Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Once a week frequency? Why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debaser
  • Start date Start date
D

Debaser

Guest
In an effort to make some of the trainees here rethink their methods, I'd like to present an open discussion here on the typical bodybuilding split. Many of you know I'm vehemently against such a method, but I'd like to explain why I'd like to put a nail in its coffin.

First off I will define what I mean by "typical bodybuilding split." These are the routines that you find in most muscle magazines, as well as being perpetuated by the majority of people here and in most gyms. They are generally a 4-way split, but sometimes are as often as 5 or 6 days. An example might be:

Day 1: Chest
Day 2: Back
Day 4: Legs
Day 5: Arms
(or any other variation)

Some make it a 5 day split and may give delts their own day. I will attempt to explain why such concepts are ludicrous.

I will start by saying that many trainees are utterly confused as to what equals growth. Assuming you are eating enough (adequate macronutrients and caloric total), the act of adding weight to the bar is responsible for most of your muscle gain. There are two contexts for this:

1. Progressive strength gain. Adding small amounts of iron to the bar nearly every session in an effort to gain strength. That 2 lbs a week you're adding might not seem like much until a year later you realize your bench press is 100 lbs greater. As a result, your chest will have gained some good thickness.

2. HST adding some new ideas into the mix. You're still adding weight to the bar, but instead of absolute strength increase, you're adding the weight more often, while at submaximal levels.

Many trainees, due largely in part to muscle magazine propaganda, mistakenly believe that growth is mostly the results of:

1. Some kind of burn or pump.
2. Lots of different exercises in an effort to "blitz" different areas of the muscle. Many of these exercises are dangerous and this whole practice could be mostly eliminated by a simple anatomy lesson.
3. "Shocking" the muscle. In an effort to "confuse" their muscles, trainees often switch routines, rep ranges and intensity constantly. Your muscles aren't as smart as many of you seem to think. This causes many trainees to make lousy or no progress, because they can't even consistantly track their own workouts. It takes YEARS to put on lots of muscle, give a routine more than 2 weeks before you judge it's efficacy.

Now, it has been established that you can stimulate growth entirely by the efforts of 1 set (by DC training, HST, HIT, hardgainer, and scientific studies). While I will concede that more sets will generally equal greater hypertrophy, there are all-important caveats:

1. There are serious diminishing returns involved. Assuming we're dealing with larger rep ranges (5+), The third set is largely unproductive, and sets thereafter will produce negligable growth.
2. The more sets you do, the more time you will need to recover.

There is an obvious synergy between these two facts. If you are doing lots of volume, you might be doing once a week frequency because that's all you CAN do without becoming overtrained. Some people do so much volume (many not realizing it) that they are constantly overtrained and make meager progress.

We then reach our final conclusion, that since 1-2 sets is quite adequate for stimulating growth, and that doing low volume grants you greater recouperative powers, we can train with greater frequency. And if you're causing growth 1.5-3 times a week, you will be light years ahead of the guy training each bodypart once a week or less.

Please present your own thoughts on the matter.
 
Debaser said:
3. "Shocking" the muscle. In an effort to "confuse" their muscles, trainees often switch routines, rep ranges and intensity constantly. Your muscles aren't as smart as many of you seem to think. This causes many trainees to make lousy or no progress, because they can't even consistantly track their own workouts. It takes YEARS to put on lots of muscle, give a routine more than 2 weeks before you judge it's efficacy.

My only concern is that I believe your body does adapt to training. I agree that changing a routine in as little as 2+ weeks is not necessary. But if you're in a plateu with the training, you're body is looking for a change. Experience will let you know when it's time to seek a different training schedule.
 
Most people are under the impression that more is better. . . .to this day, I still can't figure it out.

Most trainers are training too much and under eating. . .they are simply confused by their own body chemistry.

For optimal results in gains in size and strength, I truly believe in low volume and intensity distributed through 3 workouts per week.

I am oftern floored when other people post their programs. . . its typically 12 sets of chest, arms, and back, and 8 sets of quads and hams. To top it off, the common caloric intake is under 3000 without a sufficient supply of carbs.

Currently, I believe there is mass confusion out there when it comes to training.

I wish someone could come up with a legitimate argument why more training = more growth.

The argument of CNS overload or overtraining is getting old. . . its the muscles that are overtrained.

Overall, I agree with the low volume approach. . . .I preach it to death because I firmly believe it can work for anyone and its the ideal way to train.
 
Re: Re: Once a week frequency? Why?

pwr_machine said:


My only concern is that I believe your body does adapt to training.

Thats why you switch things up every workout. This includes exercises and reps used. . .if a plateau is reached it is time for rest.

I make it as simple as possible.
 
My question is, why do people piddle around with set after set?

What is the benefit of performing:?

5 x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5

Isn't this a bit redundant? Why is this necessary?

Why not take that 225lbs and pound out 8 or 9 reps for 1 set?

After taking it to the maximum, there is no need for an additional 4 sets.

Shouldn't training be about causing extensive muscle damage then getting out of the gym so you can grow?

The rest of the time can be devoted towards rest and feeding the machine.
 
I'll tell you why once a week. It feeds into our obsession with easy numbers. It has nothing to do with what works best. I guarantee if our weeks were 9 days, that's the frequency you'd see people hitting a muscle group.
 
casualbb said:
I'll tell you why once a week. It feeds into our obsession with easy numbers. It has nothing to do with what works best. I guarantee if our weeks were 9 days, that's the frequency you'd see people hitting a muscle group.

Thats a reasonable point.
 
I completely agree with the one set theory, it just makes sense. By being here in the UK, and having connections with the likes of Dorian and colleagues / advisers of his, I have been an advocate of this for many years (albeit, that he would do more than one exercise per body part, per workout). I love DC and other forms of “one set” routines and have had great results. However, do I use them all year round? No. I really feel there is something to be said for mixing it up a little. Single sets do seem to fatigue me, and I feel my joints and connective tissue like the change to multiple sets. As long as you are progressing, adding weight to the bar, I think some change is good, in fact, I think change is the catalyst that many trainers need.

Personally I have gone from DC to 5x5, which I plan to alternate every 3 months or so. Don’t forget that many trainers are looking for the bit of muscular endurance that one set just does not give you. Also, taking 5x5 as an example, these are not failure sets, they are almost warming you up for when it get harder toward the 4th and 5th set.

I also think that complex muscle groups, shoulders being the best example, need to be hit from a couple of angles. I don’t want to get into the debate here, as it’s a little off topic, but I wouldn’t want to only hit my shoulders with compound moves.

Also, it takes a lot of focus to put all of your efforts in to one set. Many people with less experience will not be able to produce that all out single set. In fact I know that Dorian isn’t recommending one set to some that he has given advise to recently, but gone for two sets, on multiple exercises.

In summary, use I agree with what you say, but different situations and goals mean that there is more than one way to train, and often, allowing for some change within a given framework is the way to go…
 
Debaser-I agree with just about everything you said, but it is all theory... I mean, it makes sense, but we need someone to actually carry though and be a guinea pig to asses the actual validity. Why not volunteer one or a couple people and make an online case study... While I do agree in general, I also use that same type of workout day after day or year after year... Though I am typically looking for more performance/strenght, rather than size, the same caveats should apply, correct?

Basically, I am saying, theories are great and all, but there comes a time to really asess if it works or not... I am willing to help and volunteer myself if I can...

PS- As tone is hard to determine via the written word, this is not a challenge, but rather a "hey, why not try it out on several individuals in an organized manner to see what happens"
 
Becoming said:
Debaser-I agree with just about everything you said, but it is all theory... I mean, it makes sense, but we need someone to actually carry though and be a guinea pig to asses the actual validity. Why not volunteer one or a couple people and make an online case study... While I do agree in general, I also use that same type of workout day after day or year after year... Though I am typically looking for more performance/strenght, rather than size, the same caveats should apply, correct?

Basically, I am saying, theories are great and all, but there comes a time to really asess if it works or not... I am willing to help and volunteer myself if I can...

PS- As tone is hard to determine via the written word, this is not a challenge, but rather a "hey, why not try it out on several individuals in an organized manner to see what happens"

Are you a believer in high volume? If so, what is your reason behind it?
 
