Which Strength Training is Best: Single or Multiple Sets?
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.
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.
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!
39 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
This may sound funny coming from someone with a science background - but who cares? The issue at hand is a consistent variety of activity. Optimal strength is a ridiculous thing to pursue for most of us. How about optimal health, which involves getting stronger.
For one, variety of exercise (read: balanced musculature) is FAR more important than brute strength in a particular muscle group.
Those that are already well balanced out, have good cardiovascular health, and functional flexibility / ROM can think about "optimal strength". What percentage of the population is that?
This is another result of our nation's / world' obsession with elitism. Thinking about a competitive thing like "the most" strength, instead of how usable the strength we have is.
ReplyNobody is suggesting focusing on brute strength in a particular muscle group. Where did you get that from?
A balanced musculature is obviously important or injury is inevitable.
Also, nobody needs much strength at all in today's modern society. Just enough to maintain bone density and a good posture.
Screw that. I want to be brutally strong for no other reason than that I CAN. I don't need it. I write software for a living. I *WANT* it. My body can achieve it and so I will. End of story.
Worry about your own motives instead of everyone else's.
ReplyYou are a VERY nasty piece of work. If there is asshole in the dictionary, it's your picture in it.
ReplyWhat did I say that you find "nasty"?
ReplySounds like I touched a nerve, Barry! I think it is telling that you responded with anger and got personal.
My only point was that we are putting the emphasis in the wrong place FIRST. Not that brute strength has no merits. You can see the results of this in any doctor's, physical therapist's, chiropractor's office in America.
Are we talking health or ego-feeding? Because I can tell you that ego-feeding has probably been the most PHYSICALLY destructive thing in fitness. If we are talking health, variety and consistency of exercise will be FAR more effective.
Barry, I have been there and done that. I have squatted almost 3 times my body weight. I have worked out with bodybuilders, pro athletes, the whole nine. I have gone through that period in my life where I trained every day, hard. I have also approached my workout from a more health-conscious perspective and been not only healthier, but an even better athlete because of it.
So, from someone who has seen both sides of the equation, maybe consider my viewpoint without being reactionary and spewing venom.
ReplyEVERYONE has muscle imbalances. In fact, two groups: the deconditioned and the amateur weightlifter that have the biggest imbalances usually.
HA! Holy shit I think I agree with Bary. The world is coming to an end.
Kwame, what the hell do you mean WHO CARES. From experience let me tell you that more than 50% of the male population CARES. A nation obsessed with elitism?
Thank god people actually want to achieve something BIGGER in life than be average.
---
ReplySpeaking of the study. DUH! One set is only effective if you're going to do a super set, rest-pause set, or drop-set. You CNS barely gets activated with one set, let alone achieving enough muscle stimulation to trigger growth or significant improvements in strength.
Not talking about being average. Just talking about a process of one thing being more important than another. And yes, this nation has an issue with elitism. And yes, this is evident in the fitness field that I have worked in over a decade at every level.
Thanks Mr. Howard for writing the other articles that you have. There is a lot of GREAT stuff on this website.
I am not here casting aspersions, only sharing some observations I have made as a professional. Those that are putting this in a "negative" light as if I am attacking you or your choices...I feel sorry for you. Judging you is neither in my interest nor am I qualified to. I am simply stating that there are consqeucnes to our fitness approach, that are actually quite obvious if you look around.
ReplyThere's nothing wrong with trying to get the most out of your training sessions. For most people that have progressed beyond their 'newbie gains', making gains in strength and size is very difficult. And since when does optimizing your gains exclude working out in a balanced way? Somehow, I doubt that many of us are professional powerlifters with these so-called muscle imbalances you are referring to.
ReplyTonyK:
Maximizing gains HAS happened to the exclusion of working out in a balanced way. That's just my point.
No, it doesn't have to. But our focus as a fitness field has overwhelmingly been on maximization of one area or another, and not on balance.
there are always trade offs, and I am here trying to educate people on what those trade-offs are.
Furthermore, for those adding hypertrophy to the conversation: The VAST majority of human beings have NO NEED for purposeful hypertrophy. It is completely counterproductive to health and most activities.
Exceptions: NFL (some positions), wrestlers (sometimes), bodybuilders (always), powerlifters.
If you are not one of those, you don't need it. Should you want it, make sure that all the positive gains that feed the ego don't negatively impact your health. Just advice, not an attack! If you do feel that you are being attacked by these comments however, I strongly suggest taking a look at what you're doing - you probably already harbor negative feelings toward it.
