Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 > > Any thoughts on the statement from the study " There was no significant difference between 2-3 sets per exercise and 4-6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.10; CI: -0.09, 0.30; p = 0.29) " Â > Presumably that applied to both trained and untrained subjects. Â 2-3 sets is well below what one finds in the typical body building regime. Â > Hi, Jon, I am the author of this paper. There were only 2 studies in my analysis that involved 4-6 sets per exercise. Because of this, the statistical power to detect a difference between the 2-3 set category and the 4-6 set category is very low. More studies in the 4-6 set category would be needed to know if there is a true difference. Also, I incorporated studies that used " sets per exercise " as the criteria. However, in bodybuilding routines, you can have multiple exercises. Thus, you could do 2-3 sets per exercise, but 2-3 exercises per muscle group. My paper was not able to address this because of the limited number of studies incorporated. However, when looking at the magnitude of the effect size estimates, gains started to taper off at the 4-6 set per exercise category. Thus, even when looking at it in a per muscle group sense, there is probably little benefit to doing more than 4-6 sets per muscle group. This is supported further when you look at my previous meta-analysis on strength. In that paper, there was no significant interaction between multiple exercises per body part and set volume. This means that if you did, say, 3 sets per exercise, there was no benefit to doing multiple exercises for the same muscle groups. Strength gains in this study also plateaued at 4-6 sets per exercise (with, again, the caveat of limited studies in the 4-6 set range). Krieger, MS, MS Editor, Journal of Pure Power Analyst, Vivacity Redmond, WA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Casey, Would you say that to develop power the load has to be less than 30% of 1RM or more than that? Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:03 PM, casey gallagher <gallagher2201@...>wrote: > > > " My problem with your overload statement is that you can increase workload > in 1 set each workout. You either add more wieght (sic), increase or > decrease rep speed, and increase reps. The whole point of training is > progression, dependent upon goals of size or strength, you will need > different protocols for different training goals. " > > Studies have shown time and time again - there have been at least two > meta-analyses of studies posted on this forum alone - that multiple sets > help one to improve strength, athletic performance and hypertrophy short > term and long term versus single set training. > > " I feel intensity and performance go hand and hand, the higher the > intensity usually the better performance, but with again the overload > principle is it really necessary to annihilate, or stimulate. " > > Intensity and performance do not go hand in hand. In order to develop > power, one must train at a low intensity using loads as light as body weight > - plyometrics - and upwards of 60%-70% 1RM in a fatigue free environment in > order to maintain or improve movement velocity from one set to the next. > > Casey Gallagher CSCS > Snohomish, WA USA > > Single vs Multiple Sets > > Casler wrote: > > It is because the additional sets allow an OVERLOAD to be produced, that > eventually will not be available in a Single Set. > > Flees responds: > Another big issue with this is that progressive overload is great, what is > the percentage of your 1 rep max, are youi doing multiple sets with. I know > > i work up to 365 for a deadlift, and 5 or 6 of those sets are 1-3 reps, > then > 1 all out set of 365 for 5-6. How is it possible for me to comeback and do > 365 again if i gave it my all on this one set? Trust me im 150 at 5'2, and > trying to hit that weight twice, is a no go. > > Casler writes: > > Hi , One need not produce an additional set at 365#. Overload can be > established by dropping to 345# and performing 2-3 reps in a second or > third > set. > > Then next session same 345# for 3-4 reps, and so on. Point being that you > add workload which produces overload as long as it is greater than the > previous session(s). > > Flees responds: > > The 10 sec is a hypothetical i usually stick with a 4-6 sec eccentric, and > an explosive positive. Again half the sets people do up to their last set, > should be counted as warmups. And last time i checked your not going to do > 405 for 10 reps for 4 sets, usually people do 135 x 10, then 225 x 10, then > > 315 x 10, then they are to exhausted to hti the weight of 405 but get to it > > any ways, and do 405 for 8, when i impose all those sets should be warm ups > > of 3-5 reps, and 405 should be your working set. So where is the overload > in > your theory? If your really just building up lactate in the muscle and pre > exhaustingit, or you could absolutely be freshed and warmed up. > > Casler writes: > > The " OVERLOAD " is in performing work beyond your previous session. > > Casler wrote: > > None of those points were subjects of the article. And if you read it > closely it was a " meta-analysis " of research, not research itself. > > Flees responds: > You are correct sir, this is not the study of this article, and that > strawman idea, well, it is used just not for hypertrophy. Any who, my thing > > is in real life training, putting out 100% for 4 sets, is well impossible. > If you get the same reps weight along with time of eccentric and > coeccentric > contraction, then, you were not putting your all into it. Theoretically, i > feel you can only go all out once, and for example the squat 405 for ten > reps with a longer negative will conclude better then 405 for 8 reps with a > > shorter negative. > > Casler writes: > > Sounds like you are confusing " performance " with " intensity " . You are > correct that you cannot likely produce 100% of the same performance > immediately. But " intensity " is EFFORT to MOMENTARY ABILITY. So no matter > how fatigued you are, you can still attempt 100% intensity to the effort if > > you wish. > > No where is it stated nor did I suggest that you need to duplicate the same > > " performance " . Hi INTENSITY to Ability is usually sufficient. > > Flees responds: > this will always be a conflicting arguement when specific to hypertrophy, > just like carbs vs keto in dieting, i might not have every scientific > analysis to back up my points, but i gauruntee you, that if you give it > your > all on that one set, compared to burning yourself out for those 4 sets just > > to be to taxed to actually lift that heavy weight to the best of your > ability. > > Casler writes: > > Again, no matter how intensely you perform a single set, linear (single > factor) progress has a limit. > > Once that limit is established, you will need to produce additional > overload > within the session to continue to stimulate gains. > > ========================== > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 , Overload doesn't specifically refer to doing a greater volume of work, but rather the demands placed on the muscles. There are many ways to increase the demand on a muscle, including working harder as opposed to doing more. -- Drew Baye High Intensity Training www.baye.