Question:
The NSCA posted this article showing that studies have proven that multiple sets are superior to single set training programs at times and I’m curious what your thoughts are on this subject. Are there instances where more sets do elicit a greater response?
Here is the link:
http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Single%20vs%20Multiple%20Sets.pdf
Answer:
Rhea’s paper is propaganda, not science. Richard Winett reported on this and several other recent meta-analyses in Meta-Analyses Do Not Support Performance of Multiple Sets or High Volume Resistance Training. Richard A. Winett JEPonline. 2004;7(5):10-20. and had the following to say about the Rhea paper,
“Rhea and colleagues (5) performed a meta-analysis that they claimed included all published and unpublished studies that were strength training interventions, though with different experimental designs, and where there was a pre- and post-training strength measurement. An examination of their extended reference list indicated that at least 26 studies meeting these criteria were not included in their analysis. These studies are cited in a recent critique of the ACSM’s Position Stand (19); 24 of these 26 excluded studies showed no significant difference between single and multiple sets per exercise (19; see p. 17 Table 4). The exclusion of specific studies can create a bias in the outcomes of the meta-analysis, particularly if the reported results are consistently at odds with the conclusions of the meta-analysis.”
In other words, Rhea only reported on studies which appeared to support his conclusions. An objective look at the majority of research will show no significant difference in single or multiple sets for the majority of people. After reading the Rhea paper, I suggest reading Winett’s paper, which disproves it’s claim of research proving the superiority of multiple sets or higher volume training.
For the majority of people (there are some exceptions) there is no benefit to performing more than one set of an exercise, and in my experience people training with extremely high levels of intensity do worse with additional sets due to the greater recovery demands of the increased training volume. For more on training volume read The Minimum Amount Necessary.
Comments on this entry are closed.
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.
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.
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.
Hi Drew,
My thoughts – this is just another attack on HIT
Thanks
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….
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.
@Kevin Deming
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.
I tried that link to NSCA… Redirected because there was no article. Was it taken down or is there another source?
Ben,
Thanks for letting me know. I will find and upload a copy of the study and link to it here.
Here’s the link to the NSCA article via the Way Back Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20100509062501/http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Single%20vs%20Multiple%20Sets.pdf