This isn't really theory. Hundreds of trainees have made the best progress of their life on DC. The same applies to HST. The DC stickies here and on Animal's board are well over 1000 posts, and I have yet to find anyone unhappy with their results.
 
Whoa guys, just trying to learn something and see if I can apply it to help me reach my own goals...

Louden-I am definately not an advocate of anything but lifting bigger weights each and every time, but I know from my own experience I find it hard to do only one set to max effort....

Debaser-I do also know that TONS of people advocate such approaches, and I definately see the logic, from a real world application point is the problem for me. I definately would not mind learning more from the application end to help my own goals etc. :)

Some history. First I am not a BB, but more of a strength/performance athlete (so maybe you will think none of this is even applicable to me), though I think the caveats should still hold, obviously the less damage you do, the less recovery time and the more progress you can make....

I generally do 5x5 or 5x3 or 5,4,3,2 or WSB type workout. I also employ a DE type day once a week like WSB no matter what type of heavy day I do. So generally I have a max effort day and a DE day. However, most of the time, as was previously mentioned, only the last set is max effort, but a lot of times, I wonder, "was I already fatigued and was that my max effort possible" or I wonder if I could have multiple max effort sessions if I could cut the total volume? I know from experience that I have had a tough time working with they strict type programs you talk about because a) I do not feel warmed up enough to give full effort (I even had problems with this when I first started WSB until I made the sets very close together in weight) b) I feel there is NO endurance aspect (which I have no problem dealing wiht for periods of growth) or c) I find I get a lot more aches, joint, connective issues (probably related to warm up)

For example, right now I am doing this for my work sets on bench....
5-340
4-365
3-390 85-90% effort
2-415 100% effort

I also do 10x135 (medium speed), 5x135 (explosive), 225x5,
275x5 and 315x5 for warmup

Of course I may be totally wrong, but I feel like you guys are arguing I could cut it back even more in favor of faster recovery.
I would be all about this, IF you could show me how to do it....

Personally, I feel I have cut it back about all I can, but if you can help me with it, I would definitely be open to learning something new.... If it makes that much of a difference, I would be all about trying it.... (and like I said, I would be all about experimenting on myself)

Probably the WSB routine comes closest to putting the least damage on me, but even then, I don't know how I could not be fatiqued by some of the sub-maximal sets (doing multiple sets in the 85-95% range instead of one all out test)....

Just trying to learn something new.... like I said, if I can do anything which might improve what I am doing now (as I have basically been doing the same thing forever) that would be cool.

Of course, maybe I am just retarded and did not realize you guys are talking about something which can't be used for what I am trying to accomplish.
 
I completely agree with you debaser...I recently started the DC training about 3 weeks ago and man, the gains ive been making are awesome, every bodypart is noticably thicker and ive yet to see an increase in bodyfat. I dont get how some people say 1 set isnt enough... dc is easily the most exausting workout ive done, any more sets id probly pass out. I cant even imagine doing a high volume workout again.
 
Debaser said:
This isn't really theory. Hundreds of trainees have made the best progress of their life on DC. The same applies to HST. The DC stickies here and on Animal's board are well over 1000 posts, and I have yet to find anyone unhappy with their results.

Are the hundreds of trainees top level amateur or pro bodybuilders?

B True
 
okay, here's a thought.
I was doing a low volume HIT style split (4day) routine during the first 3 months of this year. I was training each group every 9 days (chest+tris on monday, then again next wednesday ). I made incredible strength gains. so here's the thought:

say you do one exersize/muscle group. lets pick squats for this example :) (the data for this example comes from my personal experiences)
training monday/friday/wednesday.... (DC type frequency) strength gains may look like this:

monday: 275 x 8
friday: 285 x 5
wednesday: 285 x 7

[ note that strength is still going up consistently ]
now training at a decreased frequency such as monday/following wednesday strength gains may look like this:

monday: 275 x 8
following wednesday: 285 x 9

so if it is possible to make much greater strength gains by training at a decreased frequency than on a frequency that is double it ( at least this was the case with me ), what's wrong with that? [ also note, I cut my volume in half when I double my frequency, doing only two excercises for legs, with one work set each ]

just a thought.
 
b fold the truth said:


Are the hundreds of trainees top level amateur or pro bodybuilders?

B True

Bfold- Thanks for chiming in on this.... I would like to hear your thoughts, is any of this applicable to people who are interested more in strength/performance, and what if they have been training a number of years/at fairly high levels of performance already?

I mean, if it helped so much, I could see working on more muscular endurance later in a differnt phase of training.....

Again, Jut trying to learn soemthing if it is there to be learned, but does it not make sense that most any caveat should be able to be applied to both strenght and or BB training?
 
I am hearing what MOD is saying, though I am confused by what the optimal training frequency is (still once a week/more than once a week)

I would say what MOD is presenting sounds reasonable too....

Also, I how do you warm up for this set?

Thuroughly confused....
 
b fold the truth said:


Are the hundreds of trainees top level amateur or pro bodybuilders?

B True

B Fold,

Thats really irrelevant. . .the point is that any trainer can make substantial gains whether you are a competitive athlete or a recreational trainer.
 
Remember folks. . . . you must warmup before your balls to the wall one set.

Here is my rule of thumb:
(nothing to failure, but light and gradually progressing to the upper weights)

large muscle groups: 4-5 warmup sets
small muscle groups: 3-4 warmup sets

Lots of stretching between warmups. . .also deep concentration and mind to muscle connection is required for the all out set. . .without this, the all-out set is ineffective.
 
b fold the truth said:


Are the hundreds of trainees top level amateur or pro bodybuilders?

B True

There are trainees from all levels of experience. HST has a top level german bodybuilder supporting it, but you have to consider that HST hasn't been around for a long time. DC has trained regular joes as well as [I believe] high level amateurs, not sure about pros. But does it matter? You have to have the genetics to be a pro.
 
Debaser said:


There are trainees from all levels of experience. HST has a top level german bodybuilder supporting it, but you have to consider that HST hasn't been around for a long time. DC has trained regular joes as well as [I believe] high level amateurs, not sure about pros. But does it matter? You have to have the genetics to be a pro.

Ok...I just disagree with it. You say 'you have to have the genetics to be a pro'...then that puts a lot of demphasis on the training program. I just really do not know ANY bodybuilders who completely train this way. From what I am seeing...it has worked for a select few (under DC's trained eye) but I don't see the top level bodybuilders or even the top level amateur bodybuilders using this method. That alone speaks volumes to me.

I can see the benefit of doing a routine like this for 1-2 weeks...maybe 2-3x per year. I just don't see the point of doing it for ANY extended period of time (more than 2 weeks). I can also see some benefit for the beginner...but I also see nearly as much negatives about the beginner using this type of routine...

B True
 
So I am guessing I am not getting any more info on this as an application for my type of training.....
 
b fold the truth said:


I can also see some benefit for the beginner...
B True
I agree. You could give a beginner a stick to work out with and the exercises would make them grow! It's a whole new ball game when you're an elite athlete.
 
Becoming said:


Bfold- Thanks for chiming in on this.... I would like to hear your thoughts, is any of this applicable to people who are interested more in strength/performance, and what if they have been training a number of years/at fairly high levels of performance already?


I don't know any top level strength athletes who train this way either...

B True
 
b fold the truth said:


Ok...I just disagree with it. You say 'you have to have the genetics to be a pro'...then that puts a lot of demphasis on the training program. I just really do not know ANY bodybuilders who completely train this way. From what I am seeing...it has worked for a select few (under DC's trained eye) but I don't see the top level bodybuilders or even the top level amateur bodybuilders using this method. That alone speaks volumes to me.

I can see the benefit of doing a routine like this for 1-2 weeks...maybe 2-3x per year. I just don't see the point of doing it for ANY extended period of time (more than 2 weeks). I can also see some benefit for the beginner...but I also see nearly as much negatives about the beginner using this type of routine...

B True

The question is. . .have you tried this method?

If not, I see no room to talk (not starting a war).

Thats the problem. . .people are skeptical, but they have never tried the program. They are unwilling to give the program a chance. I was skeptical, but I read through the methods and they made sense to me.

Most pro bodybuilders are probably unfamiliar with this type of training. DC has worked with a few amateur and pro bodybuilders. . .ask him yourself.

