Interesting paper on resistance training

[Topside]

i have a report on training to failure and the use of multiple sets versus one set, various rep ranges, and the use of machines or free weights. It gives specific studies that were done and the results. It is extremely interesting, it was written by my exercise physiology professor disputing ACSM's position stand on resistance training. If you want the link here it is the only bad part is its 64 pages or so, but u can skim through it. Basically it shows that there is hardly any difference between multiple sets to a single set when taken to failure and the use of rep ranges between 3 and 15 as long as failure is met in one set 2 to 3 times a week will elicit the same response to split work outs etc. There was a greater response however with working out 6 days a week basically in elite athletes. Heres the link very interesting stuff. It is the second link on the page.JEP online

 

[dookie1481]

i have a report on training to failure and the use of multiple sets versus one set, various rep ranges, and the use of machines or free weights. It gives specific studies that were done and the results. It is extremely interesting, it was written by my exercise physiology professor disputing ACSM's position stand on resistance training. If you want the link here it is the only bad part is its 64 pages or so, but u can skim through it. Basically it shows that there is hardly any difference between multiple sets to a single set when taken to failure and the use of rep ranges between 3 and 15 as long as failure is met in one set 2 to 3 times a week will elicit the same response to split work outs etc. There was a greater response however with working out 6 days a week basically in elite athletes. Heres the link very interesting stuff. It is the second link on the page.JEP online

Do you truly believe this?

The ACSM claims that the programmed manipulation of resistance-training protocols such as the training modality, repetition duration, range of repetitions, number of sets, and frequency of training will differentially affect specific physiological adaptations such as muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance. The ACSM also asserts that for progression in healthy adults, the programs for intermediate, advanced, and elite trainees must be different from those prescribed for novices. An objective evaluation of the resistance-training studies shows that these claims are primarily unsubstantiated.

And I love this:

In fact, the preponderance of resistance-training studies suggest that simple, low-volume, time-efficient, resistance training is just as effective for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance—regardless of training experience—as are the complex, high-volume, time-consuming protocols that are recommended in the Position Stand.

Ummm, maybe because the preponderance of resistance-training studies use untrained subjects, or for very short timeframes (<6 weeks or so). But that isn't really the demographic here.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Cite all the papers/studies you want. Nothing compares to anecdotal evidence. I've yet to see anyone produce appreciable muscular hypertrophy through single-set training. Strength may increase for a short duration, but it's far from optimal.

 

[musketeer]

I grew 30lbs of muscle in 10 weeks using HIT and supps and no drugs. My dead went from 250ish to 405 and my arms grew by 2.5 inches.

I think that the 5x5 is better and that's what I do now.

 

[Topside]

I have my doubts about this as well, but im giving it a try and so far i have seen some decent results. I have learned from class that training to failure is the only way to really quantify intensity. If you stop before failure then how do you know how hard your muscles are really working. My prof. says to get results you should make your body work hard to make it easier and stop short of failure. Once the muscle fails thats as hard as it can possibly work, then how much it grows depends on diet and genetics. Im giving it a shot and so far i actually like it. Just thought that paper was fairly interesting.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Training to failure will burn you out eventually. Gotta be careful. It's better to stop a rep or two short of failure. How do you know when this is? You need to have experience. You'll learn it with time.

 

[dookie1481]

I have my doubts about this as well, but im giving it a try and so far i have seen some decent results. I have learned from class that training to failure is the only way to really quantify intensity. If you stop before failure then how do you know how hard your muscles are really working. My prof. says to get results you should make your body work hard to make it easier and stop short of failure. Once the muscle fails thats as hard as it can possibly work, then how much it grows depends on diet and genetics. Im giving it a shot and so far i actually like it. Just thought that paper was fairly interesting.

Except that failure is a CNS phenomenon, not muscular. Your Prof. sounds like a HIT guy. Notoriously dogmatic. Read this: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5088668&postcount=783

 

[Protobuilder]

What about DC training??? One set, to failure and then rest-paused, hitting the muscle 3x/wk . . . and people swear they gain on it.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

You can gain on most programs, at least for awhile. DC training is nothing special. The main thing people need to do is add weight to the bar while eating an excess of calories. This leads to hypertrophy, and obviously, strength gains. The problem is, going to failure is hard on the body and you will burn out. When this happens, you need to back off a bit. By the end of the day, I don't think it matters.

Just bring your weights up with an adequate amount of volume (i.e., increasing 1 RM won't do it, you need to be using a fair amount of volume) and eat enough. You'll grow. Of course, those using AAS are different. All the rules are thrown out the window at this point.

I'm going to make a post entitled "Training & Diet Basics - It's all simple". Check out the article in it. It was written by Lyle McDonald of www.bodyrecomposition.com

He certainly knows his stuff, and he likes to cut through all the bullshit.

 

[Topside]

i guess he is rather HIT, he states that the name of the game is intensity. He says 20-25 mins 3 days a week one set to MMF (momentary muscular fatigue). It seems too simple to me, but it also seems to have much common sense behind it. I've been training this way for about a month now and i cant see becoming overtrained or burnt out. I dunno for some reason with the statement that it works regardless of experience also makes sense to me, it may seem weird but if i fail at say 130 for 10 reps on a chest press machine a more experienced or a more trained guy would probably fail at higher weight say 200 for 10, it is just where his more trained muscles will fail at. I've seen greater development in my muscles training in this way using only machines at a tempo of 2 sec up and 2 down really focusing on full ROM with a deep stretch at the start of the movement.