols, Capen(32) had one of his groups perform different protocols for contralateral muscles. The men performed 1 x 8 to 15RM for their right elbow flexors, left elbow extensors, left shoulder abductors, right knee extensors and left knee flexors (programme 1). For the contralateral muscles (left elbow flexors, right elbow extensors, right shoulder abductors, left knee extensors and right knee flexors) they used 1 x 8 to 15 RM followed by 1 x 5RM (programme 2). All participants trained 3 times a week for 12 weeks. The average increases in strength for the 5 muscles tested were 18.8% for programme 1 and 20.9% for programme 2. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of strength gained in the contralateral muscle groups as a result of training with 1 set versus 2 sets.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
3. One Set Versus Three Sets
A number of studies have investigated the increases in strength gained by training
protocols using 1 set and 3 sets of repetitions (table V). Starkey and colleagues(33) compared strength and muscle thickness (using 2-dimensional ultrasound measurements) of the anterior and posterior
thigh muscles in 38 male and female
volunteers after training 3 days a week for 14 weeks. Both training groups performed dynamic bilateral knee extension and knee flexion exercises on 2 ‘MedX’ strength
Table V. Comparison of strength increases with programmes using 1 set versus 3 sets of repetitions
Reference
Programme duration (wk)
Modality/exercise
Frequency
(days/wk)
Strength
measure
Training protocol
(sets x repetitions)
Strength
increase (%)
Results
Kramer et al(16)
14
7 FW exercises
3
1 RM squat
1 x 12RM
3 x 10
1-5 x 2-10
12.0
25.0
22.0
SD
SD
Starkey et al(33)
14
MedX knee extension
MedX knee flexion
3
Peak IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
23.8
19.7
21.3
22.3
NS
NS
Tebizan & Bartels(34)
8
5 Universalâ gym exercises
3
1RM
1 x 6-9
1 x 10-15
3 x 6-9
3 x 10-15
a
NS
Silvester et al(35)
8
FW biceps curls Nautilusâ biceps
3
Peak IM strength
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 6RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 6RM
22.0
30.4
24.7
19.4
NS
NS
Reid et al(36)
8
9 Universalâ-type exercises
3
Peak IM strength
1 x 8-12 or 1 x 3-5
3 x 6-8RM
17.7
17.9
NS
Stowers et al(37)
7
FW bench press and squat
3
1RM
1 x a
3 x a
a
NS
Messier & Dill(38)
10
9 FW exercises 12 Nautilusâ exercises
3
Resistance loads
3 x 6
1 x 8-12 or 1 x 15-20
22.5
38.0
NS
Jacobson(39)
10
Nautilusâ knee extension
3
Dynamic strength
IM strength
1 x 6-10RM
3 x 6RM
1 X 6-10RM
3 x 6RM
31.9
39.2
7.6
7.6
NS
NS
De Hoyos et al(40)
10
11 exercises (equipment type not reported)
3
1RM chest press
1RM leg press
1 x 10-15RM
3 x 10-15RM
1 x 10-15RM
3 x 10-15RM
12.5
12.8
21.7
20.8
NS
NS
Westcott et al(41)
10
Gracitronâ dips and chins
3
Number of repetitions
1 x 5, 10, or 15RM
2 x 5, 10, or 15RM
3 x 5, 10, or 15RM
a
NS
Welsch et al(42)
14
MedX knee extension
MedX knee flexion
3
Peak IM torque
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
22.5
20.0
NS
NS
Leighton et al(43)
8
6 FW exercises
2
IM strength on 3
1 x 6
3 x 6
17.0
18.0
NS
Stadler et al(44)
8
7 exercises (equipment type no reported)
2 and 3
1RM on 7 exercises
2 x 10-12
3 x 8
17.0
17.0
NS
De Hoyos et al(45)
25
7 MedX exercises
3
1RM on 5 exercises
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
32.0
41.0
NS
Vincent et al(47)
25
MedX knee extension
3
1RM
Peak IM torque
Resistance loads
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
33.3
31.6
35.4
32.1
25.6
14.7
NS
NS
NS
Hass et al(48)
13
9 MedX exercises
3
1RM on 5 exercises
1 x 8-12RM
3 x 8-12RM
10.0
12.0
NS
a data not reported
FW = free-weight; IM = isometric; NS = no significant difference between protocols; RM = repetition maximum
machines. The low volume group performed 1 x 8 to 12RM to volitional fatigue; the high volume group performed 3 x 8 to 12RM to volitional fatigue. Peak knee extension torque at 7 angles significantly increased in both the low (17.5 to 36.1%) and high volume (13.2 to 27.1%) groups. Peak knee flexion torque at the same angles increased in both the low (13.0 to 34.8%) and high volume (7.8 to 40.7%) groups. There was no significant difference in the knee extension or flexion peak torques between the 2 groups (except at 24°, where the low volume group had a significantly greater increase in peak extension torque than the high volume group). Both groups had similar significant increases in dynamic training resistance for the 2 exercises. Ultrasound scans revealed significant increases in muscle thickness, with no significant difference between the 2 groups.
