1 set vs daily undulating periodization for hypertrophy

Discussion of peer refereed articles and clinical applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, ianjay, stuward

Locked
gringojones
former lurker
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:06 pm

1 set vs daily undulating periodization for hypertrophy

Post by gringojones » Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:30 pm

hey board,

let me first say that i am a big fan of this site. very well done.

what is the board's take on 1 set protocal vs daily undulating periodization for hypertrophy? Is anyone one familiar with the most recent research? I've recently been reading that daily undulating (non-linear) periodization beat a 1 set high-intensity protocal in muscular development. I want to say it was an Arizona State Study (Rhea) from 2007.

A friend of mind also recently turned me on to Body By Science by Doug McGuff. His ideas about Time Under Load are interesting, but did have some issues "inroading" the few times I tried it out.

I am an enthusiastic laymen and would appreciate any and all opinions. Thanks!

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:15 pm

Pretty much every well done study has shown multiple sets are greater than single sets.

1 set protocol is not really going to do a whole lot for you beyond the first month or so.

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:31 pm

I'd think that they'd be hard to compare. Single-set routines are probably pretty good for beginners. Many studies show that multiple set routines are better, but if the time available for training is limited, single-set routines are only a little less effective than multi-set, at least for novices.

I'm sure that a periodized approach is superior for an intermediate lifter. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of an intermediate lifter. If you are a novice, you shouldn't be considering periodizing. Get the most out of your potential for linear gain first.

Nevage
Member
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:31 pm

Post by Nevage » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:53 pm

Some of the old skool (Mike Mentzer et al) did only this. I don't think it's advantageous though and could only really work if you have the genetics.

Kenny Croxdale
Powerlifting Ninja
Powerlifting Ninja
Posts: 1109
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:36 am

Re: 1 set vs daily undulating periodization for hypertrophy

Post by Kenny Croxdale » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:24 pm

gringojones wrote:hey board,

let me first say that i am a big fan of this site. very well done.

what is the board's take on 1 set protocal vs daily undulating periodization for hypertrophy? Is anyone one familiar with the most recent research? I've recently been reading that daily undulating (non-linear) periodization beat a 1 set high-intensity protocal in muscular development. I want to say it was an Arizona State Study (Rhea) from 2007.
gringojones,

The General Adaptation Syndorme

One of the keys to making progress is based on Hans Selye's "General Adaptation Syndrome". What is now termed as "Muscle Confusion".

The body goes through three phases (Alarm, Resistance, and Exhaustion). It adapts, grows and then hits the wall.

How long that takes to occur is somewhat dependent on your "Training Age".

The longer you have been training the faster it adapts. That means, you have to change your training program more often.

The newer you are to training, the longer it takes you to adapt. That means, the longer you can use the same program while still making progress.

My Program

My program falls under Non-Linear Periodizaton. Rather than chaning it every day, I change it every three weeks.

I view the first two weeks as "Warm Up" sets for the third week.

Week 1 is my first "Warm Up" set to a new program.

Week 2 is my final "Warm Up" set for my max workout.

Week 3 is the all out effort at whatever I am doing.

So I am proponent of Non-Linear Periodization. However, I question changing it up on a daily baisis, as does Vladimir Zatsiorsky (Science and Practice of Strength Training). I am more in Zatsiorsky's camp.

"If it ain't broke, don't break it."

While some change makes sense, why make changes to a program that is working?

If it is not working, changes definitely need to be made. It is a simple rule that works.

With that said, if I am still making progress on my all out Week 3, I often will extend my program to a 4th Week.
A friend of mind also recently turned me on to Body By Science by Doug McGuff. His ideas about Time Under Load are interesting, but did have some issues "inroading" the few times I tried it out.
Bird of a Feather...

I am not familiar with Doug McGuff. So, I looked him up.

McGuff's book was co-written with John Little. Little is more of a Mike Menter/Authur Jones deciple...believeing you can build massive strength with one set to failure.

Little deals more in "pseudo-science". That meaning the Little binds fact with fiction.

The puzzle in Little's work is in determining which is fact and which is fiction.

Thus, the fact that McGuff co-wrote the book with Little makes the information in it quetionable.

Kenny Croxdale

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6608
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:32 am

Kenny, Dr. Mc Guff is also a Jones disciple. You're correct in your assesment of the Body by Science program.

Locked