Remember Dorian Yates?? He followed a similar program.

Mentzer was also a believer in a low volume program.
 
louden_swain said:


a believer in a low volume program.
It makes more sense to me to take training in a step approach, beginnning with high volume/low intensity and progressing to low volume/high intensity over many weeks. That's purely from a strength training prospective, but increasing strength, in turn, increases muscle growth.
 
My points are not going to be taken...so I'll leave this thread right where it is...without my views. I've said my opinion and I think that they are pretty on target and that I have made a VERY good point.

I'll let it be.

B True
 
b fold the truth said:


Ok...I just disagree with it. You say 'you have to have the genetics to be a pro'...then that puts a lot of demphasis on the training program. I just really do not know ANY bodybuilders who completely train this way. From what I am seeing...it has worked for a select few (under DC's trained eye) but I don't see the top level bodybuilders or even the top level amateur bodybuilders using this method. That alone speaks volumes to me.

I can see the benefit of doing a routine like this for 1-2 weeks...maybe 2-3x per year. I just don't see the point of doing it for ANY extended period of time (more than 2 weeks). I can also see some benefit for the beginner...but I also see nearly as much negatives about the beginner using this type of routine...

B True

You don't know bodybuilders that train this way because they don't even know about it themselves. I say "HST" or "DC" to the big guys at my gym and they usually go "huh?". That's okay though, many DC trainees talk about how they love to watch themselves make leaps and bounds over the other guys in their gym, who progress slowly or remain stagnant for long periods of time, and are also closed minded to other training methods.

Come on, the 4 or 5 day split is perpetuated by muscle magazines. Ya know, the ones that are supplement catalogs in disguise? Many pros do train this way, but they disguise the fact that they use steroids and have awesome genetics. So when Joe Average pics up the magazine, he thinks it is the supplements that are responsible, when in fact 98% of them are worthless.
 
pwr_machine said:
It makes more sense to me to take training in a step approach, beginnning with high volume/low intensity and progressing to low volume/high intensity over many weeks. That's purely from a strength training prospective, but increasing strength, in turn, increases muscle growth.

pwr_machine,

This would be an excellent journal article for you to write!!:D

High Volume vs. Low Volume Training

Get 30 test subjects (experienced with training)

15 high volume trainers
15 low volume trainers

- Abstract -

1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methods
4. Discussion and Results
5. Conclusion

Actually, this would be a good dissertation:D .
 
Louden and Debaser- Like I said, it does seem to make sense to me... I do agree with all the theories

BFold- Too bad you are not going to contribute, if there are any other performance type people out there, I would like to hear your comments...

But yeah, I have heard that this type of training does not work for athletes though I agree with Pwr-machine, that if one increases strength/mass should follow and vice-versa....
 
louden_swain said:


pwr_machine,

This would be an excellent journal article for you to write!!:D

High Volume vs. Low Volume Training

Get 30 test subjects (experienced with training)

15 high volume trainers
15 low volume trainers

Several studies already suggest that the transition from high volume to low volume (i.e. periodization) is far more superior than any other type of training. One negative aspect of many of these studies is that they are performed with beginners. So, I agree, we need more studies with experienced lifters. I have a pretty good pilot study on Bigguns15's website. It's her "Advanced Training Cycle - I" Not all the data is up, but it is evident that lifts did increase substantially for the small group of experienced powerlifters.
 
louden_swain said:


pwr_machine,

This would be an excellent journal article for you to write!!:D

High Volume vs. Low Volume Training

Get 30 test subjects (experienced with training)

15 high volume trainers
15 low volume trainers

- Abstract -

1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methods
4. Discussion and Results
5. Conclusion

Actually, this would be a good dissertation:D .

Dude- I already suggested this- why not get some recruits off the board and do an online study???
 
Becoming said:


Dude- I already suggested this- why not get some recruits off the board and do an online study???
It would be very, very hard to get a group of experienced lifters to follow a new program with strict guidelines. Experienced lifters have the upper hand; they have learned what works for them and would most likely be unwilling to change.
 
Well, to be of any value it'd need to be controlled more than you could with people online. Same workout time (morning, night, etc), same diet, same exercises etc. Might be interesting anyway, but not really conclusive of anything otherwise.
 
pwr_machine said:
It would be very, very hard to get a group of experienced lifters to follow a new program with strict guidelines. Experienced lifters have the upper hand; they have learned what works for them and would most likely be unwilling to change.

This is true.

How would these trainers be monitored?? Keeping track of 30 trainers would be difficult.
 
pwr_machine-
I read over your info on Bigguns15's website, all I can say is a lot more thurough and convincing than the DC info... (lots of people, or I helped some non-descript guy gain 47 pounds-though he was pretty small to start) Nicely done.

Sure maybe a few more controls could be thrown in, but a good model to use and base other studies off of...

I know it would be hard to get people to adhere to something new and to follow a program they otherwise would not. Anyway, if you guys can get some more recruits, I would be in (I am not the most advanced in the world, but I think I could qualify as a good test subject)

It is funny that us with the "dinosaur" methods are more willing to put it to the test...

Debaser and Louden- Not ripping on your methods, like I said many times, I agree in theory 100%, but I would like to see something a little more convincing as far as evidence....Bigguns15's website at least took a step on that side....
 
sorry my spelling sucks-

again, not trying to get people here all wriled up, but just trying to put some quantifiable numbers on things as far as which is better/worse...
 
Becoming said:
pwr_machine-
I read over your info on Bigguns15's website, all I can say is a lot more thurough and convincing than the DC info...

....Bigguns15's website at least took a step on that side....

Bigguns15 will be very excited about your satisfaction with the looks of her program. We have alot of other info to post one of these days, but data analysis has yet to be completed. We did a handful of strength and power tests also that still need to be recorded.
 
Its funny when I think about it. . . lol. . we are all filled with opinions.

Sometimes we tend to take our opinions and cram them down peoples throat (I am guilty of this).

It all boils down to finding a training method that works best for you. Can you imagine what a newbie thinks, when he or she read the constant argument? I can only imagine the amount of confusion that emerges. This explains the plethora of questions that relates to "which training method should I follow?"

Lets end the madness for Pete's Sake!!! (I am kidding lol)
 
louden_swain said:
Its funny when I think about it. . . lol. . we are all filled with opinions.

Sometimes we tend to take our opinions and cram them down peoples throat (I am guilty of this).

It all boils down to finding a training method that works best for you. Can you imagine what a newbie thinks, when he or she read the constant argument? I can only imagine the amount of confusion that emerges. This explains the plethora of questions that relates to "which training method should I follow?"

Lets end the madness for Pete's Sake!!! (I am kidding lol)
Yeah, I imagine the newbie's are VERY confused!:D
 
pwr_machine said:
Yeah, I imagine the newbie's are VERY confused!:D

Lets keep them confused!!:D

No. . not really, we need to help them as much as possible.

BTW,

I would love to read some articles in regards to high/low volume training and periodization.

What authors and journals do you recommend?
 
louden_swain said:


Lets keep them confused!!:D

No. . not really, we need to help them as much as possible.

BTW,

I would love to read some articles in regards to high/low volume training and periodization.

What authors and journals do you recommend?
I'lll try to dig some up this evening.
 
Maybe the sticky should have some sort of disclaimer:

Note that all training methods linked here are valid methods. Effectiveness varies from person to person. Some methods are more effective for certain people than other methods; none have been proven better than others for every person. Use at your own risk ;)
 
louden_swain said:


BTW,
I would love to read some articles in regards to high/low volume training and periodization.

That is how I train for pre-contest...I start to change from lower to higher to lower and back to higher volume...then very low volume. I think that you have to...in order to peak.

Also note...that I train a movement (in one way or another) more than once a week...

B True
 
louden_swain said:
I would love to read some articles in regards to high/low volume training and periodization. What authors and journals do you recommend?

2 authors that I can think of offhand are Michael Stone and Steven Fleck. Both are very well known for their research in strength training.

2 articles that may be off some help that I can think offhand are:

1) Good article that compares many types of training, and also references each one. Those would be the ones I would look into individually.

Fleck (1999) Periodized Strength Training: A Critical Review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 13(1), 82-89.

and

2) Old article but gives the theory behind alot of the stuff I believe.