Terbizan and Bartels(34) (published extract) randomly assigned 80 women to one of 4 strength training protocols: 1 x 6 to 9, 1 x 10 to15, 3 x 6 to 9 or 3 x 10 to 15. They trained 3 times a week for 8 weeks, performing 5 different exercises on Universalâ Gym equipment. There were significant increases in lean body mass and strength (1RM) on all 5 exercises (data not reported). There was no significant difference between the groups.
In an attempt to support the hypothesis that 3 sets of 6 reps were optimal for strength gains, Silvester et al,35) trained 4 groups of men 3 times a week for 8 weeks. Two groups performed barbell curls: group I performed 1 x 8 to 12RM to muscular fatigue, group II performed a 3 x 6 protocol using 80% 1RM. Two groups used the Nautilus Omni Bicepsâ machine; group III performed 1 x 8 to 12RM to muscular fatigue, group IV followed the 3 x 6 repetition protocol. All 4 groups had significant increases in strength at all angles tested, with no significant difference between groups (group I = 22%, group II = 30%, group III = 25% and group IV = 19%).
Reid et al(36) trained male volunteers 3 times a week for 8 weeks. The participants performed 9 exercises on a Universalâ type machine (Supra Athletics Corporation). One group performed 3 x 6 to 8RM, and another performed 1 x 10 to 12RM for the first 2 sessions each week and 1 x 3 to 5 at the third session. Both groups showed significant increases in most of the isometric strength tests. The average increase in strength was 17.7% for the 1-set group and 17.9% for the 3-set group.
Stowers and co workers(37) compared the effects of training with free-weights 3 times a week for 7 weeks using either 1 set to exhaustion, 3 sets to exhaustion or periodisation training. Periodisation is a predetermined programme of variable combinations of sets, repetitions and resistance for specific durations. The periodisation group performed 5 x 10 (weeks 1 and 2), 3 x 5 (weeks 3 to 5) and 3 x 3 repetitions (weeks 6 to 7). All 3 groups (84 untrained men) showed significant increases in 1RM bench press, with no significant difference among groups. All participants significantly increased 1RM squat. The periodisation group increased 6 % more than the 3-set group and 11% more than the 1-set group, and the 3-set increased 5% more than the 1-set group after 5 weeks of training. However, there was no significant difference between the 1-set and 3-set groups at the end of the study.
In a study by Messier and Dill,(38) a free-weight group performed 3 x 6 for 9 exercises, and a Nautilusâ group performed 1 x 8 to 12 for 8 upper body exercises and 1 x 15 to 20 in 4 lower body exercises. Both groups trained 3 days a week for 10 weeks. The Nautilusâ group increased their resistance by 30.0% for upper body exercises and 46.0% for lower body exercises; the free-weight group increased their resistance 22.0% for the upper body and 23.0% for the lower body. Because of the confounding variables it is not known whether the greater strength increases reported in the Nautilusâ group were a result of only performing 1 set of each exercise compared with 3 sets, the greater number of repetitions or the training mode Nautilusâ per se.
