Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....

[Zander1983]

Like other posters, I'm not encouraging you to try a powerlifting split. I am encouraging you to do something very well rounded that's going to hit the most variety of fiber types to promote the best possible growth...and of course, recovery.

Want it all.

Periodization.

 

[collegiateLifter]

Re: Re: Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....

I believe you're still using too much volume. Consider this: If it's been proven, both scientifically and in the real world, that you can profit just as much from 1-3 sets as you can from 5+ sets, then why should you do the latter?

i now really like DC training but the statements presented are false.

It has NEVER been PROVEN that x sets equals better or equal gains. To attempt to prove such causation, when taking in genetics and fitness levels of various individuals would require a scientific epic that has not yet been undertaken. If low volume training was always equal or better, then atleast some champion olympic power athletes would be training as such and none are.

Furthermore, by definition, you CANNOT prove that 1-3 sets is just as effective as 5+. By the very virtue of inductive reasoning, you can only show one to be better than the other or present that there is a lack of evidence for any conclusion. You can't affirm the null hypothesis.

 

[Mike_Rojas]

Re: Re: Re: Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....

i now really like DC training but the statements presented are false.

It has NEVER been PROVEN that x sets equals better or equal gains. To attempt to prove such causation, when taking in genetics and fitness levels of various individuals would require a scientific epic that has not yet been undertaken. If low volume training was always equal or better, then atleast some champion olympic power athletes would be training as such and none are.

Furthermore, by definition, you CANNOT prove that 1-3 sets is just as effective as 5+. By the very virtue of inductive reasoning, you can only show one to be better than the other or present that there is a lack of evidence for any conclusion. You can't affirm the null hypothesis.

Amen. Thank you.

 

[SofaGeorge]

Re: Re: Re: Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....

i now really like DC training but the statements presented are false.

It has NEVER been PROVEN that x sets equals better or equal gains. To attempt to prove such causation, when taking in genetics and fitness levels of various individuals would require a scientific epic that has not yet been undertaken. If low volume training was always equal or better, then atleast some champion olympic power athletes would be training as such and none are.

Furthermore, by definition, you CANNOT prove that 1-3 sets is just as effective as 5+. By the very virtue of inductive reasoning, you can only show one to be better than the other or present that there is a lack of evidence for any conclusion. You can't affirm the null hypothesis.

More important is the point that any given study does not prove a theory. It only shows how the percentages rolled for that particular study.

There have been many cases in the medical and scientific journals where study conclusions were dead wrong because of an unrecognized variable.

Hence, we have theories... never proofs.

 

[Debaser]

Re: Re: Re: Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....

i now really like DC training but the statements presented are false.

It has NEVER been PROVEN that x sets equals better or equal gains. To attempt to prove such causation, when taking in genetics and fitness levels of various individuals would require a scientific epic that has not yet been undertaken. If low volume training was always equal or better, then atleast some champion olympic power athletes would be training as such and none are.

Furthermore, by definition, you CANNOT prove that 1-3 sets is just as effective as 5+. By the very virtue of inductive reasoning, you can only show one to be better than the other or present that there is a lack of evidence for any conclusion. You can't affirm the null hypothesis.

Actually I believe casual posted a study that affirms almost complete diminishing returns after the 3rd set. I can't find it off hand, however.

Moreover, the increased gains are also proven by logic, per se. If you can train more, you can grow more. Let's use an example. We'll say that each day of HST training, you only made 50% possible gains (and this is GROSSLY underexagerrated, it's probably closer to 90-95%) compared to a once a week intense volume session. Even then, you're still growing more overall.

Couple this with the fact that many people overtrain by doing intense volume with many sets to failure 4-5 days a week. They are so burned out that their nervous system is constantly drained, and they are gaining nothing.

Regarding olympic lifters, do you think that they have a hypertrophy focus? Because that's what we're talking about here.

 

[casualbb]

Curto MA., Fisher MM. The effect of single vs. Multiple sets of resistance exercise on strength in trained males. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S114, 1999

Basically, they took a group of already trained clients (not n00bs). They had the subjects perform either one set or three sets of bench press, incline dumbbell press and flat dumbbell flies using ten reps, three times per week for 12 weeks.

So equal frequency, but one group did 9 total sets and the other did 3 total.