Stone et al. (1982). A Theoretical Model of Strength Training. NSCA Journal. August-September p. 36-39.
 
pwr_machine said:


2 authors that I can think of offhand are Michael Stone and Steven Fleck. Both are very well known for their research in strength training.

2 articles that may be off some help that I can think offhand are:

1) Good article that compares many types of training, and also references each one. Those would be the ones I would look into individually.

Fleck (1999) Periodized Strength Training: A Critical Review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 13(1), 82-89.

and

2) Old article but gives the theory behind alot of the stuff I believe.

Thanks!!! I will follow up on these.

Has anything been published from the University of Oklahoma or Oklahoma State University?

Stone et al. (1982). A Theoretical Model of Strength Training. NSCA Journal. August-September p. 36-39.
 
b fold the truth said:


That is how I train for pre-contest...I start to change from lower to higher to lower and back to higher volume...then very low volume. I think that you have to...in order to peak.
B True

Excellent point! That's the most important aspect of strength training, peaking for competition!
 
b fold the truth said:


That is how I train for pre-contest...I start to change from lower to higher to lower and back to higher volume...then very low volume. I think that you have to...in order to peak.

Also note...that I train a movement (in one way or another) more than once a week...

B True

I gotcha B,

I consider your training sophisticated and I know you are constantly getting stronger. . . .thats why I save all of your videos for extra motivation.

Your technique is solid. . .that helps as well.
 
OK time for my opinion

Fist off Bfold made a good point, no one wants to admit it but it is true: no top level strngth athletes or bodybuilders are using DC strictly. Now that doesn't mean it is a bad routine, in fact I think it is very good. I would even go so far as to say I am currently using a hybrid WSB low volume routine with a lot of ar and stretching thrown in. I still do speed work but I do it different as I posted in this thread: http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248671

But as far as my heavy lifts are concerned I am only training 3 days a week and I am only performing 1 heavy work set after 4 or so warm up sets. After 2 and a half weeks of football usually my strength is in the toilet because my joints are taking a pounding from the weights and the impacts, but I am actually getting stronger, and I am not on anything in case that is what you are thinking.

My upper body workout on Tuesday went something like this:

Flat Bench
135 x10
225 x10
315 x12
365 x10
405 x 8---workset this is about 80 percent of my 1rm raw.

DE bench throws
3 at 135
3 at 135
3 at 135

Cambered Bar Military
135 x 10
185 x 10
225 x 6
245 x 9---workset

done

all in all I am trying to deelop the best in season program for strength related sports, and I am finding that if I look at the practices and games as workouts that are obviously high volume there is no way I can go to the gym and do a high volume routine. So I will keep posting my results with the lower volume in season routine as a side note.
 
I guess to further add to discussion:

I tend to go from periods of moderate volume to low volume, as b-fold described.

although a workout like 5x5 using the same weight for each set might not be much to look at on paper (300x5x5 just doesn't look as good as 300x8-9), sometimes, especially when i've burned out on doing just one top all out set, its crucial for me to keep making gains. I like using 5x5 and such to build off of each workout rather than using just a top set as a means to an end.

Generally, I like the "ed coan" approach and taking a moderate approach instead of a dogmatic one.
 
IL-
Thanks for weighing in. I like the comments you made in the other thread about such a modification creating a more effective dynamic movement. (I believe the fact that you have to stop the weight does result in less effort)

Your thread says you are working out 3 days a week correct? Is upper body only one of those three? (or every third workout?)

Don't you think such a workout could also be used out of season for periods (going with the idea that less recovery time = more gains)? As long as volume was also seperately addressed for muscular endurance purposes?

Also, don't you think such a method like you are employing now be useful for individuals in sports like shot/discus where there is less need for muscular endurance?

Definately interested in seeing your results vs time...
 
Last edited:
IL-
One more quick Q- I figure you are doing the 8-10 rep range because of in season.... any reason this could not work in a 4-6 or 2-3 rep range for out of season type training?
 
FWIW:


"In a study performed at Montclair State University (5) researchers investigated the effect of a single set vs. a multiple set routine on increasing upper body strength. They had the subjects perform either one set or three sets of bench press, incline dumbbell press and flat dumbbell flies using ten reps, three times per week for 12 weeks. This kind of study has been done before but this one is particularly valuable because it involved previously "trained" subjects. This is significant because untrained subjects will usually respond positively to virtually any training routine. Just because a training strategy works for beginners doesn’t mean it will work for experienced lifters. These researchers found that doing a single set of each exercise was equally effective as doing three sets of the same movements in increasing the subjects one repetition maximum (1RM) on bench press. The take home message is that you needn’t do more than a single work set to achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets. "


5) Curto MA., Fisher MM. The effect of single vs. Multiple sets of resistance exercise on strength in trained males. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S114, 1999
 
BlkWS6 said:
FWIW:


"In a study performed at Montclair State University (5) researchers investigated the effect of a single set vs. a multiple set routine on increasing upper body strength. They had the subjects perform either one set or three sets of bench press, incline dumbbell press and flat dumbbell flies using ten reps, three times per week for 12 weeks. This kind of study has been done before but this one is particularly valuable because it involved previously "trained" subjects. This is significant because untrained subjects will usually respond positively to virtually any training routine. Just because a training strategy works for beginners doesn’t mean it will work for experienced lifters. These researchers found that doing a single set of each exercise was equally effective as doing three sets of the same movements in increasing the subjects one repetition maximum (1RM) on bench press. The take home message is that you needn’t do more than a single work set to achieve the same relative gains of doing multiple sets. "


5) Curto MA., Fisher MM. The effect of single vs. Multiple sets of resistance exercise on strength in trained males. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S114, 1999

Good post. . .I will track down this article.
 
Kramer, James B., Stone, Michael H., O'Bryant, Harold S., Conley, Michael S., Johnson, Robert L., Nieman, David C., Honeycutt, Darren R., Hoke, Thomas P. 1997: Effects of Single vs. Multiple Sets of Weight Training: Impact of Volume, Intensity, and Variation. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 143–147.


ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of a single set of weight training exercise to failure and 2 multiple-set protocols (not to failure) on the 1-RM parallel squat. Forty-three men were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 weight training protocols emphasizing leg and hip strength: SS = single set to failure of 8–12 reps; MS = 3 × 10 reps; MSV = multiple-set program using a varied set and rep scheme. Relative intensity (% initial 1-RM), intensity (average mass lifted), and volume load (repetitions × mass) differed between groups over 14 weeks. Body mass, body composition, and the 1-RM parallel squat were assessed at baseline and at Weeks 5 and 14. Results showed no significant changes in body mass or body composition. The 1-RM squat increased significantly in all groups. Differences in 1-RM between groups indicate that MS and MSV increased approximately 50% more than SS over the 14 weeks. Results suggest that multiple sets not performed to failure produce superior gains in the 1-RM squat.


This study also used trained individuals.
 
The problem is that both those studies are examining strength, which isn't really what we were originally arguing about. It said in the second one, "results showed no significant changes in body mass or body composition."

Here's one that's more pertinent:

McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999.

Although pubmed won't give me the abstract...can anybody help me out with this one?

If you trust Bryan Haycock (HST), this is what he said about it:
In a study performed at the University of Alabama (see above referance), two groups of subjects performed the same periodized resistance training routine either once per week or three times per week. The results showed that muscle mass increases were greater in the three workout per week group, compared to the one workout per week group. In addition, the strength increases in this group were on average 40% greater! So what does this mean to you? It means the fear of overtraining, which sometimes verges on paranoia, may be preventing you from getting the most gains you can in the gym."
 
The thing is to teach your body something you need to repeat it, and do it frequently.

One set is not gonna cut it. Remeber the nueral aspect of weight training is just as important as the actual muscle protein breakdown.

Off course I am speaking more from a performance standpoint.
That is why when doing speed work, you do low reps and more sets so you have more chances to learn the speed/form,teach you neural system to maximaly recruit fibers, and with relatively lower fatigue.