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Intensity and performance do not go hand in hand. In order to develop power, one must train at a low intensity using loads as light as body weight. This may not be the best way to improve RFD and dynamic strength. Phil Caraher Chapel Hill, NC _____ From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On Behalf Of casey gallagher Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:03 PM Supertraining Subject: Re: Single vs Multiple Sets " My problem with your overload statement is that you can increase workload in 1 set each workout. You either add more wieght (sic), increase or decrease rep speed, and increase reps. The whole point of training is progression, dependent upon goals of size or strength, you will need different protocols for different training goals. " Studies have shown time and time again - there have been at least two meta-analyses of studies posted on this forum alone - that multiple sets help one to improve strength, athletic performance and hypertrophy short term and long term versus single set training. " I feel intensity and performance go hand and hand, the higher the intensity usually the better performance, but with again the overload principle is it really necessary to annihilate, or stimulate. " Intensity and performance do not go hand in hand. In order to develop power, one must train at a low intensity using loads as light as body weight - plyometrics - and upwards of 60%-70% 1RM in a fatigue free environment in order to maintain or improve movement velocity from one set to the next. Casey Gallagher CSCS Snohomish, WA USA Re: Single vs Multiple Sets Casler wrote: It is because the additional sets allow an OVERLOAD to be produced, that eventually will not be available in a Single Set. Hi , One need not produce an additional set at 365#. Overload can be established by dropping to 345# and performing 2-3 reps in a second or third set. Then next session same 345# for 3-4 reps, and so on. Point being that you add workload which produces overload as long as it is greater than the previous session(s). The " OVERLOAD " is in performing work beyond your previous session. Writes: You are completely correct i have strayed from the article, i am sorry. My problem with overload, is mainly recovery abilities, and I am dead after additional sets, IF i give that one set my all, using forced reps and negatives. My problem with your overload statement is that you can increase workload in 1 set each workout. You either add more wieght, increase or decrease rep speed, and increase reps. The whole point of training is progression, dependent upon goals of size or strength, you will need different protocols for different training goals. Casler writes: Sounds like you are confusing " performance " with " intensity " . You are correct that you cannot likely produce 100% of the same performance immediately. But " intensity " is EFFORT to MOMENTARY ABILITY. So no matter how fatigued you are, you can still attempt 100% intensity to the effort if you wish. No where is it stated nor did I suggest that you need to duplicate the same " performance " . Hi INTENSITY to Ability is usually sufficient. Writes : Casler writes: Again, no matter how intensely you perform a single set, linear (single factor) progress has a limit. Once that limit is established, you will need to produce additional overload within the session to continue to stimulate gains. Writes : Additional overload does not mean extra sets.... I feel that you can keep progressing of single set training, as long as your overload on that set, and always improve from the last workout. ============================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 On 23/03/2010 12:50 PM, Jon Haddan wrote: > Any thoughts on the statement from the study " There was no > significant difference between 2-3 sets per exercise and 4-6 sets per > exercise (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.10; CI: -0.09, 0.30; p = 0.29) " > Presumably that applied to both trained and untrained subjects. 2-3 > sets is well below what one finds in the typical body building > regime. But not in a strength or power program. We do 3x5's or 3x3's depending on the exercise (squats, deadlifts etc) and the state of development of the athlete for strength gains. Carl Brewer Melbourne, Australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Hi all-  This is an interesting topic.  If we look back at bodybuilders in the 60's and 70's and view their training logs (or what are reported to be their logs) we find that a high number of multiple sets are used per body part. Arnold, Draper, Zane, Beckles...they all did huge multiple sets numbering as much as 15-20 per body part. Bear in mind that they generally kept the rep range in the 10-12 range for hypertrophy. I understand that they were aided athletes. Still, that is enormous volume.  Now here comes Mike and Ray Mentzer with this idea of " pre-fatigue " and sets to failure. They along with Arthur believed that this was the most efficient way to train. Years later, Dorian Yates did something similar with HIT Training.  This is all well and good, but if you study the Mentzers and Yates you find two things. First, they built award winning physiques the more traditional way. This tells us that volume based upon multiple sets respecting a rep range works. Secondly, even after they " converted " to new ways of training something interesting is noticed. They used " warm up sets " using progressively heavier weights until they felt sufficiently " warmed up " to start their working sets of 2-4 sets. That being said you could make the argument that 5 sets of incline bench press using heavier weights each set and then starting heavy incline flyes immediately followed by incline bench to failure for two cycles is now 9 sets for pecs. Yates in that respect, is no different.  The single set theory is something that Mike Mentzer experimented with later in his life. He even felt that if a set was done properly that you could work a bodypart once or twice a month. Really?  If you were going to perform the perfect set what or how would it be performed? Start with maybe 4 reps, forced reps, then negatives, then drops all within one set? (did I forget anything)? This would ensure total failure. But, would it really? After a rest period of five minutes you could repeat it again. How many more times until you could not continue? Is this failure? If so, what is the recovery time? Two days, two weeks? What hog wash!  Multiple sets serve a purpose. You just can't accomplish all you need to in a low number of sets as your training age increases. I agree with Casey, " Studies have shown time and time again - there have been at least two meta-analyses of studies posted on this forum alone - that multiple sets help one to improve strength, athletic performance and hypertrophy short term and long term versus single set training. "  I was long winded and I apologize.  