In this video I explain that people are not injured because they perform exercises to momentary muscle failure; they are injured because they use poor form, usually with excessive weight, and sometimes choose poor exercises.

If you are injured during exercise it is because a tissue is exposed to a level of force that exceeds its structural strength. The force your body is exposed to during exercise can reach dangerous levels due to excessive acceleration, excessive load, and incorrect body positioning, path, and/or range of motion.

If you perform exercises correctly your risk of injury is minimal:

• Use only enough resistance to achieve MMF within 1-2 min of continuous muscular loading
• Use proper body positioning, path, and range of motion
• Apply force gradually
• Accelerate and move slowly
• Reverse direction smoothly
• Breathe freely (avoid ValSalva’s maneuver, grunting, yelling, and other vocalization)
• Maintain a neutral head and neck
• Minimize instability

People aren’t injured because they perform exercises to momentary muscle failure; they are injured because they loosen their form as they approach momentary muscle failure. If you perform the last repetition as strictly as the first you can safely exercise with maximum effort.

I have instructed tens of thousands of high intensity training workouts without a single injury by teaching the guidelines I discuss in the video.

If you want to learn more about how you can exercise intensely with minimal risk of injury, or want to learn how to improve your ability to perform exercises to momentary muscle failure while maintaining strict form, I discuss these in detail in several videos in my private high intensity training community The HIT List, and I demonstrate correct exercise form weekly in workout videos with commentary and Q&A,

Save 25% on all my high intensity training books from 11/22/23-11/26/23 with code DBHITBF25 at http://Baye.com/Store/

Or, save 50% when you join my private HIT List high intensity training community at http://Baye.com/HIT-List/ (details in forum)

I’ve recently noticed more trainers marketing programs specifically to older men and women, but there is no difference in the general principles or guidelines for exercise for older compared with younger people. The things most frequently emphasized in marketing to older populations—safety and time-efficiency—are important for younger people, too. Most just don’t appreciate it until they’re older.

Regardless of your age you should exercise intensely and progressively, with exercises and form which maximize benefit and minimize risk, and keep your workouts brief and infrequent.

In most cases, all that is required for best results, is one correctly performed set of 1-2 exercises per muscle group, 1-2 times per week.

You do not need to perform multiple sets of a wide variety of exercises for any muscle group.

You do not need to work out 1-2 hours, 3-4 times or more each week.

You do not need to perform separate “cardio” workouts for either fat loss or metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning and health.

I discussed this in a recent live video, during which I also debunk some common misconceptions about exercise intensity, volume, and safety.

If you have questions about anything in the video, I will be answering them in my private forum and online training group.

In this video I discuss a few of the most important things I’ve learned about exercise since I started doing high intensity training in late 1993 after learning about it from Mike Mentzer’s Heavy Duty column in Iron Man magazine. Topics include the relative effects of genetics versus training methods on long-term muscular strength and size gains and implications for selecting exercise methods, the need to minimize variation in exercise programming and prioritize mastering the basics, that although the principles of exercise are universal their application must be individualized for best results, and more.

I will be doing an entire series of videos on this, uploading a new video every week in my private discussion forum and online training group. If you have questions about anything in this video, click here to join The HIT List and I will gladly answer them there.

In two recent videos I discussed common misconceptions about rep speed, load, repetition count/time under load, strength, and hypertrophy, including the myths that you must move fast and lift heavy weights during exercise to recruit your fast twitch motor units, improve your speed, power, and explosiveness, in other activities, maximize muscular strength and size, and more.

Common Misconceptions About Repetition Speed

Thoughts on Repetition Speed, Time Under Load, Strength, and Hypertrophy

When explaining exercise principles and criticizing beliefs and practices which violate them, it is common to be accused of dogmatism by one holding erroneous beliefs. This is often an attempt by the accuser to dismiss novel assertions or criticisms of his beliefs without providing sound counter-arguments. Ironically, this is frequently the result of his own dogmatism.

Dogmatism involves making assertions which may be unproven or unsupported, and/or rejecting criticism without consideration.

When assertions and rejection of criticism are supported by evidence and reason and are carefully considered, one is not being dogmatic, one is being intransigent—unwilling to compromise or to agree.

We must always keep in mind there is much we don’t know or understand, and we must always be willing to consider the possibility we are wrong about some things, but when we know we are correct, given the best evidence currently available and extensive experience with the subject, we must be unwilling to compromise; we must not concede to erroneous beliefs or unsound arguments. We must not compromise our standards.

Exercise is one of the most important things we can do to improve our functional ability, health, and overall quality of life, and when it is neglected or done incorrectly or poorly it has the potential to negatively affect these. If we compromise on this, we harm ourselves and others.