ReplyThanks for your comments Kwame! Your thoughts are well-taken. This particular post is definitely more specialized and focused than usual.
I'm glad you bring about a more global perspective - one in which I absolutely agree with. Balance, ROM/mobility, postural work - all nuts/bolts componenents to any comprehensive program. It is important not to lose sight of these for sure!
Again thanks for your comments.
ReplyI couldn't agree more with Dr. Brown, although I also think "optimal" strength should be reworded to "maximal" strength as being a ridiculous thing to pursue for most of us (as he notes below in one of his follow-up comments).
We tend to have tunnel vision here in America, focusing on things like strength, hypertrophy, fat loss, and cardio capacities - when our physical state is so much more broad and complex. Men tend to put muscle size before basic mobility and health, and I think it's more of a cultural issue than an issue of science.
Back to the article, this research confirms what I've always heard from coaches and other research studies in the past: both single set and multiple set training will improve strength specific to the exercises being performed - the latter will improve it moreso.
ReplyI work from home, so i'll typically lift 3 sets but spread out over the entire day, usually 2-3 hours apart starting at lunch. These are fairly high intensity sets, but the breaks in between give me time to recover for the next one. This isn't really by design, I work from home and walk by the weights on my way upstairs, so when I go up for lunch or breaks i'm reminded to get a set in.
I don't know if this method is better or worse, I'm cutting calories right now so I'm not seeing big results, but either way it's more convenient for me.
ReplySounds like, instead of overfatiguing your muscles, you are just being more active and requiring strength throughout your day. Probably more in tune with how we're set up.
ReplyOuch Barry... I think Dr. Brown was just making the argument that "functional strength" (as the newest buzz word terms it) is more important than strictly muscle building. But... I agree with you that it does matter to some people...
Replyespecially when you want to maximize your workout time to see results.
Barry is the resident asshole troll, don't pay any attention to him.
ReplySince I'm in the game of hypertrophy-specific training rather than training for strength, I'm definitely in favor of several sets. I still haven't found much that contends with 8 sets of 8 reps.
ReplyWhen I do strength training, I'm not looking to set any kind of lifting records or anything, but I do want to maintain my bone density and have enough strength to lift heavy bags of groceries and stuff like that. I've always done 2-3 sets of 8-10 reps of a weight that's heavy enough to fatigue my muscles by that point. I've never done more than 3 sets of any exercise, even though freaks like Tracey Anderson do things like that...it always did seem sort of pointless to me.
ReplyI like to change up my training so I mix it up but I have never done the 1 set stuff. I am not into this for super strength or power. I did amateur bodybuilding years ago & I used multiple sets then & made good gains. Now, I mix it up, as I said, circuit train & whatever else I can do to keep the body guessing.
Kwame, I always appreciate your perspective & the fact that you provide not only CONSTRUCTIVE advice but in a manor that is not rude.
Reply@ Dr. Kwame,
Here are some archived articles I've penned on strength training that cover more of broader/balanced aspect of strength training.
http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2008/02/05/training_your_weak_links_upper_body.php
http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2008/02/06/training_your_weak_links_lower_body.php
http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2009/02/03/10_essentials_of_strength_training.php
http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2007/11/01/5-step_guide_to_basic_weight_training.php
This particular post was breaking down a meta-analysis and the information does cater more to those who are looking for optimal strength. I agree that this should not be pursued in the absence of other components within the realm of strength training nor within the more global aspects of health.
Your opinion is always appreciated!
ReplyIf you use 1 set to complete failure like Arthur Jones had his students do, then you will see gains. It's really hard to do a set to failure by yourself and also to do it in the time he prescribes ( so slow ), I don't have the patience unless I was being pushed by a partner or trainer. So, I think most people don't execute the 1 set properly. I think for people with limited time, keeping toned (not bodybuilding or strength traing for a sport) then the 1 set can be ideal. The set should be high intensity and done with proper form, and very slow. Maybe more people would continue on a program like this and not get bored and sick of working out for a couple of hours at a clip and quit. Sometimes less is more.
