[Rocky]

Single Set vs. Multiple Sets for Adult Fitness
By Diego de Hoyos, MS, and Michael L. Pollock, PhD


Both competitive athletes and fitness enthusiasts report improvements in muscular strength and size (hypertrophy) with resistance training programs that require multiple sets (often three to six) per exercise. At the same time, many individuals do not have the time, energy or recuperative power to include a multiple-set-per-muscle-group resistance training program in their overall fitness regimen. Over the last 15 years, several research studies have been published that support the use of low-volume resistance training (one set per exercise) as an effective and efficient alternative to a high-volume program for adult fitness (overall health and physical fitness).


Origin of the Multiple-Set Recommendation
The end of World War II marked the beginning of the modern resistance training era. Thomas DeLorme, MD, an Army rehabilitation expert, experimented with resistance training for the rehabilitation of paratroopers and other soldiers recovering from leg injuries. His early training programs consisted of 10 sets of 10 or more repetitions of leg extensions. These programs produced tremendous increases in leg strength, but many of his patients had difficulty completing the prescribed workouts. Through trial and error, DeLorme and Watkins (1948) found that for increasing leg strength, performing three sets of 10 repetitions was as effective as, and more time efficient than, performing 10 sets. Their decision to recommend three sets of 10 repetitions for a resistance training program was based largely on their observation that individuals could successfully complete the three-set workout.


A study by Berger in 1962 was the first published report to show that three sets per exercise were better for improving strength than one or two sets. (See the chart "Strength Gains with 1 Set, 2 Sets or 3 Sets of Resistance Training.") In Berger's study, the three-set training group achieved significantly greater one-repetition maximum (1 RM) bench press strength after 12 weeks of training, but the 1 RM difference among the one-, two- and three-set training groups was less than four pounds.




Effects of Low-Volume Training on Muscle Strength
In the 1980s, emphasis shifted toward establishing a "well-rounded" training program that included the three exercise components of endurance, flexibility and strength. Each component had to be streamlined to fit into the total training time most adults had available for exercise. While low-volume, one-set-per-exercise resistance training was clearly more time efficient than multiple-set training, the effectiveness of a low-volume program was not clear.


Seven of the eight studies summarized in the chart on the following pages show similar training adaptations to one-, two- and three-set-per-exercise training programs. The Berger study (1962) is the exception. Subjects for all these studies were adults who were either sedentary or were training for overall fitness prior to the study.


First, it is clear from the chart that one-set training promotes significant increases in strength for both upper- and lower-body muscle groups, as well as postural muscles. Second, overall and per-workout strength increases are similar for one-, two- and three-set training.


Change in muscle strength was the primary focus of these studies, but what about the effect of different training volumes on muscular hypertrophy and endurance? Recent studies show that one-set and three-set training groups show equal improvements in muscular hypertrophy and endurance. Pollock et al. (in press) and Starkey et al. (1996) measured upper- and lower-body muscle thickness, using B-mode ultrasound, and found that both one-set and three-set training groups had similar amounts of hypertrophy after six months (Pollock) and 14 weeks (Starkey) of training. Studies by de Hoyos et al. (1997) and Hass et al. (in press) found that 10 to 13 weeks of training at 8 to 15 RM stimulated large increases in muscular endurance-increases that were similar for both training groups.




Changes Based on Length of Training
Although the research results show very convincingly that one set is generally as effective as three sets per exercise, all these studies were short-term and conducted with individuals who had not previously done resistance training. Studies have recently examined the impact of longer-term training programs and more intense weight loads.


Two studies (de Hoyos et al. in press; Kraemer et al. 1995) compared six to nine months of one-set and multiple-set training. Neither study showed a significant difference between groups after three to four months of training. However, in collegiate tennis players, Kraemer et al. found that only the multiple-set training group continued to significantly increase strength during five additional months of training. For the multiple-set group only, the training program was periodized after the initial four months and included higher-intensity exercise (3-5 RM training loads), which may have stimulated the continued strength gains. In contrast, de Hoyos et al, found continued increases in muscular strength, endurance and hypertrophy in both one-set and three-set training groups during three to six months of training. Improvements were similar for both groups except for chest press endurance, which was greater in the three-set group.


In a third study, Hass et al. (in press) measured training adaptations in 42 experienced resistance trainers. These individuals had been resistance training for an average of six years and had been using one set per exercise for at least one year. Training was closely monitored for 13 weeks, and 21 of these individuals were randomized into a three-set-per-exercise training group. Both groups had similar increases in muscle strength and endurance. Thus, the results showed that even in experienced lifters, additional sets may not improve training results. More research is needed to confirm these findings and to determine which factors are the most effective in stimulating muscular strength, endurance and hypertrophy in long-term programs conducted in the adult fitness setting.


Summary and Recommendations
One-set resistance training has been shown to be an effective and efficient means of increasing muscular strength, endurance and hypertrophy in both novice and experienced resistance trainers. Multiple-set training has not been shown to provide additional benefits in the adult fitness setting. This is consistent with the American College of Sports Medicine's resistance training recommendations for adult fitness: one set of eight to 12 repetitions of eight to 10 exercises that involve all major muscle groups.