People don’t like to be told they’re incorrect about something, especially if they consider themselves to be a professional or expert on the subject, or if being knowledgeable about it is part of their identity, or if they’ve studied and/or practiced it for a very long time. Some will get upset, even angry, especially if told they’re incorrect publicly.

However, if you correct someone’s erroneous beliefs and improve their understanding of something, you are doing them a favor because our ability to make good decisions depends on our knowledge.

Even if the person you’re debating can not be helped, it is important to also consider the greater audience in any public venue. Some, perhaps many, onlookers will learn more from the debate than its direct participants. And this includes countering accusations of dogmatism.

An effective way to do this is to point out the above, explaining what dogmatism is and why it does not apply here. This leaves them with few options other than to attempt to formulate better arguments or accept that they’re incorrect.

For example:

“Dogmatism involves making assertions which may be unproven and/or rejecting criticism without consideration. I have presented evidence and sound arguments for my assertions, and I reject your criticisms because I have considered them and have determined that they are incorrect.”

In the 1990s Iron Man magazine published a series of articles from Nautilus and MedX inventor Arthur Jones. In one of those articles he wrote the following about the number of sets one should perform, citing several then-recent studies,

“When, in 1970, I introduced the first Nautilus exercise machines, together with the statement that only one set of each exercise was required, or even desirable, several people accused me of making false claims in an attempt to encourage the sale of my exercise machines; which charge, in fact, was utterly false, since my statements were based upon clearly established research results that could not be disputed.

And just what does science have to say on the subject in 1996? As it happens, surprisingly little; but most of what little has been published on that subject clearly supports my statements mentioned above.

Three days ago, on January 19, 1996, Dr. Michael Pollock, of the School of Medicine of the University of Florida, gave me a copy of a study that he had just completed, a study that I was not even aware of until after it had been written up for publication.

This study included careful consideration of the results of several research projects conducted by members of Dr. Pollock’s research staff and also considered every other study that they were able to discover by a careful review of the entire scientific literature: in effect, “everything ever published on the subject in any scientific journal.”

Results? ONE: in 1962, a Ph.D. named Berger, using 177 subjects for a period of 12 weeks, and using the bench press as the exercise being tested, compared the results of one set to the results of both two and three sets. One set increased the average strength of that group by 23.6 percent; two sets increased strength by 24 percent, only four tenths of one percent better than one set; three sets increased strength by 26.3 percent, only 2.7 percent better than one set. Whereupon Berger concluded that one set was as good as two but that three sets were better. Well, in fact, any such slight differences fall well within the differences of random variation, and certainly do not indicate any slightest differences in results.

Secondly, considering the fact that Berger was using healthy but previously-untrained college-age young men as subjects, his overall results were somewhere between pitiful and God awful. The starting strength of his subjects was very low, which means that they had the potential for rapid and large-scale increases in strength, yet failed to produce any such results. In contrast, thirteen years later, in 1975, using military cadets as subjects during a study at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, we produced an average strength increase of 60 percent in a period of only 6 weeks; so our results were more than twice as good as Berger’s even though we trained our people only half as long as he did his. And, of course, we used only one set of each exercise.

TWO: in 1982, a man named Silvester, using 48 subjects, compared the results of one set of biceps curls to three sets. One set increased strength by 24.6 percent within a period of 8 weeks while three sets increased strength by 26.2 percent, a difference of only 1.6 percent; again, a difference so slight that it is meaningless; or, as they say in the scientific community, “non-specific,” or “no significant difference.

THREE: in 1983, a man named Stowers, using 28 subjects, during a program that continued for 7 weeks, compared one set to three sets in both the squat and the bench press. And found, again, that there was no significant difference.

FOUR: in 1986, a man named Westcott, using 79 subjects for a period of 4 weeks, while comparing one set to two sets, actually produced somewhat better results from one set than he did from two sets; but, again, the difference was not significant since one set increased strength by 11.2 percent while two sets increased strength by 10.8 percent.

FIVE: a later study performed by the same man, Westcott, performed in 1989, using 127 subjects, both men and women, and lasting for 10 weeks, using both dips and chin-ups as exercises, found almost no difference in results from one set, two sets, or three sets.

SIX: in 1993, Dr. Pollock’s group, using 140 subjects, for a period of 12 weeks, using the cervical-extension exercise, compared one set to two sets and again found no meaningful difference.

SEVEN: in 1995, Dr. Jay Graves, using 141 subjects for a period of 12 weeks, with lumbar (lower-back) extensions as the exercise, and comparing one set to two sets, produced quite a bit better results from one set than he did from two.

EIGHT: in 1995, a man named Starkey, using 83 subjects for a period of 14 weeks, with both leg extensions and leg flexions as the exercises being tested, compared one set to three sets; in both cases, extension and flexion, one set proved to be better than three sets.