ReplyHaving spent the last 16 years working in the industry, I'd like to throw in the following conclusions from my own perspective. Plateaus are hit quite briefly (matter of months) with multiple sets and so periodization and variety of routines are required in an attempt to maintain progression. However all strength training is specific to the action being performed - change the action and you will progress with another regime whilst remaining static or regressing in your previous.In order to achieve the 5 componants of fitness:composition,flexibility,strength,power and cardio-endurance I have found super slow single set based on a single strength training session per week to be optimal. Genetic potential can be achieved in 2 - 3 years, the routine (6 stations-20 mins total) should never need to change and I can guarantee progression every week - this is something which no other consistant training program I have worked with can provide...but it requires a trainer to enforce rapid-relaxed breathing and take you through the burn in the safest way known (I have never once through the years encountered a single injury whilst performing this method). The heart and lungs work to peak performance for 20 solid minutes and as their purpose is the sustanance and transport to and from muscles - to achieve your genetic potential through resistance training also leads to more than functional stamina. 20 minutes once a week - no plateaus and ability to sustain lean tissue throughout life.
ReplyDr. Kwame M. Brown wrote: "The VAST majority of human beings have NO NEED for purposeful hypertrophy. It is completely counterproductive to health and most activities".
Why do you say that it is counterproductive to health?
Reply(only read this if your primary goal is health, which is what I think this blog is about. If your goal is something else and you don't care about health as your primary, then what I say doesn't matter)
Because:
1) So much extra energy must be consumed to support the extra muscle.
2) It impacts the joints when people force hypertrophy. I'm not talking steroids here, just overfeeding. Over time, the joints will be impacted adversely.
3) Everyone has a genetic code. The body will streamline accordingly. Some people will be bigger naturally, and that is their body's natural state. If someone isn't hugely muscular from just being athletic in general, they probably shouldn't be. Every system will be affected by forcing an alternate body type. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
4) My only point has been: people should exercise consistently and vigorously, but shouldn't (if their goal is health) have as their PRIMARY goal maximum strength or maximum hypertrophy
This is just my opinion, but it is an opinion forged from a good deal of education and experience, both as an instructor and athlete.
Reply"Those that are putting this in a "negative" light as if I am attacking you or your choices...I feel sorry for you"
Pathetic. Don't feel sorry for me when your wall of text is desperately trying to justify and defend a point you made. I don't feel attacked nor threatened. It's a forum. Get real.
"I am simply stating that there are consequences to our fitness approach, that are actually quite obvious if you look around"
Yeah you know what else is OBVIOUS? The size of the people, which is why I stated your thoughts on elitism is off the mark. Extreme problems sometimes need extreme solutions.
And please don't express your opinion then expect for others NOT to respond...they will. And more importantly, don't follow up by trying come off as mr.neutral. That's just so... BORING. This place needs some spicing up anyway. Grow a pair!
ReplyIn response to your earlier comment'Your CNS barely gets activated with one set, let alone achieving enough muscle stimulation to trigger growth or significant improvements in strength', I have never witnessed such a high increase in strength gains by everyone who trained single set across the board...without exception. Slow reps, maximum tissue activation and then recover for anywhere between 3 - 7days. Intensity is lost or overtraining ensues on anyone performing additional sets. All or nothing is the only way the body can consistantly adapt to stimulus, year after year until gentic potential is achieved.After all, any increase in LBM and neural stimulation can only be achieved by forcing the body to adapt in a safe and efficient manner.
ReplyGreat comments Academy. What I would like to see in this country is a more fit population regardless of age. The obesity problem is affectig all of us, especially in our health care costs. I believe a routine performed with 1 set to failure,Artur Jones approach, would be the best for the general populis. The workout would be much quicker, focused, and less boring for most people. Hopefully results would follow and people would stick to a routine that was short and complete. Get the kids involved, especially in the schools that took away physical education. Exercise is fertilizer for the brain. So brief intense properly supervised workouts would keep more people in the gym. I'm not talking about the avid, weightlifter but the average person who lacks any physical activity.
Reply"After all, any increase in LBM and neural stimulation can only be achieved by forcing the body to adapt in a safe and efficient manner."
>>Yeah no sh*t, hence why one set isn't enough unless it's a super set, rest-pause set, or drop-set. Tempo is also very critical, specially the eccentric phase of a lift.
LBM is obviously increased when you have more muscle, which means you need to trigger hypertrophy... and hypertrophy favors volume, specifically at an intensity of 70-80% of your 1RM.
But then there is also a weird phenomenon where it's shown that almost ANY type of new training stimulus is effective for the first 2 weeks... so it's what you do AFTER that which counts, or you need to change it up. But this is easily solved with progressive overload.