Since many adults interested in general fitness cite lack of time to train as the primary reason for discontinuing a program, one-set training may allow for better program adherence. Most of the reviewed studies used the adult fitness training model, which emphasizes a moderate repetition range (eight to 15 reps) to stimulate a balanced improvement in muscular strength and endurance. This type of training program may also prove safer for middle-aged and older adults by reducing the risk of both an acute cardiovascular event and musculoskeletal injury. For the more serious weight lifter or competitive athlete, a periodized, multiple-set program incorporating heavier loads (e.g., 3-6 RM) usually elicits greater gains in strength and power.

[tim290280]

As a review that is really lacking the other studies that show implications of training under submaximal load. Also there is far more than one study on experienced trainees out there that show the benefits of multi sets.

[Rocky]

There's always a study out there that disproves the one you're currently reading, such is the nature of the continuing evolution (or devolution in some cases) of the sport. Still thought it could be a good read though. :)

[tim290280]

I was discussing that with my brother.

It's interesting that this field is becoming less cohesive, more fragmented, and there is worse information being delivered (to the average joe's and jill's). Most other fields have become more efficient, gained better information, and are better organised. Weight training/fitness seems to lack that, especially when myths are still being perpetuated in the industry (let alone to the general public). If you compared fitness to say engineering, you'd find that most research in their field is getting better and more precise, fitness is still promoting not getting bulky like those people who lift weights (oh if only it was that simple).

[canablistic_Turnip]

Single Vs Mulit set

Free vs machine

Look there is many diffrent ways to skin a cat. I think the biggest thing that people miss is not necessarily there training but ur life style.

Think about it ur career, social life, family all play huge roles into the way you will train. I personally feel that single set training and infrequent are for people who simply do not have the time to waste 1hour / 5 days a week in the Gym. I had to change as well. As I have a huge work load outside of the GYM (what I did not think would happen is that I would gain more muscle on this program)

I am more motivated to train harder now cause I can fit it in with my life.

It's life style. Sure you could even train sixdays a week/ 3 hours a day like Arnold. But that was Arnolds income so he can afford to do it. The rest of us have to hold down real jobs.

[Rocky]

Both of you make good points.
Cannablistic I think you are right to a point. At the end of the day as much the life-style reasons for training a certain way, if you were to train in a way that is less "manageable" in your life just because it feels like you should do it that way, probably makes it a worse situation because you can't devote yourself to a routine that doesn't fit in with your other responsibilities and therefore progress and motivation will slow down.

Tim - sad but true I fear. I think it's more a case of people wanting to disprove peoples theories to make a name for themselves rather than coming together to unify REAL productive methods in the field.
The problem with the sport is it is SO subjective to each individual that it does become hard to quantify any one factor. Going with your engineering comparison, advancements are possible through testing and an ability to simply prove and disprove theories, whereas with BBing what works for 1 person may not necessarily work quite as well for 1000 others and this seems to be all certain studies need to create their own theory about the alternative "best" way to do this and that. Becomes a bloody mindfield, especially to those less versed in the sport - must be daunting and almost impossible to take anything at face value. Even for a seasoned lifter, when you are bombarded with so much contradictory information backed up by this study or that, it becomes just as midboggling often.

[tim290280]

Rocky its not just the countless theories and what works for some thing, its that the research that is being conducted is not well rounded nor well tested (basically they aren't good scientists). They will test 25 untrained individuals and forget to measure certain parameters. Then when they do a follow up they don't expand on it they change it around.

So you continuously get fragmented scientific info. And then you have the "If I've lost weight, or am in reasonably good shape I'll write a book" group. These fuckers should be shot on site!

Cannabilistic: I agree completely. (bet you didn't see that coming!)
There needs to be a lifestyle choice for health (bb can be part of that), and that has to fit around work, family, and social commitments. While the 'hardcore' will ditch a night of drinking to do their training, it also means they become social parias. Something like HIT (in whatever form) can be exactly what people need when they have alot of commitments.

[aefx2387]

anyone ever hear of finding what works for you? i used to do 3 sets, 4 sets, 1 set, i've done a lot of spits and nothing gives me results like 1 working set with 2-3 exercises per bodypart but thats my personal experience and its what works for me

[tim290280]

anyone ever hear of finding what works for you?

Yes. You can waste alot of time that way.

[mvsf1]

I think is ompossible to say what is better than the other. It depends on lots of factors.

[Rocky]

^True there are a lot of factors but at the same time there are methods that are better than others 99% of the time for most trainers., the same way as there are proven exercises which are most effective - i.e. squat and deadlift. There are other exercises you can do, but nt as productive as these for 99% of trainers.

[TrueOutlaw]

the biggest factor without a doubt isn't sets, multi or single, this many or that many reps, or this or that excercise it is genetics period. if guy A has superior genetics than guy B then it doesn't matter who is doing what guy A responds better to everything, and in most cases w/ less effort