AND SO IT GOES: in some cases one set was better than either two or three sets, and when multiple sets did seem to be better the difference was so slight that it was meaningless. The American Academy of Sports Medicine has now accepted, as its recommended protocol, “one set to failure, not more than three times weekly;” which, frankly, I still believe is too much for most people, and is required by nobody. I get several calls a week from strangers who tell me about the great results they are producing by only one weekly workout, or even less exercise. In the field of exercise, at least, while it is true that “some exercise” is good, it does not follow that “more exercise” is better; in fact, more is usually worse. Remember: exercise does NOT “produce” results; instead, if properly performed, it “stimulates” results.”

In the two decades since Arthur wrote this, studies have only continued to confirm there is no need to perform more than one set of an exercise:

“Single set training appears to provide similar hypertrophic gains to multiple set training. Frequency of training should be self-selected as there appears no evidence which can support any recommendation.”

“Persons should aim to recruit as many motor units, and thus muscle fibres, as possible by training until momentary muscular failure”

Fisher, James & Steele, James & Smith, Dave. (2013). Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations for Muscular Hypertrophy. Medicina Sportiva. 17. 217-235. 10.5604/17342260.1081302.

“Persons can obtain appreciably the same strength gains by performing only a single set of each exercise 1 x / 2 x week, compared to higher volume workouts. Persons should train when they feel physically and mentally ready to do so. Both physical and mental fatigue have the potential to negatively affect a workout and/or muscular growth and development .No specific periodized routine is unequivocally supported within the literature.”

“Persons should train until momentary muscular failure to actively recruit all of the available motor units and muscle fibres, as opposed to a pre-determined number of repetitions.”

Fisher, James & Steele, James & Bruce-Low, Stewart & Smith, Dave. (2011). Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations. Medicina Sportiva. 15. 147-162. 10.2478/v10036-011-0025-x.

“Overall, it is clear that the great majority of well-controlled, peer-reviewed studies support Jones’ (15,16,18-20) contention that one set per exercise is all that is necessary to stimulate optimal increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy. Though there are exceptions in the research literature, these are few and most suffer from confounding variables and, in some cases, blatant experimenter bias.”

Smith, Dave & Bruce-Low, Stewart. (2009). Strength training methods and the work of Arthur Jones. J Exerc Phys online. 7.

“Several researchers have recently claimed that a series of meta-analyses unequivocally support the superiority of multiple sets for resistance training, and that they have ended the single versus multiple set debate. However, our critical analysis of these meta-analyses revealed numerous mathematical and statistical errors. In addition, their conclusions are illogical, inconsistent, and have no practical application to resistance training.”

“The preponderance of studies suggest that there is no significant difference in strength gains as a result of performing a single set or multiple sets of each exercise.”

Otto RM, Carpinelli RN. A Critical Analysis Of The Single Versus Multiple Set Debate. JEPonline 2006;9(1):32-57.

“There is very little peer reviewed evidence to support a high volume strength training protocol.”

Carpinelli RN. Berger in retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strength. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2002;36:319-324.

“Reviewers, editors and publishers are inclined to reject studies that show no significant difference between specific training protocols such as the effect of single versus multiple sets on strength gains. Statisticians call this the file drawer effect or publication bias; that is, the editors cherry-pick the studies for publication that report a significant difference between protocols. The result of this file drawer effect (studies not published) should be that after a complete search for all the published research on a specific topic, the majority of the published research should be skewed toward studies that reported a  statistically significant advantage of one training protocol over another. However, on the specific topic of the effect of single versus multiple sets on strength gains, the majority of published studies – even considering the potential file drawer effect – reported no significant difference between protocols”

Carpinelli, R. N.. “Critical Review of a Meta-Analysis for the Effect of Single and Multiple Sets of Resistance Training on Strength Gains.” Medicina Sportiva 16 (2012): 122-130.

Something else which is important but rarely mentioned is the quality of sets performed by most trainees and demonstrated by some prolific researchers, is terrible compared to how exercises can and should be performed, and this also factors into how many are required for best results.

I recently joined high intensity training instructor and fitness model Jay Vincent to debunk popular myths about a variety of subjects including:

• effectiveness of single versus multiple sets
• effectiveness and safety of training to momentary muscle failure
• effective workout volume and frequency
• repetitions versus time under load
• repetition speed and motor unit recruitment
• how long you should rest between exercises
• effectiveness of “cardio” for fat loss
• effectiveness of “cardio” for metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning
• so-called “functional” training
• balance training

Video 1, September 14, 2022

Video 2, October 5, 2022

If you want to learn more about any of the topics we discussed, join my private forum and online learning platform The HIT List.

In this video Ken Hutchins and I discuss Herman Pontzer’s book Burn, and the roles of exercise, activity, and diet in fat loss and health.