Jacobson(39) trained 2 groups on a Nautilusâ knee extension machine 3 times a week for 10 weeks. Group A used a 3 x 6 protocol with 80 to 85% 1RM. Group B performed 1 set to volitional concentric fatigue with a partner supplying additional resistance on the eccentric phase (3 to 4 seconds) of each repetition. They performed approximately 6 repetitions with 65% 1RM, followed by 3 to 4 additional repetitions to elicit volitional eccentric fatigue. Both groups had significant increases in dynamic strength (group A = 39.2%, group B = 31.9%) and isometric strength (group A = 7.6%, group B = 7.6%), with no significant difference between groups. The confounding variables in this study (number of sets, number of repetitions, manual resistance and eccentric fatigue) precludes speculation on the practical significance of the results. That is, it is not known whether the greater intensity in group B (performing the exercise to concentric and eccentric volitional fatigue) was required in order to produce similar results.
DeHoyos et al,(40) (published abstract) trained adolescent tennis players 3 times a week for 10 weeks with 11 weight training exercises. Trainees performed either 1 or 3 sets of 10 to 15 repetitions to muscular fatigue. There were significant increases in 1RM chest press and leg press in both training groups: chest press 12.5 and 12. 8%, and leg press 21.7 and 20.8%, for the 1-set and 3-set groups respectively. There was no significant difference in the strength increases between the 1 - and 3 - set groups.
Wescott and colleagues(41) trained 54 men and 23 women 3 times a week for 10 weeks on a Gravitronâ machine, which provides individualised programmed assistance for performing dips and chins within a desired range of repetitions. Participants chose 5, 10 or 15 repetitions within each of the 3 training groups of 1, 2 or 3 sets. The mean improvement in the number of repetitions (dips and chins) was 4, 8, 4, 1 and 5.2 for the 1-, 2,- and 3-set groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups.
Welsch and colleagues(42) (published extract) trained 15 volunteers on ‘MedX’ knee flexion and knee extension machines. Participants performed bilateral exercise to muscular fatigue following either a 1 x 8 10 12RM or 3 x 8 to 12RM protocol 3 times a week for 14 weeks. There were significant increases in maximal isometric torque at all measured angles for knee flexion (20.0%) and knee extension (22.5%), with no significant difference between the 1-set and 3-set groups.
Leighton and colleagues(43) trained 2 groups of participants who performed a 1 x 6 repetition protocol for each of 6 exercises, and 7 groups who performed various combinations of 3 x 6 protocols for each exercise, with different weights, rest periods between sets, super-sets (2 exercises for the same body segment with little rest between exercises), tri-sets (3 exercises for the same body segment with little rest between exercises),etc. All of the participants exercised twice per week for 8 weeks. The increase in strength in the 1-set groups (=17%) was similar to that in the 3-set groups (=18%) for the 3 isometric elbow flexion, elbow extension and leg-lift strength tests. There was no significant increase in arm and thigh girth measurements or body-weight in any of the groups.
In a study by Stadler and colleagues44) (published abstract), 14 participants performed 4 upper body and 3 lower body exercises for 8 week. One group performed a protocol of 2 x 10 to 12 repetitions twice a week, and the other performed a 3 x 8 protocol 3 times a week. The weekly volume of exercise for the 3-set group was 50% greater than for the 2-set group. Both groups had significant increases in 1RM strength for all of the exercises with no significant difference in strength gains (=17%) between the 2 groups. The greater volume of exercise did not elicit greater increases in strength.
Two valid criticisms of most strength training studies are that the durations of the studies are relatively short, usually about 6 to 12 weeks, and that the studies usually recruit untrained participants. These criticisms were addressed in the following investigation. De Hoyos et al.(45) and Pollock et al.(46) (published abstracts) investigated the effects of 1-set versus 3-set protocols for strength training over a 6-month period. Two groups performed 7 exercises to muscular fatigue in a 1 x 8 to 12RM or a 3 x 8 to 12RM protocol on 3 days per week. The 1RM strength was assessed for the chest press, rowing, arm curl, knee extension and thigh curl exercises. Muscle thickness at 8 sites (chest, subscapula, biceps, triceps and the anterior, medial, lateral and posterior thigh) was measured using ultrasound. Similar significant increases in 1RM strength were reported for all exercises for the 1-set and 3-set groups (=32 and =41% respectively),(45) as well as similar significant increases in upper and lower body muscle thickness (=14 and =13%, respectively).(46) The authors concluded that both training protocols produced increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy of the same magnitude.