Thanks, Extreme Conditioning Personal Training Mark Cotton, B.A., PICP & ISSA Certified East Brunswick, NJ (732) 979-7201 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Giovanni, Most of what I've read - Don Chu, Zatsiorsky and so on - shows that weights between 40%-60% 1RM are sufficient to develop power. Since there is essentially a maximum or ideal movement speed, when using loads that drop below 40% force diminishes and power output decreases. My comment about plyometrics was to illustrate that there is (most often) no external load used other than gravity and the person's body weight. Casey Gallagher CSCS Snohomish, WA USA Single vs Multiple Sets > > Casler wrote: > > It is because the additional sets allow an OVERLOAD to be produced, that > eventually will not be available in a Single Set. > > Flees responds: > Another big issue with this is that progressive overload is great, what is > the percentage of your 1 rep max, are youi doing multiple sets with. I know > > i work up to 365 for a deadlift, and 5 or 6 of those sets are 1-3 reps, > then > 1 all out set of 365 for 5-6. How is it possible for me to comeback and do > 365 again if i gave it my all on this one set? Trust me im 150 at 5'2, and > trying to hit that weight twice, is a no go. > > Casler writes: > > Hi , One need not produce an additional set at 365#. Overload can be > established by dropping to 345# and performing 2-3 reps in a second or > third > set. > > Then next session same 345# for 3-4 reps, and so on. Point being that you > add workload which produces overload as long as it is greater than the > previous session(s). > > Flees responds: > > The 10 sec is a hypothetical i usually stick with a 4-6 sec eccentric, and > an explosive positive. Again half the sets people do up to their last set, > should be counted as warmups. And last time i checked your not going to do > 405 for 10 reps for 4 sets, usually people do 135 x 10, then 225 x 10, then > > 315 x 10, then they are to exhausted to hti the weight of 405 but get to it > > any ways, and do 405 for 8, when i impose all those sets should be warm ups > > of 3-5 reps, and 405 should be your working set. So where is the overload > in > your theory? If your really just building up lactate in the muscle and pre > exhaustingit, or you could absolutely be freshed and warmed up. > > Casler writes: > > The " OVERLOAD " is in performing work beyond your previous session. > > Casler wrote: > > None of those points were subjects of the article. And if you read it > closely it was a " meta-analysis " of research, not research itself. > > Flees responds: > You are correct sir, this is not the study of this article, and that > strawman idea, well, it is used just not for hypertrophy. Any who, my thing > > is in real life training, putting out 100% for 4 sets, is well impossible. > If you get the same reps weight along with time of eccentric and > coeccentric > contraction, then, you were not putting your all into it. Theoretically, i > feel you can only go all out once, and for example the squat 405 for ten > reps with a longer negative will conclude better then 405 for 8 reps with a > > shorter negative. > > Casler writes: > > Sounds like you are confusing " performance " with " intensity " . You are > correct that you cannot likely produce 100% of the same performance > immediately. But " intensity " is EFFORT to MOMENTARY ABILITY. So no matter > how fatigued you are, you can still attempt 100% intensity to the effort if > > you wish. > > No where is it stated nor did I suggest that you need to duplicate the same > > " performance " . Hi INTENSITY to Ability is usually sufficient. > > Flees responds: > this will always be a conflicting arguement when specific to hypertrophy, > just like carbs vs keto in dieting, i might not have every scientific > analysis to back up my points, but i gauruntee you, that if you give it > your > all on that one set, compared to burning yourself out for those 4 sets just > > to be to taxed to actually lift that heavy weight to the best of your > ability. > > Casler writes: > > Again, no matter how intensely you perform a single set, linear (single > factor) progress has a limit. > > Once that limit is established, you will need to produce additional > overload > within the session to continue to stimulate gains. > > ========================== > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 The theory behind plyometric training is rather sound. However, I do agree that it is debatable but many athletes have improved RFD and dynamic strength using this model or those similar to it - multiple sets being the common thread. Casey Gallagher CSCS Snohomish, WA USA Re: Single vs Multiple Sets Casler wrote: It is because the additional sets allow an OVERLOAD to be produced, that eventually will not be available in a Single Set. Hi , One need not produce an additional set at 365#. Overload can be established by dropping to 345# and performing 2-3 reps in a second or third set. Then next session same 345# for 3-4 reps, and so on. Point being that you add workload which produces overload as long as it is greater than the previous session(s). The " OVERLOAD " is in performing work beyond your previous session. Writes: You are completely correct i have strayed from the article, i am sorry. My problem with overload, is mainly recovery abilities, and I am dead after additional sets, IF i give that one set my all, using forced reps and negatives. My problem with your overload statement is that you can increase workload in 1 set each workout. You either add more wieght, increase or decrease rep speed, and increase reps. The whole point of training is progression, dependent upon goals of size or strength, you will need different protocols for different training goals. Casler writes: Sounds like you are confusing " performance " with " intensity " . You are correct that you cannot likely produce 100% of the same performance immediately. But " intensity " is EFFORT to MOMENTARY ABILITY. So no matter how fatigued you are, you can still attempt 100% intensity to the effort if you wish. No where is it stated nor did I suggest that you need to duplicate the same " performance " . Hi INTENSITY to Ability is usually sufficient. Writes : Casler writes: Again, no matter how intensely you perform a single set, linear (single factor) progress has a limit. Once that limit is established, you will need to produce additional overload within the session to continue to stimulate gains. Writes : Additional overload does not mean extra sets.... I feel that you can keep progressing of single set training, as long as your overload on that set, and always improve from the last workout. ============================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Casey, Zatsiorsky writes*: - (Page 143-145 of my 1995 edition) - The effects of strength exercise depend on movement velocity. If exercises are performed in the high-force, low-velocity range of the force-velocity curve, the maximal force Fm increases mainly in the trained range. On the other hand, if exercise is done in the low-force, high-velocity range, performance improves primarily in this area. These findings serve as a basis for the recommendation to develop force at speeds that approximate the athletic motion. So I guess the answer really depends on what one is training for. Note*: Zatsiorsky VM, Kraemer WJ. Science and Practice of Strength Training, Second Edition. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics Publishers; 2006. Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:52 AM, casey gallagher <gallagher2201@...>wrote: > > > Giovanni, > > Most of what I've read - Don Chu, Zatsiorsky and so on - shows that weights > between 40%-60% 1RM are sufficient to develop power. Since there is > essentially a maximum or ideal movement speed, when using loads that drop > below 40% force diminishes and power output decreases. > > My comment about plyometrics was to illustrate that there is (most often) > no external load used other than gravity and the person's body weight. > > Casey Gallagher CSCS > Snohomish, WA USA > Single vs Multiple Sets > > > > Casler wrote: > > > > It is because the additional sets allow an OVERLOAD to be produced, that > > eventually will not be available in a Single Set. > > > > Flees responds: > > Another big issue with this is that progressive overload is great, what > is > > the percentage of your 1 rep max, are youi doing multiple sets with. I > know > > > > i work up to 365 for a deadlift, and 5 or 6 of those sets are 1-3 reps, > > then > > 1 all out set of 365 for 5-6. How is it possible for me to comeback and > do > > 365 again if i gave it my all on this one set? Trust me im 150 at 5'2, > and > > trying to hit that weight twice, is a no go. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > Hi , One need not produce an additional set at 365#. Overload can be > > established by dropping to 345# and performing 2-3 reps in a second or > > third > > set. > > > > Then next session same 345# for 3-4 reps, and so on. Point being that you > > add workload which produces overload as long as it is greater than the > > previous session(s). > > > > Flees responds: > > > > The 10 sec is a hypothetical i usually stick with a 4-6 sec eccentric, > and > > an explosive positive. Again half the sets people do up to their last > set, > > should be counted as warmups. And last time i checked your not going to > do > > 405 for 10 reps for 4 sets, usually people do 135 x 10, then 225 x 10, > then > > > > 315 x 10, then they are to exhausted to hti the weight of 405 but get to > it > > > > any ways, and do 405 for 8, when i impose all those sets should be warm > ups > > > > of 3-5 reps, and 405 should be your working set. So where is the overload > > in > > your theory? If your really just building up lactate in the muscle and > pre > > exhaustingit, or you could absolutely be freshed and warmed up. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > The " OVERLOAD " is in performing work beyond your previous session. > > > > Casler wrote: > > > > None of those points were subjects of the article. And if you read it > > closely it was a " meta-analysis " of research, not research itself. > > > > Flees responds: > > You are correct sir, this is not the study of this article, and that > > strawman idea, well, it is used just not for hypertrophy. Any who, my > thing > > > > is in real life training, putting out 100% for 4 sets, is well > impossible. > > If you get the same reps weight along with time of eccentric and > > coeccentric > > contraction, then, you were not putting your all into it. Theoretically, > i > > feel you can only go all out once, and for example the squat 405 for ten > > reps with a longer negative will conclude better then 405 for 8 reps with > a > > > > shorter negative. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > Sounds like you are confusing " performance " with " intensity " . You are > > correct that you cannot likely produce 100% of the same performance > > immediately. But " intensity " is EFFORT to MOMENTARY ABILITY. So no matter > > how fatigued you are, you can still attempt 100% intensity to the effort > if > > > > you wish. > > > > No where is it stated nor did I suggest that you need to duplicate the > same > > > > " performance " . Hi INTENSITY to Ability is usually sufficient. > > > > Flees responds: > > this will always be a conflicting arguement when specific to hypertrophy, > > just like carbs vs keto in dieting, i might not have every scientific > > analysis to back up my points, but i gauruntee you, that if you give it > > your > > all on that one set, compared to burning yourself out for those 4 sets > just > > > > to be to taxed to actually lift that heavy weight to the best of your > > ability. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > Again, no matter how intensely you perform a single set, linear (single > > factor) progress has a limit. > > > > Once that limit is established, you will need to produce additional > > overload > > within the session to continue to stimulate gains. > > > > ========================== > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 , Assuming an the effort of the single set and final set of a multi set protocol are equal, I highly doubt what you're claiming. I have no doubts multiple sets are beneficial for the sake of neural adaptations/skill training for power lifters and weight lifters, however for the majority I doubt it makes as much of a difference as you claim. -- Drew Baye High Intensity Training www.baye.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 The passage that you cite supports my claim that power development is achieved via low-force, high velocity range. The method how that is done is debatable. During my power lifting (100% drug free) days, I followed a slightly modified (since I am drug free) West Side Barbell system of utilizing both low-force, high velocity and high-force low-velocity movements to some very good success. I incorporated multiple (8-12) sets of 55%-65% 1RM at high speeds one day and maximum loads three days later at slow speeds, of course. I use a similar, albeit rather modified system when training athletes. It's my opinion that nearly all sports require a certain level of power and strength - the amount of which depends on the sport - so we use light loads with fast movements and heavier loads that force slower movements. Casey Gallagher CSCS Snohomish, WA USA I continue to follow this philosophy Single vs Multiple Sets > > > > Casler wrote: > > > > It is because the additional sets allow an OVERLOAD to be produced, that > > eventually will not be available in a Single Set. > > > > Flees responds: > > Another big issue with this is that progressive overload is great, what > is > > the percentage of your 1 rep max, are youi doing multiple sets with. I > know > > > > i work up to 365 for a deadlift, and 5 or 6 of those sets are 1-3 reps, > > then > > 1 all out set of 365 for 5-6. How is it possible for me to comeback and > do > > 365 again if i gave it my all on this one set? Trust me im 150 at 5'2, > and > > trying to hit that weight twice, is a no go. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > Hi , One need not produce an additional set at 365#. Overload can be > > established by dropping to 345# and performing 2-3 reps in a second or > > third > > set. > > > > Then next session same 345# for 3-4 reps, and so on. Point being that you > > add workload which produces overload as long as it is greater than the > > previous session(s). > > > > Flees responds: > > > > The 10 sec is a hypothetical i usually stick with a 4-6 sec eccentric, > and > > an explosive positive. Again half the sets people do up to their last > set, > > should be counted as warmups. And last time i checked your not going to > do > > 405 for 10 reps for 4 sets, usually people do 135 x 10, then 225 x 10, > then > > > > 315 x 10, then they are to exhausted to hti the weight of 405 but get to > it > > > > any ways, and do 405 for 8, when i impose all those sets should be warm > ups > > > > of 3-5 reps, and 405 should be your working set. So where is the overload > > in > > your theory? If your really just building up lactate in the muscle and > pre > > exhaustingit, or you could absolutely be freshed and warmed up. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > The " OVERLOAD " is in performing work beyond your previous session. > > > > Casler wrote: > > > > None of those points were subjects of the article. And if you read it > > closely it was a " meta-analysis " of research, not research itself. > > > > Flees responds: > > You are correct sir, this is not the study of this article, and that > > strawman idea, well, it is used just not for hypertrophy. Any who, my > thing > > > > is in real life training, putting out 100% for 4 sets, is well > impossible. > > If you get the same reps weight along with time of eccentric and > > coeccentric > > contraction, then, you were not putting your all into it. Theoretically, > i > > feel you can only go all out once, and for example the squat 405 for ten > > reps with a longer negative will conclude better then 405 for 8 reps with > a > > > > shorter negative. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > Sounds like you are confusing " performance " with " intensity " . You are > > correct that you cannot likely produce 100% of the same performance > > immediately. But " intensity " is EFFORT to MOMENTARY ABILITY. So no matter > > how fatigued you are, you can still attempt 100% intensity to the effort > if > > > > you wish. > > > > No where is it stated nor did I suggest that you need to duplicate the > same > > > > " performance " . Hi INTENSITY to Ability is usually sufficient. > > > > Flees responds: > > this will always be a conflicting arguement when specific to hypertrophy, > > just like carbs vs keto in dieting, i might not have every scientific > > analysis to back up my points, but i gauruntee you, that if you give it > > your > > all on that one set, compared to burning yourself out for those 4 sets > just > > > > to be to taxed to actually lift that heavy weight to the best of your > > ability. > > > > Casler writes: > > > > Again, no matter how intensely you perform a single set, linear (single > > factor) progress has a limit. > > > > Once that limit is established, you will need to produce additional > > overload > > within the session to continue to stimulate gains. > > > > ========================== > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 effort of the single set and final set of a multi set > protocol are equal, I highly doubt what you're claiming. I have no doubts > multiple sets are beneficial for the sake of neural adaptations/skill > training for power lifters and weight lifters, however for the majority I > doubt it makes as much of a difference as you claim. Drew, But the evidence shows that there is a difference for the majority in terms of hypertrophy....40% greater effect sizes for multiple sets, to be specific. Thus, the argument that greater strength gains with multiple sets are all due to neural adaptations doesn't hold water. Krieger Editor, Journal of Pure Power Analyst, Vivacity Redmond, WA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Hi and all, I assume you, , mean that one cannot reach potential on 1 working set -- assuming 2 -3 warmup sets. This may not be the case. When one considers all the con and eccentric variations that no one has even tried, it MAY be possible to reach max strength and hypertrophy on one working set. Since no one, that I know of, has even approached a 100% intensity set, wisely, nor have studies addressed the many variations of concentric or concentric-eccentric sets -- I believe 1 working set is enough for the vast number of non elite trainers? I assume is attempting to and performing near or max intensity concentric sets. That being the case more than 1 working set may be enough with anything more being overtraining. Most of us remember that Dorian Yates believed in these 1-2 max sets and he didn't (?) even use max over load eccentrics? We also may remember that he was often hurt with a permanently torn/ deformed biceps. Speaking of high/max intensity reps/sets, has anyone even attempted to define, measure and control for various intensity reps? ????? Jerry Telle Lakewood CO USA On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Casler wrote: > > Flees Wrote: > You are completely correct i have strayed from the article, i am > sorry. My > problem with overload, is mainly recovery abilities, and I am dead > after > additional sets, IF i give that one set my all, using forced reps and > negatives. > > Casler writes: > Recovery times may be extended to accommodate need. > > If you are train in a manner that accumulates fatigues then you may > have > better results if you use a lower accumulated fatigue model. > > Flees Wrote: > My problem with your overload statement is that you can increase > workload in > 1 set each workout. You either add more wieght, increase or decrease > rep > speed, and increase reps. > > Casler writes: > Those types of progressions are only available at a lower level of > training. > When you reach the plateau of what can be accomplished via Single > Set, you > will NOT have any other option but to add separate sets that cause > overload > to occur. > > You will not find Elite Strength Athletes training on the Single Set > Model > > Flees Wrote: > I feel intensity and performance go hand and hand, the higher the > intensity > usually the better performance, but with again the overload > principle is it > really necessary to annhilate, or stimulate. > > Casler writes: > True Intensity is not based on performance, but effort to momentary > ability. > > Flees Wrote: > Additional overload does not mean extra sets.... I feel that you can > keep > progressing of single set training, as long as your overload on that > set, > and always improve from the last workout. > > Casler writes: > What you seem to not be absorbing is that you will plateau with a > Single > Set, and if you wish to create overload you WILL have to perform a > second > set or exercise for that bodypart. There is no alternative. You will > move > from what is commonly thought of as Supercompensation to Direct > Compensation > based on the overload produced. > > Regards, > > Casler > TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems > Century City, CA > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Giovanni Ciriani wrote: I don't see in this discussion any mention of " Henneman's size principle " which affects and determines both strength, fiber recruitment percentage, and type of fibers recruited. Any reason for that? Casler writes: Hi Giovanni, I have seen the Size Principle proffered quite often by the Single Set Proponents as a basis for some of their beliefs. They seem to feel that the accumulated fatigue and how it affects a escalating prioritized recruitment via Hennemen's is " as adequate " or even a " superior " method to HTMU (high threshold motor unit) involvement. Regards, Casler TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems Century City, CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Jerry, From my last reading on the subject*, Henneman's size principle is not disputed anymore (except for electrical muscle stimulation), and therefore incontrovertibly determines recruitment from slow twitch to fast twitch type IIa and then type IIx. Based on that I don't think that that fast twitch fibers can be recruited before slow twitch. On top of that slow twitch fibers fatigues much less than fast twitch fibers, so fast fibers would always be the first to fatigue. However, you are raising an interesting concept. One could exercise at a particular exercise intensity that fatigued only a portion of fast twitch fibers; subsequently, after fatigue has taken place for a portion of fast twitch fibers type IIx, one could increased the load for a short time, exercise without fatiguing larger fibers and fatiguing much more smaller IIx fibers. I'm not sure what it would accomplish, but your way of looking at bottom-up vs top-down has interesting implications. Since EMS (electrical muscle stimulation) trains muscles regardless of fiber type and fiber size (i.e. completely ignoring Henneman's size principle), one could look into EMS as a way of tweaking muscle properties to obtain particular effects at a particular point of conditioning, to get top performance. Charlie Francis is an advocate of EMS for sprinters for example. Note*: Enoka R. Neuromechanics of human movement. 4th ed. Champaign IL [u.a.]: Human Kinetics; 2008. Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Jerry Telle <JRTELLE@...> wrote: > > > Greetings Giovanni, > > The " the size principle, which states that motor units are recruited > in order of increasing size " was not mentioned as it didn't seem > really germaine to the conversation. > The size principle discussion inevitably leads to interesting but not > entirely agreed to concepts. The most interesting being the > possibility/probability? of reversing the order of recruitment > during highly intense efforts. > > I haven't kept up with this research but may again as the order of > recruitment maybe very important. As I remember, from somewhere, fast > twitch fibers cannot be recruited at a high tension when the slower > twitch fibers have been exhausted/fatigued from the " bottom up " -- > size wise?! This promotes the concept of doing high intensity reps > from the first rep on. The muscle then would be fatigued from the " top > down " . > > > Jerry Telle > Lakewood CO USA > > On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Giovanni Ciriani wrote: > > I don't see in this discussion any mention of " Henneman's size > > principle " > > which affects and determines both strength, fiber recruitment > > percentage, > > and type of fibers recruited. Any reason for that? > > Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Jerry Telle <JRTELLE@...<JRTELLE%40aol.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings , > > > > > > > > > Casler writes: > > > > > > If you perform " warm-up " and approach sets you have already moved > > to a > > > multi-set model. > > > > > > Telle -- Right, I don't think it is possible, save absolute strength > > > circumstances, to recruit Fast twitch fibers maximally with out a > > > warmup(s). > > > > > > > > > Casler writes: > > > > > > For one to believe that a Single Set to Failure can produce equal or > > > better > > > results than a multiple set schema you need to buy into the OPTIMAL > > > Stimulus > > > argument, that you can provide the maximal and optimal stimulus to a > > > muscle > > > via a Single Set taken to Exhaustive Failure. > > > > > > Telle -- Not sure we have total semantic overlap but does not an > > > optimal stimulus also require an optimal load? > > > > > > > > > Casler writes: > > > > > > To accept this you need then agree that no matter what your > > condition > > > that > > > you can somehow produce an overload within that set, or believe > > that the > > > body will produce SuperCompensation indefinitely. > > > > > > In the arena of stimuli you have TENSIONS, and you have Fatigues. > > The > > > Fatigues are Metabolic, Neural, Muscular, and Mental. In Strength > > > Training > > > the Primary Stimulus is Tension, with all the Fatigues providing the > > > supporting roles to stimulus. All models of training combine these > > > stimulus > > > elements to an OVERLOAD within the framework of the current > > condition or > > > last, most recent stimulus. That is, for an adaptive response to > > > occur, the > > > most recent stimulus " package " (not the government version) must in > > > some way > > > exceed what the organism has been previously exposed to. > > > > > > Telle -- I think I see what your " stimulus, " in a general sense, > > > means(?). And I assume that " the > > > most recent stimulus " package " must in some way > > > exceed what the organism has been previously exposed to " by > > [Telle] or > > > because the supercompensation has resulted in greater strength > > > (hypertrophic here) and can thus produce greater tensions to an > > > overload (more weight at original speed or greater speed at the > > > previous weight.? And greater fatigue can/is accomplished (though I > > > need a good quantifying definition of fatigue.) Maybe a difference > > in > > > max weight/speed over fatigued state failure?????? I admit to > > > " fatigue " ignorance -- how to define it. > > > > > > > > > Casler writes: > > > > > > In the beginning trainees make a type of progress I call > > " leapfrog " or > > > SUPER > > > Compensation. This progress is usually rapid and driven by the > > fact that > > > the Motor System can learn rather quickly how to produce and apply > > more > > > force than the muscle have been accustomed to (overload), this then > > > causes > > > the muscles to adapt to the HIGHER TENSIONS and WORK via protein > > > synthesis > > > (growth). > > > > > > Telle -- as long as I'm this far out on the limb, does muscle fiber > > > summation increase with training or is greater tension mainly a > > > synchronization function? Obviously synchronization leads to greater > > > connective tissue tension -- but not to specific fibers? > > > > > > > > > Casler writes: > > > > > > This process occurs for a short period driven