Is one set to failure enough?

[SixDeep357]

I've just recently been introduced to some of the H.I.T. training principles and the Mike Mentzer 1 set to failure philosophy. I struggle with these principles because for the past 3 years I've worked out 5 days a week, performing around 12 sets per muscle group. Although I haven't had incredicble muscle gains, I have gained size and strength with each year passing year.
It seems the controversy stems from the opposing arguements concerning the 'one set to failure' theory. My question is......Can a person perform one set to failure and tax the muscle enough during that one set to stimulate growth? Also, Metzner believes that a person should rest 4 days in between workouts. Is this rest necessary? How can a guy like Arnold Schwartzenager lift twice a day 6 days a week and grow like he did if he is "overtraining."
The bottom line is this. Either one set to failure is enough to stimulate growth or its not. And muscles need either 4 days of rest or they don't.

DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS FOR SURE???

 

[guldukat]

It seems the controversy stems from the opposing arguements concerning the 'one set to failure' theory. My question is......Can a person perform one set to failure and tax the muscle enough during that one set to stimulate growth?

One work set? Sure, they absolutely stimulate growth. Read the DC sticky.

Also, Metzner believes that a person should rest 4 days in between workouts. Is this rest necessary? How can a guy like Arnold Schwartzenager lift twice a day 6 days a week and grow like he did if he is "overtraining."

I think that rest prescription is...too much. I was friends with Michael, and I wish he was still around today However, I think he was wrong in recommending ever greater nos. of rest days beyond a certain point.

I mean, seriously...when you're training each bodypart hard only once every two weeks or so, even if you are holding onto your gains, the rate at which you progress is abysmally slow.

On the flip side, Arnold Schwarzenegger was a genetic freak. And he wasn't natural. Consequently, he could get away with doing a lot more volume than your genetically typical, non-chemically assisted lifter could. He--nay, any professional bodybuilder--is a poor way to tout the advantages of volume training...just think: for every Arnold you've seen, how many thousands or millions of physically average volume trainers have you seen?

It's also worth noting that not training to positive failure enables one to do much more work without overtraining. Moreover, don't forget that the vast majority of one set practicioners do a no. of warm-up sets to prepare for that big working set.

The bottom line is this. Either one set to failure is enough to stimulate growth or its not. And muscles need either 4 days of rest or they don't.

DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS FOR SURE???

I do, but I recommend you divorce the one set to failure concept from the idea that the body needs quite that much rest. One idea is good; the other is, well, not so good.

Again, read the DC thread. That routine's worked very well for clean athletes, so "one set only works if you're juiced" is an invalid claim. It also works well for the genetically averaged or even disadvantaged; my training partner, who's 6'1" and 172 soaking wet, has gained 10 lbs. on the routine and a TON of strength in spite of a TERRIBLE diet. (Had he eaten as he should've, I have little doubt he would've gained upwards of 25-30 lbs. since March, when we started DC training. He's an experienced lifter, too, having worked out seriously since 1993 or '94.)

 

[b fold the truth]

Everything works...for a short period of time.

I don't believe in or condone the HIT methods for any long term growth in muscle or for strength.

B True

 

[rjl296]

Everything works...for a short period of time.

I don't believe in or condone the HIT methods for any long term growth in muscle or for strength.

B True

ditto in the shizzle ??

 

[WalkingBeast]

One set to failure would be worthless to me.

 

[casualbb]

It can obviously work, but I think it's a really limited way to look at the science of weight training, from growth but ESPECIALLY a performance perspective.