Vincent and colleagues(47) (published extract) trained 42 participants who performed a 1 x 8 to 12RM of 3 x 8 to 12RM protocol of the knee extension exercise 3 times a week for 25 weeks. The 1-set and 3-set groups had significant increases in 1RM strength (33.3 and 31.6% respectively), isometric peak torque (35.4 and 32.1% respectively) and training resistance (25.6 and 14.7%, respectively), with no significant difference between the 2 groups.
Ostrowski and colleagues(48) randomly assigned 35 males who had been weight training for 1 to 4 years to one of 3 training groups: a 1-set, 2-set or 4-set programme. All of the participants trained on 6 free-weight exercises 4 times a week for 10 weeks, performing 12RM, 7RM and 9RM in weeks 1 to 4, 5 to 7 and 8 to 10, respectively. The exercises were all performed to muscular fatigue and the only difference between the 3 programmes was the number of sets. At the end of the programmes, significant increases in 1RM squat (7.5, 5.4 and 11.6%), 1RM bench press (4.0, 5.0 and 1.9%) and bench press throw power (W) [2.3, 2.3 and 3.1%] were observed for the 1-, 2- and 4-set groups, respectively with no significant difference between the groups. Significant increases in thigh circumference and cross-sectional area, triceps thickness and body mass were reported for all 3 groups, with no significant differences between the groups.
Hass and colleagues(49) (published extract) recruited 40 adults who had been performing 1 set of each of 9 exercises to muscular fatigue for at least 1 year before entering the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either a 1-set or a 3-set group who performed 8 to 12RM on 3 days per week for 13 weeks. Both of the groups significantly increased their muscular strength and endurance (1-set by 10% and 3-set by 12%), with no significant difference between the groups for any of the 5 1RM strength tests (knee extension, thigh curl, chest press, overhead press and arm curl). The investigators concluded that 1 set of resistance exercise was as effective as 3 sets in adults with strength training experience.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
4. More Than Three Sets
A number of studies have investigated the increases in strength gained by training protocols using more than 3 sets of repetitions (table VI). Withers(50) trained 3 groups of volunteers twice a week for 9 weeks. They performed either 3 x 7RM, 4 x 5RM or 5 x 3RM combinations of sets and repetitions for each of 3 free-weight exercises: curl, bench press and squat. All groups showed significant increases in overall strength (1Rm) of 19.3, 22,9 and 19.3% for the 3-, 4- and 5-set groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups.
Ciriello and colleagues(51) trained 9 men (3 days per week for 16 weeks) using a Cybexâ II isokinetic dynamometer a t a velocity of 60°/sec. All volunteers trained the knee extensors of one limb with a 5 x 5 protocol and the contralateral knee extensors with a 15 x 10 protocol. Peak torque significantly increased at all 7 test velocities (no data reported). The greater total work performed (4.39 times greater) by the 15-set thigh compared with the contralateral 5-set thigh manifested a significantly greater increase in peak torque at only on speed of movement (30°/sec).
5. Conclusion
No study has compared exercise programmes using 1 set of repetitions with those using 5 or more sets, but perhaps a syllogistical inference can be applied. That is, most reports describe no significant difference in strength increases when comparing 1-set with 2-set,(20-32) 1-set with 3-set,(33-47, 49) 1-, 2- and 4-set,(48) 3-, 4-, 5- and 6-set,(17-50) and 5- and 15-set protocols.(51) Thus, it may be inferred that no significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains should be expected between 1-set and multiple-set, up to 15-set, programmes. The liter-ature lends support to the innovators of single-set strength training programmes such as Liederman,52) Jones,(53) Darden,(54) and Riley(55) who intuitively hypothesised that 1 set of repetitions of an exercise was as effective as performing multiple sets.
