Comments on: Q&A: Meta-Analyses Do Not Support Multiple Sets or High Volume Training

By: Kevin Deming

Kevin Deming — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 04:23:55 +0000

I would like to see Dr. Winett go over the latest ACSM position stand on resitance training, as they are right back to their old volume/periodized approach and also now advocating moving with as much velocity as possible. Forced to choose between NSCA, NASM, and ACSM for a potential job (I am ACE certified at present), I had chosen ACSM as the “lesser evil” but they might as well be the NSCA now. It seems that HIT training is once again being pushed into the dark recesses – we need more strong professional voices.

By: Drew Baye

Drew Baye — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:34:57 +0000

I think a problem with studies comparing single set to multiple sets, low volume to high volume training, etc. is that the intensity of the single set or lower volume groups is most likely not comparable to the level of intensity recommended for this kind of training. I do not believe most of the people in these studies, including trained athletes and bodybuilders, are working as hard as they can.

In the past 15 years I have trained a lot of people, including professional athletes and competitive bodybuilders, who believed they worked out with a high level of effort. Those people are usually surprised at how hard the workouts are, and often comment on them being far more intense than any training they’ve done before. Based on my experience, unless a trainee is working with someone who really knows how to push them and knows what really qualifies as “high” intensity, the majority of people will not work anywhere near as hard as they are capable of. Even with proper training, it takes people varying amounts of time to get to the point where they’re truly training to muscular failure and not stopping due to discomfort or fear.

Based on this experience, as well as observing most people get better results with less exercise as training intensity increases, I believe the results of a long term study would show very different results, favoring harder, briefer training.

By: austin

austin — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:25:57 +0000

I would agree that there are no studies showing that massive volume produces better results but some studies have shown that 3 sets were superior to one set protocals. Its confusing to me how different studies provide contradicting results. I guess training experience and other factors need to be weighed as well. I was able to compete at 3 world championships in powerlifting using a moderate volume that would be considered low volume by most but have also had good results using even lower volume after reading Drew’s and others stuff. Still havent wrapped my head around the 1-2 sets per week per bodypart yet but I’m still open to the possibility that it could work well in certain instances….

By: Steven Turner

Steven Turner — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:54:13 +0000

Hi Drew,

My thoughts – this is just another attack on HIT

Thanks

By: Geoff

Geoff — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:40:30 +0000

Yeah, I have to say that outside of skill training for particular exercises (bench press, chin ups, squats, and dead lift), I have been always had sucess training with minimal sets, usually one to failure, or two sets going just until failure, but increasing the weight on the second set, mainly as a concession to the difficulty of mentally prepping myself to train that deep into failure with no training partner.
Anyhow, there is certainly no evidence to show that massive volume is helpful for the person who is trying to increase strength, endurance, durability, and overall physical wellbeing whenever that same person could make the same improvements in a fraction of the time with lower incidence of overuse injuries by training intensely for one or two sets of the same exercises. Especially since they will have the time and energy to have fun with things like bowling, golf, fishing, soccer, etc.

I find it interesting that a personal training company would actually try to prove its own protocols in such a way, it makes one wonder how much money can be made by training clients 4 days a week for an hour at a time. I doubt that this is a conscious consideration, but even so.

By: Kevin Deming

Kevin Deming — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:13:35 +0000

Glad to see this addressed – I recently got the newest edition of the ACSM Guidelines For Exercise Testing And Prescription and was appalled to see their position stand on strength training being supported by only one citation – a faulty meta-analysis. At least they have backed off much of the NSCA ideology present in their last edition of Resources For The Personal Trainer, but it is still frustrating to see.

By: Ryan Del Curto

Ryan Del Curto — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:17:28 +0000

For those interested, here are URL’s for two journal articles supporting HIT.

The first, http://www.asep.org/files/Smith.pdf, is a review of literature supporting the work of Aurthur Jones.

The second, http://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf, is a critique of parts of the ACSM’s general recommendation for ‘advanced’ athletes, essentially, it states there is little to no evidence to support higher volume or frequency, among other things.

Both are very good and easy to read.