Question: I’ve received similar questions from several readers recently about the relative importance of different training factors for stimulating increases in muscular strength and size. Will increasing intensity or volume produce better results? What matters more, reps and sets or time under load? Does it matter how I distribute the volume of work?
Answer: While many of these factors contribute to the stimulation of muscular strength and size gains, intensity of effort is the most important by far. Your results from training have more to do with how hard you train than how much training you do or any other factor.
If exercise volume really is the most important factor, as some trainers claim, we would see a significant difference in strength and size gains between groups performing single and multiple sets. However, this is not the case. The majority of research shows it makes little difference whether you perform one set or many. It does, however, show that your intensity of effort – how hard you are working relative to your ability – makes a difference. If you do not train with a high intensity of effort no amount of exercise will stimulate significant improvements in muscular strength and size. If you do train with a high intensity of effort the amount of exercise you perform must be limited to avoid overtraining. The higher your intensity of effort the less work you can perform, the less you need to perform.
If you want better results from exercise you must push yourself to work harder on each exercise, not do more exercise. As high intensity training pioneer and innovator Mike Mentzer once wrote, “Anything that you do to make your workout harder will be a step in the right direction.”
There is a practical minimum, however. For optimum muscular development it is necessary to perform at least enough exercises to effectively work all the major muscle groups. If any major muscle groups are neglected your physique will not be well proportioned (for example, the odd, top-heavy, chicken-legged physiques of people who invest significant effort in training their upper body while neglecting their legs). However, the volume of exercise performed during each workout should not be so high that you are unable to maintain a high intensity of effort throughout. Reducing your intensity of effort for the sake of performing more exercise will give you worse results, not better.
Intensity of effort is also more important than load and tension. As long as an exercise is performed to the point of momentary muscular failure within a reasonable amount of time it appears to make little difference what percentage of one’s one repetition maximum load is used, and if an exercise is not performed to momentary muscular failure it will fail to produce the same results even if a heavier weight is used.
Time under load is more important than reps and sets for muscular strength and size gains. Consider it is possible to increase muscular strength and size significantly with isometric contractions involving no movement, no mechanical work at all, provided you are contracting with a high enough intensity of effort for sufficient duration to recruit and fatigue all the motor units in the target muscles. It doesn’t matter how many times you make the weight go up and down, or whether it even moves at all.
In a nutshell, if you want to get as big and strong as your genetics allow, you do not need a high volume of exercise, but what little exercise you do needs to be done as hard as possible. As I explained elsewhere it probably makes little difference how this volume is distributed, however since time under tension is more important than mechanical work and a slower speed of movement is safer you’re better off performing one longer set with fewer, slower repetitions or isometrically than multiple shorter sets with more repetitions at a faster pace.
References:
Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations. Medicine Sportiva Med Sport 01/2011; 15:147-162.
N.A. Burd, C.J. Mitchell, T.A. Churward-Venne, and S.M. Phillips. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 37(3): 551-554, 2012.
Jürgen Giessing, , James Fisher, James Steele, Frank Rothe, Kristin Raubold, Björn Eichmann. The effects of low volume resistance training with and without advanced techniques in trained participants. Pre-print (this reference will be updated after this study goes into print)
Carpinelli RN, Otto RM, Winett RA. A Critical Analysis of the ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training: Insufficient Evidence to Support Recommended Training Protocols. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 2004;7(3):1-60
Smith D, Bruce-Low, S. Strength Training Methods and The Work of Arthur Jones. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 2004;7(6): 52-68
Westcott WL, Winett RA, Anderson ES, Wojcik JR, Loud RL, Cleggett E, Glover S. Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2001 Jun;41(2):154-8
Cameron J. Mitchell, Tyler A. Churchward-Venne, Daniel W. D. West, Nicholas A. Burd, Leigh Breen, Steven K. Baker, Stuart M. Phillips. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. Journal of Applied PhysiologyJul 2012,113(1)71-77;DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00307.2012
Comments on this entry are closed.
Do you instruct alot of clients exclusively on statics and or isometrics Drew? I know I’ve asked you about statics on several occasions. I have such a mental feeling of need for dynamic contractions, like I’m missing something if I don’t. I wonder what Mentzer’s response would have been to this as well, lol. “Well sir, you used the word feel. What exactly do you feel?”
Hey Donnie,
I do not have any clients that do statics exclusively, but all of them perform timed static contractions for neck flexion and extension and a few perform timed static contractions or static holds for other exercises. I do, however, have a few readers who train exclusively with isometrics with good results, and when we were training people on Ken Hutchins’ iMachines using timed static contraction with real time force feedback people steadily gained strength, which was evident when they were tested again on dynamic exercises.
Hi Drew, in the above article a numer of times you refer to training as hard as you can. Could you please explain what would that mean. Is it relative effort considering your fitness level or something else? Thank you 🙂
Hey Matija,
I explain this in What Is Exercise Intensity? and High Intensity Workouts.
