One-set vs. multi-set training

Discussion of peer refereed articles and clinical applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, darshana, stuward

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

One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by Jungledoc » Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:19 pm

A friend of my son's passed this article to me. It's great to know that Sam is lifting with guys who know how to read!

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/strengt ... rategy-105

This addresses the old one-set vs. multi-set training controversy, and cites some articles that seem to favor multi-set.
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

FitJackJoe
n00b
n00b
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:44 am

Re: One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by FitJackJoe » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:46 pm

What about the latest(is it?) meta-analysis from Kreiger JW. with the conclusion that 2-3 sets produced 46% greater increases in strength (1) and 40% higher increases in muscle hypertrophy (2).

I am really confused, is it only 0-10% gain (which wouldn't be relevant for me) or there is significant improvement with the added set/s?

(1) Kreiger JW., Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Sep; 23(6): 1890-901

(2) Kreiger JW., Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr; 24(4): 1150-9

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6635
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by stuward » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:00 pm

In the article Doc offered, they talked about one study that found no difference but offered no numbers and no link to the study. Then it offered contrary evidence that showed a benefit of multi sets, and concluded there was a significant advantage. Your articles agree with that. I don't see anywhere a reference to "0-10% gain". The first study mentioned found no difference but didn't explain furtehr. The only reference to 10% was this "maximal strength in the bench press increased by 10% in the three-set group but did not increase significantly in either the one-set lifters or the controls." That was a 6 week study. I don't know about you but if I had a choice between no progress and 10% improvement in 6 weeks, I would consider that huge.

I think that you're comparing relative increases with absolute increases. The 10% in the first article was an absolute increase. I assume the numbers in your example were relative.
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

FitJackJoe
n00b
n00b
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:44 am

Re: One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by FitJackJoe » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:11 pm

Oh, my bad. Not 10, but 5%.

I'm talking about "Low-Volume, Progressive-Intensity Training" article on this (ExRx) site.
"By performing an additional set (50% to 100% more sets) only 0 to 5% more progress will be observed. Each additional set yields even less progress to a point of diminishing return. The time saved with an abbreviated weight training program can often be used more wisely elsewhere in a program."
I just don't understand. Was Doc sarcastic and he (and others on this site/forum) are in favor of 1 set training or he was serious and doesn't approve 1 set?

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6635
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by stuward » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:41 pm

The information in that article came from a 1995 paper by ACSM. Perhaps newer studies are improving our knowledge base. Doc has been known to be sarcastic from time to time. If you check his log, he is not opposed to multiple sets.
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Oscar_Actuary
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2406
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by Oscar_Actuary » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:10 pm

Doc's use of sarcasm often offends me

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6635
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by stuward » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:35 pm

Oscar_Actuary wrote:Doc's use of sarcasm often offends me
Yah, but you're thin skinned.
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

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

Re: One-set vs. multi-set training

Post by Jungledoc » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:48 pm

1. In my original post, I was not being sarcastic about anything. I don't see anything there that you might have taken as sarcasm, but if you follow what I write I can see how you'd come to expect it.

2. In my original post I wasn't expressing a preference either way, just stating that here was a review of articles on the topic.

3. I favor multi-set routines, but would train single-set if I had very limited time.

4. My use of sarcasm is often intended to offend Oscar. It's one of my few sources of pleasure in life.
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

Post Reply