Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for VET BB'ers NOT powerlifters....
ok, i could answer either debaser of guld's post, but it seems to me that guld has incorporates along similar ideas, but i'll bite gulds'.
In regard's to casual's studies, i did a search on pubmed but didn't find them. Assuming that they had large enough sample sizes, were conducted properly, etc. they still don't show much of anything. All that they suggest is that for that type of training for those kind of 'experienced' subjects, that low vol may be comparable to high vol. What i've read sugests nothing about whether or not the excercises were done submaximally or to failure, nor rest periods, nor motivation and emotional excitement level of the trainees. All of these have a huge effect on the response to training, and are huge, overlooked confounding variables. HUGE. Furthermore, being trained suggests nothing about their fitness, or preperation level, not to mention a horde of other factors including, dietary intake, rest, stress, etc.
And even moreso, this study certainly doesn't rule out another form of high set training benefitting a certain group of indivuals even more so than either of the two protocols above.
anyway, onward we go.
guldukat said:
I hate to pull a Bill Clinton here, but it's important to very precisely define what you mean by "proof" and "better."
That is, have I seen some kind of "proof" that a single set of an exercise can be significantly better than, say, three sets?
Yes, but it's strictly empirical, and not "better" because the single set causes more or even equal growth (though I do think the second and third efforts aren't going to stimulate significantly more growth).
No: it's better because you can do it more often. 3 sets just digs a really deep hole. While you're busy digging out of that, the 1 set guy is rarin' to go.
So that's a different context than I think you, and most people, had in mind, not to mention that it's not verified by a study (though I hardly see that as a big deal...I'm strictly substance over style, and empirical evidence is plenty good for me).
In the idea of presenting studies, as often they are cited by casual and HST alike, i was reffering to not just showing correlation as concrete but causation, which despite what some may think, is a humoungous ordeal, best shown by the decades spent on looking at cigarettes and cancer.
Practical advice is very good though, but certainly doesn't prove anything....Also, if you look at very high level athletes with very high levels of preparation, and tolerance to excercise (admittedly not me), I am just not convinced that single sets are as good as multiple sets.
OK so we're onto the practical side....
guldukat said:
However, I think it is by far the most relevant way to approach the no. of sets question, because the typical 1 vs. 2+ is all hung up on maximizing growth on a single workout basis, something that tends to lose sight of the big picture.
I might disagree here. We already know it can be at least as productive as higher volume protocols, if only given the success of folks like myself on DC and similar forms of training where we had failed on higher volume protocols.
And I think it's a false dilemma to think the one set's effectiveness could hinge on whether or not Olympic athletes find some merit behind low volume.
That is, there are other choices such a dichotomy shouldn't, but does, exclude, not the least of which is the fact that many of these power athletes, like the weightlifters, need more than just raw muscle and strength. They need skill that simply can't be had with a single set here and there.
We were talking about muscle and strength gains, not skills. Anyone who uses that as proof of multi-set superiority is tossing in a red herring.
The problem is, we don't know what the ideal training formula for gaining mass for a given individual is. WE DONT KNOW. So in order to present a case i had to bounce between the way to prove something correctly, and what little real world knowledge we have, which is definately inadequate to prove anything, really. But at this point do i fold? or do i try however deplorably unscientifically, to show something? My aim was to cast doubt upon the idea that one (to 3) set(s) is best for all, a one size fits all method, that debaser infferred in his first post.
The reason i state i that i like DC method at the begginning of my post, is that i think his methodology may be extremely beneficial to ideal for many if not most, but this certainly doesn't include all athletes lookin to gain mass.
My reason to include power atheletes is because at the olympic level, i reason that the most qualified coaching and observations have taken place over the past several decades, mostly so in the eastern bloc. Bodybuilding is extremely far behind most of these sports on a knowledge level, i contend; BBing's acceptance of the supercomensation theory over Dual factor is symptomatic of this, i contend as well.
Next i'll quote straight outta Science and Practice, as I am now home from school, and have access to it once again.
Zatsiorsky says, "While muscle hypertrophy is a primary goal of body builders, athletes do not typically aim at increasing muscle mass. However, muscle hypertrophy is an important way to increase muscle strength. Furthermore some athletes (linemen in football, throwers) are able to use heavy bodyweight to their advantage and thus want to increase muscle mass."
So from here i reason that if hypertrophy is important for these high level atheletes like throwers, and undoubtably superheavy weightlifters, then coaches would wish to find an optimal approach to achieving hypertrophy.
Now these power athletes have used multiple set protocols to increase muscle mass. I cannot surely induct from this that low vol is not good for them as i can't say for sure what their results were with them, but as a compromise given the fact that we are workin in the real world, i try to induct a conclucsion that atleast casts large doubt on the idea of a one size fits all, low volume, method for any given trainer looking to gain size. Additionally i was not reffering to skill training at all, as the assistance excercises i am reffering to are trained at the submaximal/rep method level, which is deemed optimal at building hypertrophy, not intra or intermuscular coordination. That is, i was examining the hypertrophy training that these athletes do as an adjunct to skill training.
guldukat said:
I'm a bit confused by this.
If someone set about demonstrating as much, how would showing the two are equal a potential "you can't prove a negative!" scenario?
Here again, one must define "better" as well, lest they fall prey to, ironically, the fallacies of weak induction 
What i was saying was again reffering to the intial base of using a study as a start to prove something. You have 2 dif groups, having the null and alternative hypothesis. The null states that the result will be equal for each group. The alternative always tries to show some difference. You cannot ever find evidence for the null hypothesis, only evidence against it, or nothing at all.
damn that was a bit too long of a post; hope i got a few points across. time to go lift.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