What you don't recruit and fatigue, won't grow. I just don't think one set to failure is going to recruit and fatigue all the potential fibers. Ideally you'd like to recruit and fatigue different fibers each time.
And like I pointed up above, with more sets, you can eventually learn to recruit more fibers over time, this will also allow you to use heavier weights, even if your muscles aren't actually bigger.
But can be used in the future to create a bigger hypertophy responce simply becuase your using heavier weights, recruiting and fatiguing more fibers.
 
casualbb said:
The problem is that both those studies are examining strength, which isn't really what we were originally arguing about. It said in the second one, "results showed no significant changes in body mass or body composition."

Here's one that's more pertinent:

McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999.

Although pubmed won't give me the abstract...can anybody help me out with this one?

If you trust Bryan Haycock (HST), this is what he said about it:


If someone finds the article, I'd like to know:

1) How long was the study?
2) How many subjects?
3) What was used to measure LBM?
4) Was there a significant difference in LBM between the groups?
 
I only posted that article relating to strength gains in 1 set vs. multiple sets because the trend of this thread seemed to be heading in the direction of strength (assuming that wasn't what Debaser orginally had in mind).
 
Originally posted by pwr_machine
Kramer, James B., Stone, Michael H., O'Bryant, Harold S., Conley, Michael S., Johnson, Robert L., Nieman, David C., Honeycutt, Darren R., Hoke, Thomas P. 1997: Effects of Single vs. Multiple Sets of Weight Training: Impact of Volume, Intensity, and Variation. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 143–147.


ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of a single set of weight training exercise to failure and 2 multiple-set protocols (not to failure) on the 1-RM parallel squat. Forty-three men were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 weight training protocols emphasizing leg and hip strength: SS = single set to failure of 8–12 reps; MS = 3 × 10 reps; MSV = multiple-set program using a varied set and rep scheme. Relative intensity (% initial 1-RM), intensity (average mass lifted), and volume load (repetitions × mass) differed between groups over 14 weeks. Body mass, body composition, and the 1-RM parallel squat were assessed at baseline and at Weeks 5 and 14. Results showed no significant changes in body mass or body composition. The 1-RM squat increased significantly in all groups. Differences in 1-RM between groups indicate that MS and MSV increased approximately 50% more than SS over the 14 weeks. Results suggest that multiple sets not performed to failure produce superior gains in the 1-RM squat.


This study also used trained individuals.


Why did they take the SS group to failure and the MS not to failure in this study? I mean couldn't the main culprit for the SS group's lack of performance be the fact that they took sets to failure? If someone can clear this study up for me a little bit I would appreciate it. So couldnt it be plausible to assume that single sets not to failure might deem the same results as well?
 
BlkWS6 said:
Why did they take the SS group to failure and the MS not to failure in this study? I mean couldn't the main culprit for the SS group's lack of performance be the fact that they took sets to failure? If someone can clear this study up for me a little bit I would appreciate it.

Single set to failure vs. multiple set. I don't understand the confusion.
 
My confusion is that the single set is taken to failure, but the multiple sets are not taken to failure. What Im saying is why not keep the failure or lack of failure constant between the two groups? I mean after all arent we testing single set vs. multiple sets? As opposed to failure training vs. sub-maximal training?


"This study examined the effects of a single set of weight training exercise to failure and 2 multiple-set protocols (not to failure) on the 1-RM parallel squat. "
 
I just thought I'd chime in and give a little more background on the way I train. It's listed on my website how I do sets and reps and what percentages I use for given weeks. However, it's only my last set of the exercise that is done at my target percentage. So for instance, during week 2 on squats I'm supposed to do 4 x 6 and my target % is 81%, then it's only my last set that is actually 81%. I don't count the other 3 as warm-ups, but they aren't "balls to the wall" either. Even the last set is not one to failure. I can't train to failure, or I will overtrain or peak too soon.

As far as frequency of my lifts, I only do each core lift once per week. However, I do supplemental/skill transfer lifts 2-3 times/week.

My training is also geared for strength, but I've put on a considerable amount of muscle along the way.
 
Becoming said:

I read over your info on Bigguns15's website, all I can say is a lot more thurough and convincing than the DC info... (lots of people, or I helped some non-descript guy gain 47 pounds-though he was pretty small to start) Nicely done.

....Bigguns15's website at least took a step on that side....


Thanks for browsing through my training section. I'm glad there was some useful information for you. Pwr_machine and I have worked with 50+ lifters, many of which are national champions. Together we devised training cycles that were very similar to the ones I use today. I trust our method of training more than anything else out there.
 
BlkWS6 said:
My confusion is that the single set is taken to failure, but the multiple sets are not taken to failure. What Im saying is why not keep the failure or lack of failure constant between the two groups? I mean after all arent we testing single set vs. multiple sets? As opposed to failure training vs. sub-maximal training?
[/B]

I gotcha! I can't speak for the researchers, but I'm guessing that they have evidence that multiple sets are better than single sets...unless you're a beginner. Any training would yield positive results for a beginner. With that established, a single set to failure was compared to multiple sets. And to keep failure or lack of failure constant, could you really perform multiple sets to failure? If so, is it really failure? You bring up good points.
 
I agree with CCJ 100%...still.

B True
 
casualbb said:
I'll tell you why once a week. It feeds into our obsession with easy numbers. It has nothing to do with what works best. I guarantee if our weeks were 9 days, that's the frequency you'd see people hitting a muscle group.

lets pretend there is no week at all, just nights and days, now what??
 
Then it depends on what you're training for. If you want size, it would make sense to see how long muscle grows after a training bout at then hit it again at the end of that period so you're always growing. For strength, it'd be whenever you recover strength from the first workout.
 
Obviously, there is plenty of literature out there. . . .

Even in my study area, scholars can't seem to reach an agreement, rather its a constant debate and opinionated atmoshpere.
 
Maccer101 said:
What is DC Training? Please explain

Take a look at the Training Methods sticky. Basically single set per body part, each bodypart 3 times over 2 weeks, pos rest pause, plus some other good stuff..... :)
 
This is an interesting discussion, but a couple of points that may be relevant to a lot of trainers are convenience and enjoyment (stepping away from ideal world “optimum” training for a second)

We live in a 7-day week world, people have jobs, school, college, kids, partners etc. etc. Having a regular weekly schedule works for them and means they get to the gym. Again, maybe not optimal, but the best for their situation!

Also, everyone needs to enjoy what he or she are doing. We know that “pump” and “the burn” have nothing to do with a productive workout, but if it keeps THEM coming back to the gym, then that’s got be good. In fact, I think the place where people struggle most with their progress is less in the gym, but more in the kitchen and the bedroom (i.e. sleeping! ;) ). These are much harder for most people to master…
 
louden_swain said:
My question is, why do people piddle around with set after set?

What is the benefit of performing:?

5 x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5

Isn't this a bit redundant? Why is this necessary?

Why not take that 225lbs and pound out 8 or 9 reps for 1 set?

After taking it to the maximum, there is no need for an additional 4 sets.

Shouldn't training be about causing extensive muscle damage then getting out of the gym so you can grow?

The rest of the time can be devoted towards rest and feeding the machine.

Because 5x5 w/ 225 = 25 reps with 225. That totals 5625 lbs moved. 1x8-9 w/225 = 1800-2025 total lbs. moved. Additionally, you can exert more force when doing more sets of fewer reps while not going to failure than by doing one or two sets to failure. Think about it. Your first few reps of your sets, you are exerting much more than 225 lbs-- the weight goes up much faster on the first few reps than it does on the last few. Therefore, in addition to moving over twice the total weight per workout (which will undoubtedly lead to greater muscle growth), you are exerting more force per rep, which increases muscle tension and power, which also leads to greater muscle growth.

If that is too complex for you to comprehend, just look at it this way-- why would 9 reps with 225 per workout lead to greater growth or strength than 25 reps with 225 per workout? Doesn't it make sense that someone who lifts nearly 2.5 times the amount of weight (5000+lbs) would be stronger and bigger than the other (2000lbs)?
 
latinus_spicticus said:


Because 5x5 w/ 225 = 25 reps with 225. That totals 5625 lbs moved. 1x8-9 w/225 = 1800-2025 total lbs. moved. Additionally, you can exert more force when doing more sets of fewer reps while not going to failure than by doing one or two sets to failure. Think about it. Your first few reps of your sets, you are exerting much more than 225 lbs-- the weight goes up much faster on the first few reps than it does on the last few. Therefore, in addition to moving over twice the total weight per workout (which will undoubtedly lead to greater muscle growth), you are exerting more force per rep, which increases muscle tension and power, which also leads to greater muscle growth.