This review raises the question of whether the training study by Berger,(16) which reported on a single exercise (bench press), and one other report by Kramer et al.(18) on a single exercise (squat), should set a precedent for strength training. The opinion that multiple-set protocols are better than a single set of an exercise is not supported by the consensus of scientific evidence; 33 out of 35 of the comparative reports included in this review show no significant difference in strength increase between individuals performing single-set and those performing multiple-set (up to 15 sets) exercise protocols. One set of repetitions has been shown to be as effective as multiple sets, and more time efficient, for increasing muscular strength and
Table VI. Comparisons of strength increases with programmes using multiple sets
Reference
Programme duration (wk)
Modality/exercise
Frequency (days/wk)
Strength measure
Training protocol (sets x repetitions)
Strength increase (%)
Results
Berger(17)
9
FW bench press
3
1RM bench press
6 x 2
3 x 6
3 x 10
16.9
21.3
20.0
NS
Ostrowski et al.(48)
10
6 FW exercises
4
1RM squat
1RM bench press
1 x 7-12RM
2 x 7-12RM
4 x 7-12RM
1 x 7-12RM
2 x 7-12RM
4 x 7-12RM
7.5
5.4
11.6
4.0
5.0
1.9
NS
NS
Withers(50)
9
3 FW exercises
2
Total strength (1RM)
3 x 7
4 x 5
5 x 3
19.3
22.9
19.3
NS
Ciriello et al.(51)
16
Cybexâ knee extension
3
Peak torque
5 x 5
15 x 10
a
NS
a data not reported.
F W = free weight; NS = no significant difference between protocols; RM = repetition maximum
hypertrophy in males and females of different ages, for a variety of muscle groups and using various types of exercise equipment. In other word, there is insufficient evidence to support the prevalent belief that a greater volume of exercise (through multiple sets) will elicit superior muscular strength or hypertrophy than will the minimal volume (through a single set). By employing a single-set protocol, individuals can achieve similar results in less time and with less work and decreased potential for injury.
There is no evidence to suggest that the response to single or multiple sets in trained athletes would differ from that in untrained individuals. There is also no evidence to suggest that a single set of an exercise would be less productive that multiple sets for people in the general population or special populations, such as the elderly and cardiovascular and orthopaedic patients who, perhaps should not or will not perform each exercise to the point of muscular fatigue.
In addition to the increases in muscular strength and lean body mass, there are other potential health benefits of resistance exercise training. These benefits include increased bone mineral density,(25) connective tissue strength (ligaments and tendons),(56) functional capacity (ability to climb stairs and walking speed),(57) sports performance,(14) metabolic rate(23) and enhanced quality of life.(58) There can also be a concomitant decrease in body fat,(24) gastrointestinal transit time,(27) heart rate and blood pressure responses to specific activities.(59) There is no evidence that multiple sets are superior to a single set of each exercise in attaining these benefits.
6. Recommendations
Although it is often considered that multiple sets are required to properly warm up muscles during exercise, there is no evidence to suggest that an exercise specific warm-up is superior to a total body warm-up for producing increases in strength. If a low number of repetitions, such as 3 to 5, is desired for training, or if a competitive power-lifter or Olympic weight-lifter is attempting a 1RM, then a single warm-up set with a lighter resistance may be appropriate. Fitness enthusiasts, as well as recreational and competitive athletes, should attempt to attain the benefits of resistance exercise training by undertaking the minimal volume; that is, the minimal volume to achieve the desired response.
Back to the Training Info page on John’s Gym web site
References
1. Atha J. Strengthening muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1981: 9: 1-73
2. Behm D G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 1995: 9 (4): 264-74
3. Clarke D H. Adaptations in strength and muscular endurance resulting from exercise. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1973: 1: 73-102
4. Fleck S J, Kraemer W J. Resistance training: basic principles (part 1 of 4). Physician Sportsmed 1988: 16 (3): 160-71
5. Kraemer W J, Fleck S J. Resistance training: exercise prescription (part 4 of 4) Physician Sportsmed 1988: 16 (6): 69-81
6. Kraemer W J, Fleck S J, Deschenes M. A review: factors in exercise prescription of resistance training. Natl Strength Conditioning Assoc J 1988: 10 (5): 36-41
7. Lillegard W A, Terrio J D. Appropriate strength training. Med Clin North Am 1994; 78 (2): 457-77