ReplyFunny that you would respond to someone saying you are getting angry by writing angry words, and then insulting the person...If you have the right to respond, do I not have the right to defend my viewpoint? Can't have it both ways, man.
Anyway, extreme solutions to extreme problems tend to create more extreme problems.
Extreme solutions to obesity create eating disorders, body dysmorphism, unrealistic expectations for one's life, etc.
Just trying to make some points here on stuff I have seen after a long time in the business.
My only point from the beginning was to concentrate on training in a functional way first, before "optimization". It works better. I never said that optimization of strength or hypertrophy was a bad thing. That is an interpretation made by others. All I said was that most people don't need it, and given that I spend the better part of my day trying to fix the aftermath of the strength / hypertrophy optimization approach to exercise, I felt compelled to say a few things.
Reply"Maximizing gains HAS happened to the exclusion of working out in a balanced way. That's just my point."
I agree, it has happened, but you make it sound like working out in a way to maximize your gains will hinder someone from working out in a balanced fashion. Doing 3 sets instead of 1 will somehow make someone workout in an inbalanced fashion? I don't think so. If someone works out in an inbalanced fashion...regardless of whether or not they're maximizing gains, then they need to reevaluate their training program. Reducing the effectiveness of their muscle gains is not the answer. You can still work out effectively as well as in a balanced fashion...It's not rocket science.
Also, you wrote above, "never said that optimization of strength or hypertrophy was a bad thing."
Wow, that's interesting, because in your earlier posts you said,
"optimal strength is a ridiculous thing to pursue for most of us."
"The VAST majority of human beings have NO NEED for purposeful hypertrophy. It is completely counterproductive to health and most activities."
I don't know about you, but something that is counterproductive sounds bad.
Purposeful hypertrophy? LoL, so you're one of those who believes that muscle size and strength have very little to do with one another? OK, whatever doc. so you don't think sarcopenia is an issue as one ages. Check.
I think FitJerk said it best...
"your wall of text is desperately trying to justify and defend a point you made. I don't feel attacked nor threatened. It's a forum. Get real."
You opened with a very weak position and anyone in the fitness industry would be able to smell BS from a mile away. You think that just because this is diet-blog and not Lyle McDonald's Body Recomp, you can impress some of the readers with these lines of thought, which quite frankly are outdated.
ReplyOnce again, you are making this an adversarial thing. My ego is not involved here. I could care less about impressing someone. Before you say "anyone in the fitness field would smell this B.S. a mile away", Google me. check my credentials. Match yours up and ask if it's even possible I could know a little bit more. If not, then go with what you think. If so, then consider my point of view (or not).
Again, we don't disagree on the fact that someone will build muscle and strength from exercise. The point being made was that MAXIMIZING those two qualities should not be the focus. If I made that point poorly, my fault.
"Optimal strength is a ridiculous thing to pursue for most of us" - I should have used the term maximal. extremely poor choice of words on my part. Apologies.
Again, my points were being made from the point of view of optimizing health. For that purpose, many of these practices are by point of fact counterproductive. Again, if your primary goal is to get big and strong and optimal health is on the back burner, then that's fine. But I thought this blog was about health, not competition. If I am mistaken, my apologies.
For you to say my position was weak - again, show me where your knowledge and experience trumps my own, and I will consider that judgement. And I truly mean that, not being smart-alecky. If you choose to interpret it like that still, then that's where you're coming from.
Furthermore:
"Counterproductive sounds bad". That doesn't mean bad. If I meant bad or horrible, I would have said bad or horrible. My point was it is unnecessary to make hypertrophy and maximal strength gain the crux of one's program. Once again an example of you and a couple of others looking at things in terms of black and white, right and wrong. The answers are quite a bit more complex than that.
Reply"The point being made was that MAXIMIZING those two qualities should not be the focus. If I made that point poorly, my fault."
Fair enough. The original article was about doing 3 sets vs. 1 set. I just think that one can definitely have a training program that effectively builds muscle and ALSO promotes health. But I agree that health and preventing injury should always be given highest priority for most of us (i.e., non-professional lifters & bodybuilders).
And as for your chest-thumping with resume in hand, well, let's just say that in the interest of preventing this from becoming a total pissing contest, I'll limit my comments to the following. It doesn't matter what kind of a star you are in the fitness/medical field. We all have our own credentials to boast about....and just because you feel proud about yours doesn't mean you are never wrong. It's absurd for a professional in the industry to respond with "show me where your knowledge and experience trumps my own, and I will consider that judgement." Wow...just wow is all I can say. I can easily flex my own resume and use it as a crutch to help me argue with people, but screw that. Dismissing anything anyone else has to say just because I don't feel their credentials matches up to mine is bush league.