If that is too complex for you to comprehend, just look at it this way-- why would 9 reps with 225 per workout lead to greater growth or strength than 25 reps with 225 per workout? Doesn't it make sense that someone who lifts nearly 2.5 times the amount of weight (5000+lbs) would be stronger and bigger than the other (2000lbs)?

You are clearly missing my point. . .

you are under the assumption that more is better, and thats not the case.

My point is, that you don't need 5 sets to break down muscle tissue. . . I pound it out with one set.

Look at some of my sample workouts I have distributed throughout this forum.
 
Latinus, the main argument against that (in my opinion), is that doing the 25 reps takes longer to recover from. Thus, you can only do that once per week. If you just do one set of 8-9 reps, it's less for that workout, but you can do it three times per week. Thus, you have more periods of growth. That's kind of part of the HST principals - check out www.hypertrophy-specific.com
 
Backlash said:
Latinus, the main argument against that (in my opinion), is that doing the 25 reps takes longer to recover from. Thus, you can only do that once per week. If you just do one set of 8-9 reps, it's less for that workout, but you can do it three times per week. Thus, you have more periods of growth. That's kind of part of the HST principals - check out www.hypertrophy-specific.com

Good Work!:)
 
Also, which set do you think would cause me to grow more?

500 lbs x 5
or 30 lbs x 100

There is more weight moved on the second example, but if you think a 100 rep 30 lb bench press will get you growing, think again.
 
Re: Re: Once a week frequency? Why?

pwr_machine said:


My only concern is that I believe your body does adapt to training. I agree that changing a routine in as little as 2+ weeks is not necessary. But if you're in a plateu with the training, you're body is looking for a change. Experience will let you know when it's time to seek a different training schedule.

I agree, changing it up is key.

Some of my workouts are high volume, I try to attack the muscle from as many angles as possible... some are lower volume but I'll use extremely slow negatives, statics, supersets, rest pausing, or something other than just straight sets. If you just do straight sets, and never focus on pushing against the weight you're lifting (A lot of people do this, at least people i've lifted with), I don't think you'll ever grow much--or at least not muscle, maybe some fat with the types of diets most use.

People who are against high reps are missing a lot of growth; high reps stimulate the slow twitch muscle fibers which you want to grow also.

http://abcbodybuilding.com/anatomyandphysiology.htm
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/workout.htm

Lots of solid information, at least in my opinion.
 
http://www.wlinfo.com/are_multiple_sets_better_than_on.htm

Performing multiple sets with the heaviest weight that is lifted in a particular exercise during a given training session is a very common training practice. In contrast, many athletes warm up to a maximum weight for the day and either end their training on that exercise for the day, or reduce the weight to perform a final "warm down" set or sets. Surprisingly, in today’s weight training circles, there is a rather heated debate going on between the advocates of performing one heavy set of each exercise in a particular workout and those who believe in performing multiple sets with ones top weight of the day (and performing lots of sets per exercise overall). Naturally, there are many trainers who take a position somewhere in between these extreme positions. Examining this issue in some detail can help to clear up much of the confusion that exists regarding this issue, because much of the debate takes place because the theorists in each school are arguing from different contexts. They would have far less to disagree about if they agreed on some ground rules for their discussions.

At one end of the one set versus multiple set spectrum there are a number of influential advocates of what is often termed the "one set to failure" school of training (e.g., Mike Mentzer and Arthur Jones). Under this system, the trainee performs one or two warm-up sets and then attacks the heaviest set of the day. With that weight, the athlete continues to perform repetitions until he or she actually fails to perform a repetition; many advocates of this system recommend doing some "forced" reps (reps that are performed with minimal assistance from a partner once the point of failure has been reached with normal reps) and/or some eccentric contractions after failure occurs with regular reps.

The one set to failure theorists argue that the training stimulus derived from one all out set will be sufficient to foster continuing improvement in a muscle's strength and/or size and that any additional sets performed, while providing no further stimulus for the body to improve (i.e., it has already been stimulated to the maximum by the first set) will actually have a detrimental effect on the body caused by overwork.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who recommend performing several warm-up sets and then several sets with the heaviest weight to be lifted for the day (some advocate the use of weights that are challenging for the number of reps performed as the athlete warms up—at least after the first set or two, in a "pyramiding" approach—described later in this chapter). These theorists believe that an athlete can only stimulate a maximal training effect with multiple sets.

To the surprise of some, advocates of each approach (and many that are in between the extremes) have had great success in some cases and a lesser degree of success in others. What can explain this apparent contradiction?

To begin with, there are no contradictions. Whenever one encounters what appears to be a contradiction it is appropriate to check the premises that are leading to the apparent contradiction. In those premises, and/or the reasoning from them, one will find a flaw that has lead to the apparent contradiction.

In this case, many of the advocates of each side of the one set/multiple set controversy overlook important differences in their premises. For example, when each side talks about the optimizing the training effect they often fail to recognize that any training effect is multidimensional. You can’t simply train for increased muscle size without influencing other capabilities of the organism, such as its contractile capabilities, its ability to recruit muscle fibers and the strength of its connective tissue. To say that one system has "the" optimal training effect fails to address the questions "Effect on what?" and "With what affect or cost to other capabilities?"

For instance, a one set to failure bout of exercise may create a training stimulus, but several sets performed in such a way may create an ever greater training stimulus. However, if the performance of several sets damages so much muscle tissue that the body will not be able to recover from the effort for an extended period of time, the benefit of the extra training stimulus may be counterbalanced by the lack of an ability to recover from the training session. However, if an athlete needs to have the capability of performing several maximal sets in competition, the performance of one set during training may not generate a sufficient training stimulus for the athlete to be optimally prepared for the demands of a competition.

So how does one address the one set/ multiple set dilemma? One must look at the full expanse of what one is trying to accomplish in training—in our case training for weightlifting competition.

First, there is now scientific evidence that more muscle fibers are activated on a maximum set of five reps than on a maximum single. From this it follows that a maximum set of high reps is more likely to stimulate a maximal training effect than a maximum single. Since weightlifters need to perform relatively low reps in training (and especially in competition) they will typically need to employ more sets to achieve their ends than someone who is performing five, ten or twenty reps in a set.

Second, it is not clear that one set to failure does provide the optimal training stimulus for a give athlete. Repeating sets undoubtedly increases the training stimulus and athletes vary in their ability to recover from a training session. Those differences in recovery rates suggest that some athletes may benefit from a greater training stimulus (or a greater frequency of administering the same stimulus) than other athletes. Obviously, there is a point where more training does not increase the training stimulus (the body is simply as stimulated as it can be by a given bout of exercise).

Third, the mental and emotional effort of performing a truly maximal set may be so much for some athletes that training to failure in every workout is simply wears them down over time. Such athletes may benefit from performing multiple sets with a lesser load (which will provide a training stimulus without subjecting the athlete to too great a mental and emotional strain—another important training concept that I learned primarily from Mark Gilman).

It is clear that performing too many sets, particularly if they are done to absolute failure at every workout, represents a waste of time that will eventually lead to overtraining.

For purposes of weightlifting training, multiple sets can help to develop skill in recruiting muscle fibers for all out efforts, and this skill is an important component of strength development. Just as massed study cannot replace properly spaced study periods for purposes of long term retention of learned material, one set cannot duplicate multiple sets in terms of the learning process that the latter entails. This is particularly true of complex movements like snatches and C&J’s, where skill at the overall movement as well as in exerting force is an important asset to the lifter.

Another consideration in the training of weightlifters is that multiple sets build the endurance needed for an athlete to withstand the rigors of competition. Weightlifting is an anaerobic activity requiring little cardiovascular fitness, but a competitive weightlifter must have the ability to perform maximum efforts over a period of hours (during much of which the athlete may be resting and handling sub-maximum weights). Performing multiple sets in training can help to develop this ability.