by the cycle of > > neural and > > > tissue adaptations (leapfrogging) to appear as " overcompensatory " > > > adaptations. However the SuperCompensation observation reaches > > > diminishing > > > returns when applied via a Single Set program. > > > > > > Telle -- Are there studies directly demonstrating this? Is the > > > relationship linear or generally curvilinear? > > > Were any of the studies HIIT (Yates) style? do researchers even know > > > the difference and of course how was intensity measured. > > > > > > > > > Casler writes: > > > > > > Now you are faced with a dilemma of accepting that " further " > > stimulus > > > via a > > > second set will cause a greater stimulus, or that it will cause an > > > " overtraining or over-reaching " result. Well of course we already > > know > > > that > > > it DOES NOT cause overtraining unless carried to the extreme under > > > long term > > > circumstances. > > > > > > Telle -- I had lunch, the other day, with a person who used my > > version > > > of a max intensity set, at least 10 years ago. > > > The particulars, > > > 1. He trained by himself which meant no mental " goading " from me, > > > 2. The 1 set included 10 reps, each a drop rep/set of 1 from the > > > original 95% positive 1RM, starting weight. Each following rep > > being a > > > projected 90-100% momentary 1RM. > > > 3. The negatives were my negative enhancement techniques -- that is > > > manipulating lever arm/moment physics to increase relative > > resistance > > > during the negative action. > > > 4. His " intensity " by my estimation (no EMG or other monitoring > > > devices) was about 90% of competition max. I don't think he ever > > > trained solely for max strength. > > > 5. We have trained together off and on for 50 years. So I have a lot > > > of anecdotal information. > > > 6. My research training machine could provide the same resistance -- > > > that is using a linear actuator to adjust positive and negative > > > inertial load. Training in this manner produced the same resistance > > > efect os the free weight loads. > > > > > > We stopped his max training after the 2nd session. As he put it. > > " The > > > first training session was fine, the second a real mental effort " > > And > > > " the third would have been an impossibility. " > > > He remembers? not sleeping well for 2 nights after each session at > > > once a week training. That's one set of a 10 rep set of 1RM with > > > eccentric overload each rep.. > > > > > > We switched him back to a 5-7 rep drop set protocol for 3 total sets > > > and did he fine! So in my estimation 1 set of 10 reps can produce > > > (probably mental) over training > > > > > > > > > Casler writes: > > > > > > We also know that increased workload (adequately applied) > > > DOES cause overload conditions and further progress. > > > > > > The fallacy of the single set model as optimal also is based on the > > > limited > > > assumption that " full metabolic, mental and neural " exhaustion is > > the > > > Optimal Stimulus, when it is not. The optimal stimulus for Strength > > > training is Progressively Overloading the Tensions and the Work > > that a > > > muscle(s) is exposed to. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a continuously > > > available overload indefinitely via a SINGLE SET. No one has ever > > done > > > it, > > > and no one is currently doing it. > > > > > > Telle-- Nor is it likely anyone will. I remember reading that > > Mentzer > > > (reliability?) trained Yates for 1 set of 6 reps with a similar > > > protocol for Nautilus pullovers. > > > I assume this was a single? training session in this manner? I > > > remember lots of " Mentzer talk " in the article. > > > > > > Casler writes; > > > > > > > > > What IS possible is that you can reach a fairly high level (% > > result) > > > via > > > the Single Set model with the highest intensity (highest effort to > > each > > > moment of the exercise). But just like there is no real perpetual > > motion > > > machine, there is no single example of any elite strength athlete or > > > World > > > Champion employing anything close to this model. > > > > > > Telle -- STILL I would still like to know the results of a really > > > intense 1 drop set protocol. > > > > > > Isn't this fun? > > > > > > > > > As always, > > > > > > Jerry Telle > > > Lakewood CO USA > > >_,_._,___ > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2010 Report Share Posted April 1, 2010 HI Giovanni, Check comments below. On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Giovanni Ciriani wrote: > Ciriani -- Jerry, > From my last reading on the subject*, Henneman's size principle is not > disputed anymore (except for electrical muscle stimulation), and > therefore > incontrovertibly determines recruitment from slow twitch to fast > twitch type > IIa and then type IIx. Based on that I don't think that that fast > twitch > fibers can be recruited before slow twitch. Jerry -- This is all well and good and probably true. All of my speculation comes from various " thought " scenarios. For instance when performing a maximal intensity rep -- that is moving the load as fast as possible, are the slow twitch recruited first then size principled to the IIB? When rate of force development is maximal are the fibers recruited by size and if so what is the time delay from force initiation to max force? Since the fast twitch signals travel faster than the slow, do the slow twitch still reach the fibers first -- it would seem easy to determine. In the few studies where IIB fibers are recruited, hypertrophied and not transformed to IIA, were " size " studies performed? Ciriani --On top of that slow twitch > fibers fatigues much less than fast twitch fibers, so fast fibers > would > always be the first to fatigue. Jerry -- Interesting thought and not necessarily true. To what extent fatigue are we referring to? That is are the fast twitch recruited first in typical bottom up paradigms -- of course not -- but when are the fast recruited and how far are they fatigued? The system will always attempt to conserve energy by using lower thresh hold fibers when ever possible -- but what about at max intensity reps. At high intensity levels the fast will most certainly fatigue at a much greater rate to a ?? level of fatigue? > > Ciriani -- However, you are raising an interesting concept. One > could exercise at a > particular exercise intensity that fatigued only a portion of fast > twitch > fibers; subsequently, after fatigue has taken place for a portion of > fast > twitch fibers type IIx, one could increase the load for a short time, > exercise without fatiguing larger fibers and fatiguing much more > smaller IIx > fibers. Jerry -- This went right over my head. I don't think the protocol you presented is possible? If what you wrote is intended, I need a different representation? I do remember?, in conversations with Mel Siff, that he believed slow twitch populations are recruited in a rhythmical fashion where populations of fibers would work and some rest in, as he put it, " like sections of an orchestra " (or words to that effect) to maximize force