Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

High Reps vs. Low Reps...

Mr H

Elite Mentor
Platinum
I got this in my email out of a mailing list. I don't know if any of you will find it interesting or not, but here:


THE SCIENCE BEHIND SETS: HOW MANY SETS ARE OPTIMUM?
By Bob Myhal

I get the question all the time: how many sets per exercise should I do to develop the most mass possible.

The debate basically boils down to the proponents of volume training—who tend to believe that performing 3-4 grueling sets per exercise is the best way to build strength and mass—and those who prefer the high intensity approach of doing just 1 all out set per exercise.

The shouting match between these two camps has at times almost come to blows. Up to this point, however, the science behind sets has been sketchy at best. The good news is things are beginning to become a bit clearer.

A series of studies by Dr. Michael Pollock at the University of Florida were presented at the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise: Supplement 30(5); 116 & 165, 1998). The studies scientifically compared strength and muscle size increases for those performing 1 set versus those doing higher volume 3 set training. Both groups worked within the 8-12 rep range, and sets were taken to failure.

Each of the individual studies in the series measured different aspects of strength and size gains. Here’s some of the key conclusions:

chart.jpg


While the 1 set group did show a significant advantage in one of the protocols, the researchers concluded that overall there wasn’t a statistically significant difference between those using a 1 set to failure program and those following the more traditional 3 sets volume approach.
 
Last edited:
Interesting post - thanks. But was the number of exercises held constant between the two groups? It seems to suggest this.
 
I couldn't just do one set....I like to feel the pump, and leave the gym totally exhausted. ;)
 
This study used sedentary adults as subjects. Due to the fact that these people did not train previously the stress of 3 sets if probably slightly high. Also the single set group should increase more in poundage since they only have to perform one set.
Math:
10repsx100lbsx1sets=1000lbs load
10repsx125lbsx1set=1250lbs load
this = 250lb or (25%increase)
10repsx100lbsx3sets=3000lbs load
10repsx113lbsx3sets=3390lbs load
this = 390lbs or (13%increase)
In the first month of training, most of the lean mass/girth increase is substrate (not muscle), and most of max strength increase is neural not muscular. So that is why the results are so similar. Do the same study over a year or take trained (but rested) athletes and see the results. It would most likely represent an advantage to the multiple set group.:mix:
 
Hmm..

It is a physiological impossibility to knock off all of the motor units in a given muscle with 1 set. In order to achieve the necessary fatigue or TUT with just one set, lighter weights must be used so that higher reps can be made and anything over 5 reps increases sarcoplasmic ( the jelly & gunk) hypertrophy as opposed to myofibular hypertrophy, so it seems that heavy duty etc is more conductive to bodybuilding as opposed to strength training.

jeremy
 
Re: Hmm..

Jeremy21 said:
It is a physiological impossibility to knock off all of the motor units in a given muscle with 1 set. In order to achieve the necessary fatigue or TUT with just one set, lighter weights must be used so that higher reps can be made and anything over 5 reps increases sarcoplasmic ( the jelly & gunk) hypertrophy as opposed to myofibular hypertrophy, so it seems that heavy duty etc is more conductive to bodybuilding as opposed to strength training.

jeremy

Actually YOU CAN EXHAUST muscle in one set (most of it anyhow)!

If you can get the job done in one set, why bother with another?

Like Dorian Yates said

"1 set is enough to send your body a message that it needs to grow. More sets is useless and \make your recovery much harder thus less muscle is actually grown."
 
can't

it violates basic physiology. there ain't no way to exaust all the motor unit pools in a given muscle with 1 set. This is not to say that 1 set to failure protocols suck.. they are just limited is all
 
Top Bottom