Researchers found that one set of each was just as effective as three for increasing bench press 1RM strength. I'm not sure exactly but I think that the higher volume group had <5% greater strength increases (so more volume DOES equal higher strength), but it was within a range that wasn't "statistically significant."

Hence the diminishing returns thing. Of course this doesn't prove that less volume is better for gaining mass, just strength when comparing relative volumes of 9 to 3 on a frequent program.

But low volume does tend to go hand-in-hand with higher frequecy. There IS a study showing that when you take the volume most do on a once-a-week program and distribute it on three days of the week it results in greater increases of mass and strength:

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

So it's all a balancing act. The body is pretty complicated. Actually frequency being equal, the program with more volume will result in greater increases in mass and probably strength. Frequency being equal, that is.

-casual

 

[louden_swain]

I perform 1 set per exercise. . .probably 6 or 7 sets the entire workout.

Also, 4 to 5 bodyparts for each training session.

 

[guldukat]

Re: Re: Re: Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....

i now really like DC training but the statements presented are false.

Hmm...let me shut up a second. You still have the floor

It has NEVER been PROVEN that x sets equals better or equal gains. To attempt to prove such causation, when taking in genetics and fitness levels of various individuals would require a scientific epic that has not yet been undertaken.

I hate to pull a Bill Clinton here, but it's important to very precisely define what you mean by "proof" and "better."

That is, have I seen some kind of "proof" that a single set of an exercise can be significantly better than, say, three sets?

Yes, but it's strictly empirical, and not "better" because the single set causes more or even equal growth (though I do think the second and third efforts aren't going to stimulate significantly more growth).

No: it's better because you can do it more often. 3 sets just digs a really deep hole. While you're busy digging out of that, the 1 set guy is rarin' to go.

So that's a different context than I think you, and most people, had in mind, not to mention that it's not verified by a study (though I hardly see that as a big deal...I'm strictly substance over style, and empirical evidence is plenty good for me).

However, I think it is by far the most relevant way to approach the no. of sets question, because the typical 1 vs. 2+ is all hung up on maximizing growth on a single workout basis, something that tends to lose sight of the big picture.

If low volume training was always equal or better, then atleast some champion olympic power athletes would be training as such and none are.

I might disagree here. We already know it can be at least as productive as higher volume protocols, if only given the success of folks like myself on DC and similar forms of training where we had failed on higher volume protocols.

And I think it's a false dilemma to think the one set's effectiveness could hinge on whether or not Olympic athletes find some merit behind low volume.

That is, there are other choices such a dichotomy shouldn't, but does, exclude, not the least of which is the fact that many of these power athletes, like the weightlifters, need more than just raw muscle and strength. They need skill that simply can't be had with a single set here and there.

We were talking about muscle and strength gains, not skills. Anyone who uses that as proof of multi-set superiority is tossing in a red herring.

Furthermore, by definition, you CANNOT prove that 1-3 sets is just as effective as 5+. By the very virtue of inductive reasoning, you can only show one to be better than the other or present that there is a lack of evidence for any conclusion. You can't affirm the null hypothesis.

I'm a bit confused by this.

If someone set about demonstrating as much, how would showing the two are equal a potential "you can't prove a negative!" scenario?

Here again, one must define "better" as well, lest they fall prey to, ironically, the fallacies of weak induction

 

[SofaGeorge]

I still come back to the point that the greatest value in this discussion is what it represents to sedentary adults. You have a huge population that doesn't do jack sh-t. If they would just do 1 set of 3-4 exercises a week they could gain a tremendous improvement in muscle mass and strength. What would that take them? 5 minutes a week?

A modified version of DC could have HUGE social impact.

 

[Backlash]

I still come back to the point that the greatest value in this discussion is what it represents to sedentary adults. You have a huge population that doesn't do jack sh-t. If they would just do 1 set of 3-4 exercises a week they could gain a tremendous improvement in muscle mass and strength. What would that take them? 5 minutes a week?

A modified version of DC could have HUGE social impact.

I totally agree. Lately (last few years) there has been a big push (at least in the US) to get ppl doing even a little bit of cardio. By saying that as little as 10 mins at a time 3 times a week gives a huge benefit, they are getting more and more "lazy" people out there walking.

The same approach could certainly work for lifting and get more people involved. Most people have the idea that you have to work your ass off in the gym several days a week for an hour to get benefit. Of course, lots of us come close to that...