8. Mcdonagh M N Davies C M. Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol 1984: 52; 139-55
9. Berger R A. Applied exercise physiology. Philadelphia (PA): Lea & Febiger. 1982: 1-46
10. Enoka R M. Chronic adaptations. In: Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology. Champaign
(I L): Human Kinetics, 1988: 303-49
11. Fleck S J, Kraemer W J. Designing resistance training programs. Champaign
(I L): Human Kinetics, 1987: 57-8
12. Fleck S J, Kraemer W J. Periodization breakthrough! Ronkonkoma (N Y): Advanced Research Press, Inc., 1996: 36-7
13. Fox E L, Bowers R W, Foss M L. Development of muscular strength, endurance, and flexibility. In: The physiological bases for exercise and sport. 5th ed. Madison (W I): Brown & Benchmark Publishers, 1993: 158-92
14. Wilmore J H, Costill D L, Neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training. In: Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign (I L): Human Kinetics, 1994: 66-89
15. McArdle W D, Katch F I, Katch V L. Muscular strength: training muscles to become stronger. In: Exercise physiology: energy, nutrition, and human performance. 4th ed. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Wilkins, 1996: 417-55
16. Berger R A. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Res Q 1962: 33 (2): 168-81
17. Berger R A. Comparative effects of three weight training programs. Res Q 1963: 34 (3): 396-8
18. Kramer J B, Stone M H, O’Bryant H S, et al. Effects of single vs multiple sets of weight training; impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J Strength Conditioning Res 1997: 11 (3): 143-7
19. Kraemer W J, Newton R V, Bush J, et al. Varied multiple set resistance training programs produce greater gains than single set program (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995: 7 (5): S195
20. Coleman A E. Nautilus vs Universal Gym strength training in adult males Am Corr Ther J 1977: 31 (4): 103-7
21. Graves J E, Holmes B L, Leggett S H. et al. Single versus multiple set dynamic and isometric lumbar extension training. Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of the ‘World Confederation for Physical Therapy: 1991: Jul 28-Aug 2: 1340-2
22. Hurley B F, Redmond R A, Pratley R E, et al. Effects of strength training on muscle hypertrophy and muscle cell distribution in older men. In: J Sports Med 1995: 16 (6): 378-84
23. Ryan A S, Pratley R E Elahi D, et al. Resistive training increases fat-free mass and maintains RMR despite weight loss in postmenopausal women. J Appl Physiol 1995: 79 (3): 818-23
24. Treuth M S, Ryan A S, Pratley R E, et al. Effects of strength training on total and regional body composition in older men. J Appl Physiol 1994: 77 (2): 614-20
25. Ryan A S. Treuth M S, Rubin M A, et al. Effects of strength training on bone mineral density: hormonal and bone turnover relationships. J Appl Physiol 1994: 77 (4): 1678-84
26. Miller J P, Pratley T El Goldberg A P, et al. Strength training increases insulin action in healthy 50- to 65-year old men. J Appl Physiol 1194: 77 (3) 1122-7
27. Koffler K G, Menkes A, Redmond R A, et al. Strength training accelerates gastronotestinal transit in middle-aged and older men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992: 24 (2): 415-9
28. Rubin M A, Miller J P, Ryan A S, et al. Acute and chronic resistive exercise increase urinary chromium excretion in men as measured with an enriched chromiom stable isotope. J Nutr 1998: 128: 73-8
29. Nicklas B J, Ryan A J, Treuth M, et al. Testosterone, growth hormone and 1GF-1 responses to acute and chronic resistive exercise in men aged 55-70 years. Int J Sports Med 1995: 16 (7) 445-50
30. Pollock M H, Graves J E, Bamman M M, et al. Frequency and volume of resistance training: effect on cervical extension strength. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993: 74: 1080-6
31. Westcott W L. 4 key factors in building a strength program, Scholastic Coach 1986: 55: 104-5, 123
32. Capen E K. Study of four programs of heavy resistance exercise for development of muscular strength. Res Q 1956: 27 (2): 132-42
33. Starkey D B, Pollock M L, Ishida Y, et al. Effects of resistance training volume on strength an muscle thickness. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996: 28 (10): 1311-20
34. Terbizan D J, Bartels R L. The effect of set-repetition combinations on strength gain in females age 18-35 (abstract). Med Sci sports Exerc 1985: 17 (2 Suppl): 267
35. Silvester L J, Stiggins C, McGown C, et al. The effect of variable resistance and free-weight training programs on strength and vertical jump. Natl Strength Conditioning Assoc J 1982: 3 (6): 30-3
36. Reid C M. Yeater R A, Ulrich I H. Weight training and strength, cardiorespiratory functioning and body composition. Br J Sports Med 1987: 21 (1): 40-4.