ReplyI think Barry and some of the other muscle-heads would be better off posting their inane drivel on T-Nation rather then this site. Most of us here are not looking to build massive amounts of muscle for the heck of it. We're just trying to get fit.
ReplyLOL. Look at my blog. I'm far from a "muscle head" and I can't stand T-Nation.
Try again, smart guy.
Reply"...do I not have the right to defend my viewpoint?"
> Doc, are you even READING what I'm saying or is your head so far up your behind that you are getting confused? I WANTED you to defend your point instead of being all mr.neutral about it. Sh*t. Some people and their word twisting.
"given that I spend the better part of my day trying to fix the aftermath of the strength / hypertrophy optimization approach to exercise.."
> Yeah, let me interview these tool bags and look at their workout plan. You know what I'll find? Either they were too new and didn't know what they were doing. Idiotically lifted more weight than they could because they didn't know their own body limits, or were just consumed by their ego in the gym. The point is the f**ked up, big time.
"Google me. check my credentials..."
> Degrees don't really impress me in this field since the stuff they teach is outdated anyways. When I was in school they were still saying how low intensity, long duration cardio was the hands down best way to burn fat. Morons.
And Arrow, comon now. You're "just trying to get fit"? Well guess what? Your going to have to pack on some muscle there buddy and drop the body fat. Don't get this confused with me trying to say you need to pack on bodybuilder-like mass, no. LMB is KEY if you wan to get and look "fit".
I'm not huge, but I'm ripped. I stay that way for a reason, but I've been bigger and I've helped dudes get bigger, ain't nothing wrong with that.
ReplyFitjerk - news for you - I am packing on muscle, but I have no delusions about "getting huge". I'm not into ECA stacks, protein powders and the like. I'm doing it my way, and I'm very satisfied so far. I'd rather diversify my workouts with plyometrics rather then up the volume of weight lifting.
ReplyRight on Arrow. If your packing on some muscle then Im happy. You've made me OH so proud ;)
But that's good to hear. And I'm a HUGE fan of plyo (in case you didn't know). I'm a tumbler and I coach gymnastics... so it's invaluable. Try the advanced plyo routine on the blog. If I don't hear from you, I know you didn't make it. >:)
ReplyResponse to FJ comment "Yeah no sh*t, hence why one set isn't enough unless it's a super set, rest-pause set, or drop-set. Tempo is also very critical, specially the eccentric phase of a lift" - all are forms of Nautilus advanced strength training protocols...however as you have rightly mentioned Tempo is critical. Super Slow across the board is where I have witnessed NO strength plateaus being met until at least 18 - 24 months down the line after which point it is fair to say genetic potential is achieved. Achieving weight increases on stations of between 2 and 4lbs every week and it soon adds up - most guys would like to achieve an extra 144 - 288lbs on any given major muscle group - (increase strength and you know what happens to LBM)and this has been achieved time after time. Back to the title: single set (super slow to be specific)all the way throughout life. No repetitive impact on ligaments,tendons or joints as we age - just pure lean tissue overload. After 14 months of only training super slow (on top of 15 years with varying forms of training) I have yet to hit a strength plateau and have increased LBM by 15.6lbs after only 56 sessions (1 per week - each lasting 15-18mins): we can all only speak from our own experience in life.
Reply"After 14 months of only training super slow (on top of 15 years with varying forms of training) I have yet to hit a strength plateau and have increased LBM by 15.6lbs after only 56 sessions (1 per week - each lasting 15-18mins):"
>> Very interesting. Well it's no surprise, since eccentric part of a life IS more effective at improving strength and hypertrophy (~6.5%) than the concentric part(~5%) [Higbie 1996] and if you have been lifting slow this make sense.
How much of all this have you been tracking? I'd like to see the numbers since I'm in doing some research on my own and it could come in handy.
I can be a graphs and charts kind of man when the time calls for it. Reaching me is pretty straight forward if you goto my blog so I won't post my email here. Do contact me.
ReplyCongrats on the progress! I think mixing tempo and other periodization tools will certainly enhance progression.
On the other hand, the bulk of the literature does not support slow tempo vs. regular tempo training any more than it supports HIT vs. volume.
I wouldn't change either though if that's what was getting me results.
Reply