Still another consideration is that having both the one set to failure and multiple sub-maximal set approaches in ones training arsenal permits the athlete to go with the flow of the body's natural wisdom and cycles. There are some days when the lifter simply does not feel up to an all out effort. Nevertheless a lifter can have a very productive workout by handling lighter weights and doing multiple sets.

Finally, the trainee can train several aspects of a muscle's adaptive capacity by performing several different kinds of sets in the same workout (e.g., performing both high and low reps). This is obviously impossible without multiple sets.

How many sets should be performed for optimal strength gains? At least four variables influence the answer to this question. The first variable is that of intensity. The more intense an effort in a given set, the smaller is the number of sets that can be performed with the same intensity. An absolutely all out effort that results in a personal record may be impossible to duplicate in the same workout (and it is probably unproductive to try to do so).

The second variable is that of the number of reps performed in the set. Single efforts, no matter how intense, can nearly always be duplicated in subsequent sets (except perhaps the effort to attain a personal record that requires an athlete's complete psychological, emotional and physical reserves). Higher reps exhaust the athlete more completely and make repeated sets at the same intensity almost impossible. An all out set of twenty reps is a hard act to follow.

It should be noted that, as a group, the Bulgarians are at the extreme edge of those who believe that multiple maximum sets are beneficial. One of the reasons is that they train on singles, which permits more sets to be performed than if sets with higher reps are employed.

As a sort of rule of thumb, you often see athletes performing as many as five to ten singles with a weight that is difficult but not an all out maximum in training. Athletes who perform doubles generally perform from five to eight sets. When the reps rise to three, athletes rarely perform more than six sets, and three to five sets is closer to the norm. When reps rise into the four-to-six range, athletes perform as few as one and as many as five or six sets, but three sets is probably the median load handled. Naturally, all of the above are a function of the proximity of the load to the athlete’s maximum. The closer the load to that maximum, the lower the number of sets is likely to be.

The third variable is the muscle groups involved in the effort. Certain muscle groups appear to recover more quickly from set to set than others. It is generally more difficult to perform repeated sets with maximal effort in the squat than in the military press. In addition, multiple maximal sets in the squat will fatigue the body far more overall than multiple sets of presses.

The last issue is the degree and length of muscle tension developed during the repetitions of a set affect the number of sets in which maximal efforts can be performed. Generally, the greater the tension that is developed in the muscle and the longer it is maintained, the more difficult it is to repeat sets at the same level of performance. It is easier, at least on a physical level, to repeat an all out effort in the snatch than in the squat. This is particularly true if the squats are performed in a slow fashion in both the ascent and the descent.

Only by considering all of these factors in combination can an athlete or coach estimate the training stimulus that will be generated by a given bout of exercise. By balancing these factors a athlete can generate improvements with multiple or single heavy sets.
 
louden_swain said:


You are clearly missing my point. . .

you are under the assumption that more is better, and thats not the case.

My point is, that you don't need 5 sets to break down muscle tissue. . . I pound it out with one set.

Look at some of my sample workouts I have distributed throughout this forum.

I've been training for over ten years. I know what I am speaking of. You cannot prove that performing one set to failure is better than using the same weight and doing 5x5. You simply read doggcrap's crap and take it as gospel. One set to failure training is probably the worst training protocol ever thought of. If you go to failure at every workout, you extend your recovery time and end up burning your CNS out. HIT is shit. I don't need to see your routines to further my disapproval of your methods.

You point of not needing 5 sets to break down muscle tissue is retarded. It is unproven, and only tested on yourself and a handful of others. I never said 5 sets were required to break down muscle tissue-- I said it is a better way to train than 1 set to failure. I am sure 1 or 2 sets will "break down muscle tissue", but that does not mean it is optimal for strength and muscle gain. Going to failure all of the time on every exercise will overtrain anyone in a short time. BTW, I don't profess the 5x5 system to be the best method, either. There are a lot of training systems that work to build mass and power/strength. The 1 or 2 sets to failure method is the shittiest of them all, however.
 
latinus_spicticus said:


I've been training for over ten years. I know what I am speaking of. You cannot prove that performing one set to failure is better than using the same weight and doing 5x5. You simply read doggcrap's crap and take it as gospel. One set to failure training is probably the worst training protocol ever thought of. If you go to failure at every workout, you extend your recovery time and end up burning your CNS out. HIT is shit. I don't need to see your routines to further my disapproval of your methods.

You point of not needing 5 sets to break down muscle tissue is retarded. It is unproven, and only tested on yourself and a handful of others. I never said 5 sets were required to break down muscle tissue-- I said it is a better way to train than 1 set to failure. I am sure 1 or 2 sets will "break down muscle tissue", but that does not mean it is optimal for strength and muscle gain. Going to failure all of the time on every exercise will overtrain anyone in a short time. BTW, I don't profess the 5x5 system to be the best method, either. There are a lot of training systems that work to build mass and power/strength. The 1 or 2 sets to failure method is the shittiest of them all, however.

whatever compadre.

I'll tell you whats shitty. . .your attitude.

I am also an experienced trainer and I have tried it all. . .
 
latinus_spicticus said:


I've been training for over ten years. I know what I am speaking of. You cannot prove that performing one set to failure is better than using the same weight and doing 5x5. You simply read doggcrap's crap and take it as gospel. One set to failure training is probably the worst training protocol ever thought of. If you go to failure at every workout, you extend your recovery time and end up burning your CNS out. HIT is shit. I don't need to see your routines to further my disapproval of your methods.

You point of not needing 5 sets to break down muscle tissue is retarded. It is unproven, and only tested on yourself and a handful of others. I never said 5 sets were required to break down muscle tissue-- I said it is a better way to train than 1 set to failure. I am sure 1 or 2 sets will "break down muscle tissue", but that does not mean it is optimal for strength and muscle gain. Going to failure all of the time on every exercise will overtrain anyone in a short time. BTW, I don't profess the 5x5 system to be the best method, either. There are a lot of training systems that work to build mass and power/strength. The 1 or 2 sets to failure method is the shittiest of them all, however.
??
 
latinus_spicticus said:

I've been training for over ten years. I know what I am speaking of. You cannot prove that performing one set to failure is better than using the same weight and doing 5x5. You simply read doggcrap's crap and take it as gospel.


I have been training since 1994 and I have tried numerous programs. To say that I treat doggcraps program as a gospel is plain silly. Of course you failed to look at any of my routines, because you would have noticed that I have some westside elements, speed work, and cycle training. DCs methods make since to me.

For you to come out and call a program crap when you have never tried it shows your unedcuated state.

I don't know why you are taking aggression towards me, but there are a number of others who post here who follow similar training methods.

I ask a question and you get all bent out of fuckin shape.

One set to failure training is probably the worst training protocol ever thought of.

Lets see some evidence. Besides, this is your personal opinion.

If you go to failure at every workout, you extend your recovery time and end up burning your CNS out.

I think you are confused. . more training = the need for greater recovery. CNS burnout?? Not possible.

HIT is shit. I don't need to see your routines to further my disapproval of your methods.

Again another opinionated statement without any credible evidence. We will just disregard this statement.

point of not needing 5 sets to break down muscle tissue is retarded.

Wheres the evidence?? Its retarted?? Please come up with something better than that.

s unproven, and only tested on yourself and a handful of others. I never said 5 sets were required to break down muscle tissue-- I said it is a better way to train than 1 set to failure. I am sure 1 or 2 sets will "break down muscle tissue", but that does not mean it is optimal for strength and muscle gain. Going to failure all of the time on every exercise will overtrain anyone in a short time. BTW, I don't profess the 5x5 system to be the best method, either. There are a lot of training systems that work to build mass and power/strength.

blah blah blah. . . again no credible evidence.

1 or 2 sets to failure method is the shittiest of them all, however.

I have lost track. . . lets sum up your answers. . .

- HIT is shit
- retarded
- shittiest

Nice educated answers :FRlol: !

Wheres your mound of evidence? . . Well obviously you failed to read the articles that were posted here on EF.

Before you post here, please be constructive. I could care less if you disapprove of my methods. . because you know what. . they work for me and I can gain strength and size.
 
