If you’ve been keeping even a distant eye on the bodybuilding community, you’ve likely come across discussions (read: heated debates) on the issue of single vs. multiple sets.
Single set training, a variation of which is referred to as HIT (High Intensity Training), is characterized by maximal efforts performed in one set. Multiple set training, also termed “volume training,” is lifting which involves multiple sets of usually sub-maximal efforts.
For the casual observer and the less seasoned lifter, the question might simply be “How many sets are optimal for strength gains?“Now obviously there are many permutations of each method which complicates things from a “which one’s better” perspective. Compound that with differing needs, goals and a near-infinite amount of periodization methods, and you have a recipe for a complicated discussion.
Thankfully, there are people out there who are way smarter than I to navigate through the subject, look at the data through a fine-toothed comb, and come up with some conclusions.
The Research
In this case that individual is James Kreiger, M.S., whose findings are published in the October issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. James was kind enough to share the data with me. Here are some snippets of his findings.
The issue with previous meta-analyses (compilation of studies) on the subject is, that many of the studies included did not control diligently enough for variables.
This analysis only included studies that met very strict criteria – most notably those studies that compared only single vs. multiple sets, whilst keeping other variables constant.
What is the Magic Number of Sets?
When things were whittled down, 14 studies with 30 treatment arms made the cut. Here is what the data revealed:
- The 2-3 set groups experienced 46% greater strength gains than the 1 set groups.
- These strength gains were attained in both trained and untrained individuals (which contradicts previous research).
- No further benefits were observed beyond 3 sets – although the author was cautious here noting that there were very few well controlled studies that looked at 4+ sets.
Practical Application
- When training to get stronger, strive for 3 sets.
- The author notes that single sets can improve strength and save time, but may not be optimal for improvement.
- What about performing a single set of 3 different exercises for the same muscle group? According to Krieger, his analysis did not show a significant effect. He notes that if you want to improve a certain lift, you are most likely to improve by performing more sets of that exercise.
Final Thoughts
Any strength training effort is beneficial. In the end you have to look at what you are trying to accomplish.
This analysis makes a very compelling case for using multiple sets vs. a single set for optimal strength gains. And presumably if you are lifting weights, strength gains are a good thing!
Nutrition also plays a big key in gaining strength. Supplementing with amino acids like Maxiraw amino acids or protein can help give muscles the raw materials needed for development.
Ad hominium fallacies and countless amounts of irrelevant premise is stated by all in this forum is staggering. About 25 percent of the information posted after this article is irrelevant to it or a disscussion about it. It seems to be a discussion on irrelavant pendant biases. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE PROOF for any of this, only probability, which will be lacking because GENETICS, TIME and the EFFECTS TIME HAS ON GENETICS are variables that make it impossible to truly and acurately make conclusive assumptions that carry over to everyone. Its just the way it is. Listen to your body and see how you react, it will be all the proof one needs. A study that claims to proove something in relation to something to which we only have a quanitive understanding of to begin with is, is flawed. Not to mention the affects of state of mind, or “mental health,”. Way to much to interject and argue about, to come up with something that can be considered “the most optimal,” or whatever you want to call it.
You’re suggesting that a pursuit is a waste of time, and then generalising this as a character flaw of an entire population. You are then surprised that this arrogant viewpoint generates a negative reaction. You dismiss evidence which propels understanding.
I’m sure there are activities you participate in which have no rational benefit, and purely take place on the basis of your ego and drive for accomplishment. This is a human trait which economists have recognised for a long time.
Ever heard of the west point experiment in 1975? Jones did what most researchers in this field have never done. He put his money where his mouth is. The man spent over 100mil of his own.Most if not all exercise science is nothing more than complete BS.Most research is never done and when done it’s never in a controlled environment.
finally a voice of reason.. I have been a great advocate of Jones for years. And have helped many bodybuilders and people with their conserns about strentgh and health to train harder and using less sets and all have made in roads with their personal programs. Some have strayed {flex and weider mag fever} but most stay on a sane course.
another complete idiot”where just trying to get fit” I have seen some of the so called idiots as yourself trying to get fit.Most if not all have no idea what to do once you enter a gym and better for us all when you exit. The amount of time spent on treadmill’s or eliptical machines is absolutly more then a waste of time that you were all better off climbing the stairs with a bag of grocery’s and cheaper on your pocket book to “no gym membership”
Dr Brown how is it counterproductive to have more lean muscle on ones phyical structure. And name me one activity that it interferes with?
James,
Arthur Jones never proved such a thing at all, let alone “conclusively.”
***************
I have trained in the martial arts for over 30 years and owned fitness centers in Arizona and Florida. My own experience verifies those conclusions.
****************
Unless you’re tracking every single person in those fitness centers each day, and exactly how they’re training, and then statistically comparing the results of different programs, then your experience really doesn’t mean anything.
*************
It’s idiotic stuff like this that holds back the development of physical conditioning.
****************
No, it’s pseudoscience and dogma that hold back the development of physical conditioning.
This is absolute and total BS. Author Jones, inventor of Nautilus has proven conclusively that a single set of circuit training with no breaks or multiple sets provides the best muscular development and strength gains.
I have trained in the martial arts for over 30 years and owned fitness centers in Arizona and Florida. My own experience verifies those conclusions.
It’s idiotic stuff like this that holds back the development of physical conditioning.