37. Sawers T, McMillan J, Scala D, et al. The short-term effects of three different strength power training methods. Natl Strength Conditioning Assoc J 1983: 5 (3): 24-7
38. Messier S P, Dill M E. Alterations in strength and maximal oxygen uptake consequent to Nautilus circuit weight training. Res Q Exerc Sport 1985: 56 (4): 345-51
39. Jacobson B H. A comparison of two progressive weight training techniques on knee extensor strength. Athletic training 1986: 21 (4) 315-8, 390
40. De Hoyes D V, Herring D, Garzarella L, et al. Effects of strength training volume on the development of strength and power in adolescent tennis players (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997: 29 (5 Suppl): S164
41. Westcott W L, Greenberger K, Milius D. strength training research sets and repetitions. Scholastic Coach 1989: 58: 98-100
42. Welsch M A, Brechue W F, Pollock M L, et al. Effect
of reduced training volume on bilateral isomectric
knee/extension torque(abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26 (5 Suppl.): S189
43. Leighton JR, Holmes D. Beason J. et al. A study on
the effectiveness of ten different methods of progressive resistance exercise on the development
of strength, flexibility, girth, and bodyweight. J Assoc Phys Mental Rehabil 1967:81 (3): 78-81
44. Sadller Jr LV, Stubbs NB, Vokovich MD. A comparison of a 2-day and 3-day per week resistance training program on strength gains in older adults (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997: 20 (5 Suppl.): S254
45. De Hoyos D, Abe T, Garzarella L, et al. Effects of 6 month of high- or low-volume resistance training on muscular strength and endurance (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.): S165
46. Pollock M L, Abe T, De Hoyos D V, et al. Muscular hypertrophy responses to 6 months of high- or low-volume resistance training (abstract) 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.): S116
47. Vincent K, De Hoyos D, Garzarella L, et al. Relationship between indices of knee extension strength before and after training (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.): S163
48. Ostrowski K J, Wilson G J, Weatherby R, et al. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J Strength Conditioning Res 1997: 11 (3): 148-54
49. Hass C J, Garzarella L, De Hoyos D V, et al. Effects of training volume on strength and endurance in experienced resistance trained adults (abstract). Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998: 30 (5 Suppl.) S115
50. Withers R T. Effect of varied weight-training loads on the strength of university freshmen. Res Q 1970: 41 (1): 110-4
51. Cinello V M, Holden W L, Evans W J. The effects of two isokinetic training regimens on muscle strength and fiber composition. In: Knuttgen H G, Vogel J A, Poortmans J. edititors Biochemistry of exercise. Vol 13 Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1982: 782-93
52. Liederman E. Quality of muscle the basis of strength. In: Secrets of strength. New York (NY): Earle Liederman, 1925: 116-30
53. Jones A. Flexibility as a result of exercise. In: Peterson J A , editor. Total fitness: the Nautilus way. West Point (NY): Leisure Press, 1978: 134-41
54. Darden E Strength training principles. In: Peterson J A, editor. Total fitness: the Nautilus way. West Point (NY): Leisure Press, 1978: 157-74
55. Riley D P. How to organize a strength training program. In: Strength training by the experts. 2nd ed. West Point (NY): Leisure Press. 1977: 97-107
56. Fleck S J, Kraimer W J. Designing resistance training programs 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1997: 131-63
57. Fiatarone M A, O’Neil E F, Ryan N D, et al. Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people. N Engl J med 1994: 330 (25): 1769-75
58. Feigenbaum M S, Pollock M L. Strength training: rationale for current guidelines for adult fitness programs. Physician Sportsmed 1997: 25 (2): 44-64
59. McCartney N, McKelvie R S, Martin J, et al. Weight -training induced attenuation of the circulatory response to weightlifting in older men. J Appl Physiol 1993: 74: 1056-60
Correspondence and reprints: Dr Ralph N. Carpinelli, Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Health, Physical Education, and Human Performance Science, Woodruff Hall, Adelphi University, South Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530, USA.
E-mail: otto@adilbv.adelphi.edu
Are you visiting because of our leaflet?
Blue room
Main gym
Ladies only gym
Reception
Visit the staff
Prices
A free workout booklet
Opening times
Visit our Vertical tanning sunbed page!
Visit the boss
The boss meets past Mr Universes
New page gym guide
Sauna
Proof of single set training is the most effective method of training
Some links for you to read
Cardio-fitness
Email us
Local companies link page
Return to the John’s Gym home page
Commenta