Originally posted by latinus_spicticus


I've been training for over ten years. I know what I am speaking of. You cannot prove that performing one set to failure is better than using the same weight and doing 5x5. You simply read doggcrap's crap and take it as gospel. One set to failure training is probably the worst training protocol ever thought of. If you go to failure at every workout, you extend your recovery time and end up burning your CNS out. HIT is shit. I don't need to see your routines to further my disapproval of your methods.

You point of not needing 5 sets to break down muscle tissue is retarded. It is unproven, and only tested on yourself and a handful of others. I never said 5 sets were required to break down muscle tissue-- I said it is a better way to train than 1 set to failure. I am sure 1 or 2 sets will "break down muscle tissue", but that does not mean it is optimal for strength and muscle gain. Going to failure all of the time on every exercise will overtrain anyone in a short time. BTW, I don't profess the 5x5 system to be the best method, either. There are a lot of training systems that work to build mass and power/strength. The 1 or 2 sets to failure method is the shittiest of them all, however.



Hey bro with all your ten years of experience do you have something productive to add to this thread other then bagging DC training? Throwing around terms like "that is retarded" "that is stupid" with not a single freaking piece of data to back yourself up makes you look retarded and stupid. And the fact that you have been training for 10yrs does little to establish your credibility with us. I have been training for almost just as long that doesnt make me anymore qualified. And for the record I am not on DC training, nor do I train to failure in my lifting. So Im not just trying to "stick up for my routine" I just hate it when people bag other methods without contributing anything useful
 
BlkWS6 said:
Originally posted by latinus_spicticus

Hey bro with all your ten years of experience do you have something productive to add to this thread other then bagging DC training? Throwing around terms like "that is retarded" "that is stupid" with not a single freaking piece of data to back yourself up makes you look retarded and stupid. And the fact that you have been training for 10yrs does little to establish your credibility with us. I have been training for almost just as long that doesnt make me anymore qualified. And for the record I am not on DC training, nor do I train to failure in my lifting. So Im not just trying to "stick up for my routine" I just hate it when people bag other methods without contributing anything useful


I don't know what his deal is. . . .

First off, he has never tried the program.
Secondly, he hasn't read any of the articles
Third, he can't back up anything
Fourth, All he can do is bash and show disrespect.
 
louden_swain said:


I don't know what his deal is. . . .

First off, he has never tried the program.
Secondly, he hasn't read any of the articles
Third, he hasn't looked at any of the members training journals. . .he refuses.
Fourth, he can't back up anything
and Fifth, All he can do is bash and show disrespect.
 
My 2 cents...

Everyone will react differently to set methods of training.
And so people will follow different methods to get where they want to be. People train for different reasons ie. powerlifting vs bodybuilding vs strength training for specific sports.

Although many of the programs that are discussed here are approaching the so-called "best" muscle building program, there is always some improvement to be done.

We must acknowledge that we have learned a few things like how important proper diet, supplements and even steroids affect how we preform and recover and how this is incorporated into our workouts.

Maybe someday there will be a computer that can just scan us and tell us what to do.

Until then, follow what program you like, keep an open mind, and if hey, the weights are going up every week. You must be doing something right = )
 
latinus_spicticus said:


I've been training for over ten years. I know what I am speaking of. You cannot prove that performing one set to failure is better than using the same weight and doing 5x5. You simply read doggcrap's crap and take it as gospel. One set to failure training is probably the worst training protocol ever thought of. If you go to failure at every workout, you extend your recovery time and end up burning your CNS out. HIT is shit. I don't need to see your routines to further my disapproval of your methods.

You point of not needing 5 sets to break down muscle tissue is retarded. It is unproven, and only tested on yourself and a handful of others. I never said 5 sets were required to break down muscle tissue-- I said it is a better way to train than 1 set to failure. I am sure 1 or 2 sets will "break down muscle tissue", but that does not mean it is optimal for strength and muscle gain. Going to failure all of the time on every exercise will overtrain anyone in a short time. BTW, I don't profess the 5x5 system to be the best method, either. There are a lot of training systems that work to build mass and power/strength. The 1 or 2 sets to failure method is the shittiest of them all, however.

That's okay. You grow once a week. I'll go ahead and grow at least twice as fast. I have no problem with people that are that stubborn. If they want to grow at a snail's pace, that's their perogative.
 
Debaser said:


That's okay. You grow once a week. I'll go ahead and grow at least twice as fast. I have no problem with people that are that stubborn. If they want to grow at a snail's pace, that's their perogative.
Latinus_spicticus and Debaser should compare stats. Who's really growing faster? :lmao:
 
Debaser said:


That's okay. You grow once a week. I'll go ahead and grow at least twice as fast. I have no problem with people that are that stubborn. If they want to grow at a snail's pace, that's their perogative.

I hope that you are not extending this comment to EVERYONE who highly disagrees with the DC/HIT methods. Feel free to compare yourself with me and the gains that I have made.

I do believe that 'latinus_spicticus' has gone the wrong route in expressing his opinions but his opinions are correct (for the most part anyway) as far as I am concerned.

I'm confused how a 'discussion' thread can be started and anyone who does not agree with the discussion gets flamed...:confused:

B True
 
latinus_spicticus said:


Because 5x5 w/ 225 = 25 reps with 225. That totals 5625 lbs moved. 1x8-9 w/225 = 1800-2025 total lbs. moved. Additionally, you can exert more force when doing more sets of fewer reps while not going to failure than by doing one or two sets to failure. Think about it. Your first few reps of your sets, you are exerting much more than 225 lbs-- the weight goes up much faster on the first few reps than it does on the last few. Therefore, in addition to moving over twice the total weight per workout (which will undoubtedly lead to greater muscle growth), you are exerting more force per rep, which increases muscle tension and power, which also leads to greater muscle growth.

If that is too complex for you to comprehend, just look at it this way-- why would 9 reps with 225 per workout lead to greater growth or strength than 25 reps with 225 per workout? Doesn't it make sense that someone who lifts nearly 2.5 times the amount of weight (5000+lbs) would be stronger and bigger than the other (2000lbs)?

There is A LOT of scientific truth to this. I believe that Louis Simmons discusses this and the reason why periodization is not effective when people start decreasing reps and increaing weight (or something to that nature) when getting ready for a strength conest. The amount of weights lifted per week/workout are greatly decreased and people peak way too soon for the contest. They tend to peak 2-3 weeks early for a contest because of the periodization.

I really think that people need to read the comments posted by IronLion, myself, CCJ, and latinus_spicticus.

B True
 
Debaser said:


That's okay. You grow once a week. I'll go ahead and grow at least twice as fast. I have no problem with people that are that stubborn. If they want to grow at a snail's pace, that's their perogative.

Hey man,

DC's method is pretty good as I have tried it with good results. I believe WSB is better for the strength athlete though, as I have been having even better results lately on something similar to WSB.

Perhaps WSB isn't the best for the bodybuilder though. This is hard for me to judge now, but I will within two more months.

Just saying to keep an open mind. Those statements you make are nice, but I have heard them from the first day that DC made his post on animal's board. Don't take it as godpel, and have a more open mind.

I believe you have been training for only 1 year, and as we both know you couldn't have possibly tried all possible training methodsl. So instead of telling us the theory of it all, over and over, kust keep a more open mind and realize that there is a possibility that DC didn't take into account everything.


BTW latinus_spicticus,

You are being very arrogant by making such statements when you haven't tried the methods, but SO MANY people have good results with them.

-sk
 
b fold the truth said:


There is A LOT of scientific truth to this. I believe that Louis Simmons discusses this and the reason why periodization is not effective when people start decreasing reps and increaing weight (or something to that nature) when getting ready for a strength conest. The amount of weights lifted per week/workout are greatly decreased and people peak way too soon for the contest. They tend to peak 2-3 weeks early for a contest because of the periodization.
B True

But, to date, some form of periodization is proven time and time again to be the best method of training for strength. Nonetheless, I agree that alot of lifters peak much too early for a contest. It takes tons of thoughtful experience to figure out what works best for you as the individual.
 
b fold the truth said:


I hope that you are not extending this comment to EVERYONE who highly disagrees with the DC/HIT methods. Feel free to compare yourself with me and the gains that I have made.

I'm confused how a 'discussion' thread can be started and anyone who does not agree with the discussion gets flamed...:confused:

B True

Definately some good points said here!
 
Top Bottom