Post-Interview Notes

By Ken Hutchins

I missed making the following points in our interview. For full context on these points, please experience the interview:

1

Already noted in the comments, I mentioned “birds of prey” when I intended “birds of paradise” with regard to the extravagant plumage coloring as sexual attractants.

In the interview, I also then [intentionally] mentioned that with these birds, the coloring, in some cases, was more territorially purposed than sexually.

Additionally, and not mentioned in the interview: Territoriality is a pathway to species propagation; therefore, it is indirectly of sexual influence.

Reference: The Territorial Imperative by Robert Ardrey.

2

With regard to my statements asserting that the human female was the inventor of the family, I failed to mention that Robert Ardrey’s descriptor of her was “the sexual specialist.”

Since the late 1970s, my response to Ardrey’s discussion on this topic is that the human female is “the most sophisticated sex machinery in the history of biology.”

3

In my slamming of the anthropologists for their use of hunter-gatherer, I failed to mention that this term is similar to the use of aerobic exercise and resistance exercise by the exercise physiologists. All of these phrases are lame, ignorant and without distinction. And definitional distinction is prerequisite for science.

All human action and rest involve resistance.

All human action and rest involve aerobic metabolism.

And nearly all mammalian carnivores both hunt and gather (eat plant matter).

[I guess we might say that only the reverse is true—that many herbivores don’t eat meat—hence only they are gatherers and NOT gatherer-hunters. Describing hominids as hunter-gatherers is inane.]

Like the polar bear who lives where little or no plant matter survives, those humans, like the Inuit who live on the ice and tundra, are exclusively carnivores or come close to being exclusively carnivorous. But these are the exceptions of the modern day in the midst of our present and likely temporary interglacial.

And as our forebears moved into the northern latitudes and were forced to endure the glaciations, we were denied plant matter for long stretches of time, however we ate anything we could get our hands on when available.

Please do not take my comments on this subject as recommendation for any particular modern diet philosophy.

4

In the interview, I mention my general disrespect for anthropologists. They have a history of being aristocratic and stodgy. They shut out Raymond Dart’s 1924 discovery for decades as they could not admit that our history began in Africa. They clung to their insistence that we descended from the fraudulent Piltdown Man until Robert Oakley exposed it with his radioactive carbon dating. And these were the physical anthropologists.

Things got much worse with the cultural anthropologists that sprang up around Boaz, Mead, and Montague. As Ardrey said about them in his first book, African Genesis, the only significant find made by cultural anthropology was that timid, shy, non-aggressive peoples tend to inhabit unfashionable addresses. [Note that one of my favorite comedians, the late Joan Rivers, studied with Margaret Mead.]

Perhaps this slam is no longer deserved as Ardrey printed this in the 1960s, but I have experience with cultural anthropologists. The women’s health center where we performed the research for the Nautilus-funded Osteoporosis Project was partly sponsored by the University of Florida Department of Sociology and the co-founder of the center was a cultural anthropologist from said department. Also, the husband of one of our nurses employed to monitor the treadmill subjects was working on his masters in cultural anthropology. The others tasked with managing the subjects were all exercise physiologists. I’ve never exposed this particularly detail before: I considered myself trapped within multiple pseudo-sciences.

Several Robert Ardrey afficionados, including me, often recite this eloquent quote from African Genesis:

“The hounds of our anxieties bay at old, cold traces while nature’s foxes watch amused.”

5

I greatly regret omitting sarcopenia with regard to the extreme activity program imposed on the Biggest Loser contestants. I did mention that Herman Pontzer provided almost no discussion of the role of the muscle loss suffered by these people and that he doesn’t seem to see that the big variable under our control is muscle growth and loss—i.e., muscle health.

Also, seemingly missing from his view is that the steady state activity pushed by the exercise physiologists is sarcopenic. They should call themselves sarcopenists.

Books and Articles Mentioned

Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories, Stay Healthy, and Lose Weight, by Herman Pontzer, Phd
https://amzn.to/3bxrv2s (Amazon affiliate link)

Ken Hutchins’ articles on the definition of exercise and exercise versus recreation are available at https://seriousexercise.com/articles/

Ken Hutchins’ books are available at https://drewbaye.myshopify.com/collections/books-by-ken-hutchins

Destroying the Myth About Testosterone Replacement and Prostate Cancer, by Abraham Morgentaler, MD
https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2008/12/destroying-the-myth-about-testosterone-replacement-prostate-cancer

Testosterone for Life: Recharge Your Vitality, Sex Drive, Muscle Mass, and Overall Health, by Abraham Morgentaler, MD
https://amzn.to/39SbHHb (Amazon affiliate link)

The Hunting Hypothesis: A Personal Conclusion Concerning the Evolutionary Nature of Man, by Robert Ardrey
https://amzn.to/3NrlkKm (Amazon affiliate link)