Once a week frequency? Why?

[pwr_machine]

The problem is that both those studies are examining strength, which isn't really what we were originally arguing about. It said in the second one, "results showed no significant changes in body mass or body composition."

Here's one that's more pertinent:

McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999.

Although pubmed won't give me the abstract...can anybody help me out with this one?

If you trust Bryan Haycock (HST), this is what he said about it:

If someone finds the article, I'd like to know:

1) How long was the study?
2) How many subjects?
3) What was used to measure LBM?
4) Was there a significant difference in LBM between the groups?

 

[BlkWS6]

I only posted that article relating to strength gains in 1 set vs. multiple sets because the trend of this thread seemed to be heading in the direction of strength (assuming that wasn't what Debaser orginally had in mind).

 

[pwr_machine]

The problem is that both those studies are examining strength, which isn't really what we were originally arguing about.

It's all relevant, good information.

 

[BlkWS6]

Originally posted by pwr_machine
Kramer, James B., Stone, Michael H., O'Bryant, Harold S., Conley, Michael S., Johnson, Robert L., Nieman, David C., Honeycutt, Darren R., Hoke, Thomas P. 1997: Effects of Single vs. Multiple Sets of Weight Training: Impact of Volume, Intensity, and Variation. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 143–147.


ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of a single set of weight training exercise to failure and 2 multiple-set protocols (not to failure) on the 1-RM parallel squat. Forty-three men were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 weight training protocols emphasizing leg and hip strength: SS = single set to failure of 8–12 reps; MS = 3 × 10 reps; MSV = multiple-set program using a varied set and rep scheme. Relative intensity (% initial 1-RM), intensity (average mass lifted), and volume load (repetitions × mass) differed between groups over 14 weeks. Body mass, body composition, and the 1-RM parallel squat were assessed at baseline and at Weeks 5 and 14. Results showed no significant changes in body mass or body composition. The 1-RM squat increased significantly in all groups. Differences in 1-RM between groups indicate that MS and MSV increased approximately 50% more than SS over the 14 weeks. Results suggest that multiple sets not performed to failure produce superior gains in the 1-RM squat.


This study also used trained individuals.

Why did they take the SS group to failure and the MS not to failure in this study? I mean couldn't the main culprit for the SS group's lack of performance be the fact that they took sets to failure? If someone can clear this study up for me a little bit I would appreciate it. So couldnt it be plausible to assume that single sets not to failure might deem the same results as well?

 

[pwr_machine]

Why did they take the SS group to failure and the MS not to failure in this study? I mean couldn't the main culprit for the SS group's lack of performance be the fact that they took sets to failure? If someone can clear this study up for me a little bit I would appreciate it.

Single set to failure vs. multiple set. I don't understand the confusion.

 

[BlkWS6]

My confusion is that the single set is taken to failure, but the multiple sets are not taken to failure. What Im saying is why not keep the failure or lack of failure constant between the two groups? I mean after all arent we testing single set vs. multiple sets? As opposed to failure training vs. sub-maximal training?


"This study examined the effects of a single set of weight training exercise to failure and 2 multiple-set protocols (not to failure) on the 1-RM parallel squat. "

 

[bigguns15]

I just thought I'd chime in and give a little more background on the way I train. It's listed on my website how I do sets and reps and what percentages I use for given weeks. However, it's only my last set of the exercise that is done at my target percentage. So for instance, during week 2 on squats I'm supposed to do 4 x 6 and my target % is 81%, then it's only my last set that is actually 81%. I don't count the other 3 as warm-ups, but they aren't "balls to the wall" either. Even the last set is not one to failure. I can't train to failure, or I will overtrain or peak too soon.

As far as frequency of my lifts, I only do each core lift once per week. However, I do supplemental/skill transfer lifts 2-3 times/week.

My training is also geared for strength, but I've put on a considerable amount of muscle along the way.

 

[bigguns15]

I read over your info on Bigguns15's website, all I can say is a lot more thurough and convincing than the DC info... (lots of people, or I helped some non-descript guy gain 47 pounds-though he was pretty small to start) Nicely done.

....Bigguns15's website at least took a step on that side....

Thanks for browsing through my training section. I'm glad there was some useful information for you. Pwr_machine and I have worked with 50+ lifters, many of which are national champions. Together we devised training cycles that were very similar to the ones I use today. I trust our method of training more than anything else out there.

 

[pwr_machine]

My confusion is that the single set is taken to failure, but the multiple sets are not taken to failure. What Im saying is why not keep the failure or lack of failure constant between the two groups? I mean after all arent we testing single set vs. multiple sets? As opposed to failure training vs. sub-maximal training?
[/B]

I gotcha! I can't speak for the researchers, but I'm guessing that they have evidence that multiple sets are better than single sets...unless you're a beginner. Any training would yield positive results for a beginner. With that established, a single set to failure was compared to multiple sets. And to keep failure or lack of failure constant, could you really perform multiple sets to failure? If so, is it really failure? You bring up good points.

 

[b fold the truth]

I agree with CCJ 100%...still.

B True