Dear Drew
You write:
“If you want better results from exercise you must push yourself to work harder on each exercise”
Well, 6 weeks ago I started a weekly training at home. First time in my life that I train. I got myself a barebell and try as hard as I can.
After some 60 seconds, when I just cannot move the weight anymore – I try to hold it as long as I can – til it starts to sink down.
But when I put the weight down it’s not as I would have really worked all that hard. Yes it hurts a littel, but not to much. I jump up an do the next excercise. Do I something wrong? How could I possibly work harder if I can not move the weight anymore?!
On a video I saw you train a poor guy who could not stand or walk afterwards.
So how can I work harder? Or is it good enough like that?
Thanks for your help!
Greatings from Germany – Sascha
Hey Sascha,
While the most important thing appears to be performing exercise to the point of momentary muscular failure, how you get there also has a significant effect on how hard the set feels. While it is impossible to work up to an intensity of effort higher than one hundred percent – which is what happens when you achieve momentary muscular failure – it is possible to perform an exercise in a way that results in the average intensity of effort during the rest of the exercise being higher. I recommend reading Focus On Your Muscles Not The Numbers and Mental Preparation for High Intensity Training.
Many thanks for your fast reply 🙂
I read your two articles. Great as always, by the way.
I get from your first article (I also read body by science) that maximum inroad is the goal (max. stimulus). I get from your second article that mind has to help mater. Luckily I am into ZEN meditation. That helps.
E.g. in an overhead press there comes the moment where I can’t move the weight any more. So I just keep holding it till I can’t no more (and I think I should learn to hold out still longer?)
E.g. In an barbell row there comes the moment where I just can’t pull the bar up to my chest any more, so the range of movement grows smaller and smaller till I just hold as long as I can.
I wish that I would lift sandbags with the sand trickling out. Getting lighter as I grow weeker. That would get a wounderful inroad. Like this I just hit a wall after around 60 seconds…
So appart from experimenting with speed, technique and weight it’s the mindset.
Anything else I can do? Or should I just go on like that an let it evolve?
Sorry if it feels like I did not hear your answer above. I try my best 🙂
Hey Sascha,
Inroading is required to achieve the goal, maximum intensity of effort, but maximum inroad itself is not the goal.
It is unnecessary and when overdone counterproductive to continue contracting against the resistance for more than a few seconds after momentary muscular failure has been achieved.
A resistance that adjusts to your strength level over the course of an exercise is possible on machines like those made by ARX, and is effective, but it is easy to overdo it with those kind of machines and training methods like drop sets which attempt to duplicate the effect. I do not know whether it would be any more effective than using a fixed level of resistance, however.
Drew, I have really been fascinated with Timed Static Contraction ever since you limited direct bicep and triceps exercises to that protocol approx. 3 years ago. If memory serves,
you experienced about a 20 lb. gain in dynamic strength. As your usual approach is an
“A” and a “B” workout, each once a week, did you include the bi & tri TSC on BOTH “A” and “B” or just on one? Many cautionary statements made by John Little regarding how
infrequently one must do his Static Contraction (minus the “timed” preceding it) have me
wondering just how often one can do the same exercise using TSC without overtraining.
Your thoughts?
Also is TSC still a viable option if one has (like me) a hiatal hernia and must avoid any
hint of breath holding or val salva. Is a strictly dynamic approach a better option? I love
the idea of TSC because it’s so highly adaptable to whatever a person has available,
and with ten grandchildren we travel a lot.
Hey John,
I’m still doing these occasionally, but I have modified the protocol somewhat to reduce the time spent contracting maximally for this purpose. If you are contracting as hard as possible, very little is required for good results, and doing too much seems to quickly lead to overtraining. I used to performed TSC for ninety seconds, contracting moderately hard the first thirty, almost as hard as I could the second thirty, and as hard as I could the last thirty. While effective, these were also extremely draining. Thirty seconds is a long time to contract as hard as possible. I shortened that to one minute with twenty seconds at each level of effort, and recently changed that to thirty seconds contracting with moderate effort, twenty seconds contracting almost as hard as I can, and only ten seconds contracting maximally. I feel I am able to contract even harder during the last segment this way, but don’t feel as fatigued later.
Drew,
I’m going to try this! I’ve been doing it the Hutchins’ way. What you’re suggesting just makes sense.
Does the one-set version tax the CNS more in comparison to the multiple sets?
Charles Francis has written a lot about CNS-load and overtraining. But we’re talking about working with weihts – not sprinting, right?
Hey Jim,
Yes, this is about strength training, not sprinting. Whether one set taxes the CNS more than multiple sets depends entirely on how the sets are performed, but as long as you’re not overtraining so-called “CNS burnout” is a non-issue.
Hi Drew,
Time under load (TUL) and time under tension (TUT) are two terms with similar meaning, right?
Or is there a difference?
Hey William,
Yes, time under load (TUL) and time under tension (TUT) both refer to the duration of an exercise.
Hi Drew,
Yet another great article.
I’ve got to say you are head and shoulders above any one else I know writing on BB/weight training at the moment.