production over time. > Ciriani -- I'm not sure what it would accomplish, but your way of > looking at > bottom-up vs top-down has interesting implications. Jerry -- I think I mentioned that I believe fast twitch fibers are best recruited and fatigued at as high a momentary tension as possible. I projected that IIB-A fibers recruited at minimal tensions and fatigued at lower than max tensions are not as fast contracting or hypertrophied as much as a max " top down " (as much as possible) fashion. I even projected that Fast twitch fibers fatigued at high tensions can be fatigued to a greater extent than lower tensions? I have little (momentary) memory of how I derived this belief and will try to find the sources. They would be 15-20 years old. > > Ciriani -- Since EMS (electrical muscle stimulation) trains muscles > regardless of fiber > type and fiber size (i.e. completely ignoring Henneman's size > principle), > one could look into EMS as a way of tweaking muscle properties to > obtain > particular effects at a particular point of conditioning, to get top > performance. Charlie Francis is an advocate of EMS for sprinters for > example. Jerry -- Right, and I believe that Francis liked EMS over max efforts because max efforts require a much higher relative mental effort/ energy. And require a much? longer recovery time. And again I don't think it matters if the size recruitment patterns can be reversed as long as the athlete trains in ways that results in a greater performance. Jerry Telle Lakewood CO USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Hi Jerry, Interesting chat! I'm not sure there is a difference in the speed at which a motor-neuron signal propagates toward a muscle; at least I couldn't find any reference discussing that. I was at a lecture a while ago in which it was explained the same principle you heard from Mel Siff: muscle fibers of a particular type or size are not activated all at the same time, but are recruited in a round-robin fashion. While a portion are contracted others rest and there is a continuous switching between those activated and those at rest. I think it is a well known fact of muscle physiology. The end result is that during voluntary training one is able to exercise at most 70%-80% of muscle fibers (this is a number I've heard, however, I haven't been able to find a written reference). This is also the main reason why with EMS (electrical muscle stimulation), if done properly, one is able to activate 100% of muscle fibers and get a higher maximum effort, and squeeze a little more result out of the training session. Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Jerry Telle <JRTELLE@...> wrote: > > > HI Giovanni, > > Check comments below. > > On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Giovanni Ciriani wrote: > > > Ciriani -- Jerry, > > > From my last reading on the subject*, Henneman's size principle is not > > disputed anymore (except for electrical muscle stimulation), and > > therefore > > incontrovertibly determines recruitment from slow twitch to fast > > twitch type > > IIa and then type IIx. Based on that I don't think that that fast > > twitch > > fibers can be recruited before slow twitch. > > Jerry -- This is all well and good and probably true. All of my > speculation comes from various " thought " scenarios. For instance when > performing a maximal intensity rep -- that is moving the load as fast > as possible, are the slow twitch recruited first then size principled > to the IIB? When rate of force development is maximal are the fibers > recruited by size and if so what is the time delay from force > initiation to max force? Since the fast twitch signals travel faster > than the slow, do the slow twitch still reach the fibers first -- it > would seem easy to determine. In the few studies where IIB fibers are > recruited, hypertrophied and not transformed to IIA, were " size " > studies performed? > > Ciriani --On top of that slow twitch > > > fibers fatigues much less than fast twitch fibers, so fast fibers > > would > > always be the first to fatigue. > > Jerry -- Interesting thought and not necessarily true. To what extent > fatigue are we referring to? That is are the fast twitch recruited > first in typical bottom up paradigms -- of course not -- but when > are the fast recruited and how far are they fatigued? The system will > always attempt to conserve energy by using lower thresh hold fibers > when ever possible -- but what about at max intensity reps. At high > intensity levels the fast will most certainly fatigue at a much > greater rate to a ?? level of fatigue? > > > > Ciriani -- However, you are raising an interesting concept. One > > could exercise at a > > particular exercise intensity that fatigued only a portion of fast > > twitch > > fibers; subsequently, after fatigue has taken place for a portion of > > fast > > twitch fibers type IIx, one could increase the load for a short time, > > > exercise without fatiguing larger fibers and fatiguing much more > > smaller IIx > > fibers. > > Jerry -- This went right over my head. I don't think the protocol you > presented is possible? If what you wrote is intended, I need a > different representation? > > I do remember?, in conversations with Mel Siff, that he believed slow > twitch populations are recruited in a rhythmical fashion where > populations of fibers would work and some rest in, as he put it, " like > sections of an orchestra " (or words to that effect) to maximize force > production over time. > > > Ciriani -- I'm not sure what it would accomplish, but your way of > > looking at > > bottom-up vs top-down has interesting implications. > > Jerry -- I think I mentioned that I believe fast twitch fibers are > best recruited and fatigued at as high a momentary tension as > possible. I projected that IIB-A fibers recruited at minimal tensions > and fatigued at lower than max tensions are not as fast contracting or > hypertrophied as much as a max " top down " (as much as possible) > fashion. I even projected that Fast twitch fibers fatigued at high > tensions can be fatigued to a greater extent than lower tensions? > > I have little (momentary) memory of how I derived this belief and will > try to find the sources. They would be 15-20 years old. > > > > Ciriani -- Since EMS (electrical muscle stimulation) trains muscles > > regardless of fiber > > type and fiber size (i.e. completely ignoring Henneman's size > > principle), > > one could look into EMS as a way of tweaking muscle properties to > > obtain > > particular effects at a particular point of conditioning, to get top > > performance. Charlie Francis is an advocate of EMS for sprinters for > > example. > > Jerry -- Right, and I believe that Francis liked EMS over max efforts > because max efforts require a much higher relative mental effort/ > energy. And require a much? longer recovery time. > > And again I don't think it matters if the size recruitment patterns > can be reversed as long as the athlete trains in ways that results in > a greater performance. > > > Jerry Telle > Lakewood CO USA > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.