2 questions if I may:
1) If taking a set to MMF is working at 100% capacity, assuming a slow smooth cadence has been used and total TUL is circa 48-72 seconds, does this negate the need to do forced reps, negatives, drop sets etc? I seem to make better gains by taking weighted Chins & Dips to total negative failure, so keen to hear your thoughts?
2) Albeit a bit off topic, as it’s often viewed as the most intense/brutal way to train, what are your views on 20 rep squats, i.e., doing a set of 10 with your 10rm and then rest-pausing reps 11-20?
In closing, really looking forward to EoF/AHM and shall spread the word at my gym once I’ve got my copy as it will be this year’s must read!
Best regards,
Jamie.
Hey Jamieson,
Yes. While techniques like force reps, negatives, and drop sets have their uses, for someone who has already learned to train intensely they can be overkill. Some people can do these on one or two exercises on a regular basis without overtraining, but if you were to do them on every exercise it would be much harder to recover from than simply training to momentary muscular failure. It might provide a greater stimulus for strength and size gains, but it needs to be balanced against recovery.
Research shows that a variety of repetition ranges can be safe and effective, and there is nothing special about twenty rep squats.
hey drew,
for someone in there mid 40’s and I have a extremely physical job, I am trying to find the balance between Intensity Or Volume and frequency. I have been doing your HIT for a few years and love it. should I do any different work out because my job is so physical? would I do anything different if I had a desk job?
thanks
laird
Hey Laird,
You don’t have to do a different workout, you just need to adjust your volume and frequency based on how your body is responding. Depending on how physically demanding a person’s job is it may have a significant effect on recovery and adaptation requiring a reduction in workout volume and/or frequency. For more on this read my article on The Sun Tan Analogy.
Hi Drew,
As always, I appreciate your efforts, your curiosity and your drive on our behalf. You have saved me HOURS in the gym.
I have a quick question for TUL. Specifically, what is the minimum amount of time I should be trying to hit with TUL. I am still working in good form, but find myself tapping out around 40 seconds/5 reps now. I feel sore as hell and my numbers keep climbing, but my TUL is now so low I wonder as to whether I am “doing it right.”
Any ideas?
Thanks
Ian
Hey Ian,
Forty seconds is long enough that the load will not be too high to maintain strict form throughout, and if you’re making steady progress with no deterioration in form but have difficulty performing more repetitions it may just be an indication you respond better to that TUL. I cover this in detail in the chapter Finding Your Optimal Repetition Range in High Intensity Workouts.
Thanks for a wonderful article, Drew, but what of frequency? BBS says at least one week recovery time is a must, but some ppl (including you, if I am not wrong) say twice a week is also fine. If so, how many days gap would be safe? One whole week as BBS says or less than that to fit 2 workout days in a week?
Hey Oscar,
Optimal frequency depends entirely on the individual. I have explained this in articles like The Sun Tan Analogy and in the chapter Workout Frequency in High Intensity Workouts.
Thanks, Drew. I am curious about one thing, though. What if a person can only work out once a week (due to time constraints,job etc.)? Will it lead to detraining?
Hey Oscar,
Not if they are training with a high enough intensity of effort, no.
Dear Drew
I hope this message finds you well.
First of all, I would like to thank you for the content you’re providing and the great books you have written. It is very empowering to understand the rational approach towards exercise, especially when there is so much information overload based on non-scientific foundation.
My question regards the inroad theory. Since one set to failure causes a certain level of inroad, wouldn’t a second set to failure deepen the inroad and thus, stimulate a bigger muscular adaptation?
Or would the adaptation differ for different muscle groups, depending on genetics?
I am looking forward to finding out what you think.
Best,
Andrei
Hey Andrei,
Yes, subsequent sets of an exercise would result in further inroad if performed soon enough after the first, however they also increase the demands on recovery and do not appear to improve results from exercise. If you perform the first set properly, with sufficient tension for a sufficient duration, you will have effectively stimulated about as much growth in the muscles targeted as possible and no additional sets are necessary. When training with a high intensity of effort you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns as your volume of work increases.
The only exception to this would be warm up sets for some people who require them to reduce joint discomfort or who want to rehearse the proper performance of a more technically-difficult exercise, and when performing multiple circuits of the same exercises for efficiently creating as much cardiovascular and metabolic demand as possible when equipment is limited.
Hi Drew, you say:If you perform the first set properly, with sufficient tension for a sufficient duration, you will have effectively stimulated about as much growth in the muscles
The problem for most of us is NOT knowing what’s sufficient. For example, let’s say I reach failure in just 40 seconds and in another scenario, I reach failure in 70 seconds. Is the first case intense since I’ve reached failure in a short time? But then in the second case my muscles have been under tension for 30 extra seconds, is that more intense? As you can see, it gets confusing.
Hey Oscar,
The effective range is broad. Some times my exercises take as little as 40 seconds, some times they take more than 90. It’s all effective if done with a high intensity of effort. This is the most important thing for stimulating increases in muscular strength and size, more important than load, reps, time, or anything else.