The studio I train at rents to several other personal trainers, and while most of them are okay there are a few who have no idea what they’re doing. I usually ignore them, but last week during a session I overheard one start training her client on the overhead press behind me and was surprised to hear what sounded like cadence counting. Her instructing and the form her clients usually demonstrate is horrible, so I was happy to hear her trying to do something right even if her cadence was a little too fast.
Then I realized she wasn’t counting cadence; she was counting repetitions. More than one per second.
The only reason I didn’t notice at first was her client wasn’t performing the exercise with a full range of motion and starting each rep at bottom-out, which is a good thing because on subsequent exercises when he did he allowed the weight stack to slam down. From what I was able to observe she had him perform at least three sets of each exercise, and the more he did the worse his form became. Her client was rushing through a full set in less time than my client spent performing only two repetitions.
A few years ago I recorded one of my clients workouts at the house, during which I bumped my head on the Nautilus OME while standing after loading a barbell on the floor near it. Afterwards I was watching the video on fast-forward looking for the part where I screwed up to see if it was obvious and noticed even when viewed at four times normal speed Joe appeared to be moving more slowly and with better control than most people you see in the gym.
I’ve trained people who previously did CrossFit or similar programs emphasizing fast movement and a high volume of mechanical work over quality or efficiency of muscular loading. They always comment on how much harder an exercise is when done at a slow, controlled pace. While part of the increase in difficulty has to do with moving in a manner that more effectively loads the targeted muscles, a lot of it has to do with the longer duration. All else being equal, it is harder to perform ten eight-second repetitions than ten one or two-second repetitions simply because of the longer time under load.
This is one of the biggest problems when comparing single and multiple set programs or discussing single versus multiple sets with most trainees; most people have a very different idea of a set than the kind of strict, slow, controlled form involved in most high intensity training protocols.
Before even thinking about comparing the effectiveness of a different number of sets it is necessary to determine the most effective style of performance. Otherwise you’re just comparing the relative effectiveness of doing it very poorly one or more times.
Most exercise research on single versus multiple sets doesn’t specify or standardize repetition cadence, and when it does it is usually not supervised and timed to ensure strict compliance. Instead, subjects are often self-supervised and most people without proper instruction will use relatively poor form, moving in a fast and sloppy manner not representative of what is often recommended for high intensity training. I have trained bodybuilders and professional athletes who were convinced they had already been training with a high level of intensity comment after a workout with me how much harder it was, so I am also highly skeptical of the average subject’s ability or willingness to push themselves to train as intensely as is often recommended for high intensity training.
The majority of published research and an even larger amount of unpublished research shows little or no difference in results between performing one or more sets of an exercise (research showing no difference in the effect of independent variables tends not to be published). Considering the above, what this really means is there is little or no difference in results between performing one or more sets of an exercise with crappy form.
If we were to compare either a single or multiple set protocol performed in typically sloppy, quick fashion with a single set protocol performed in strict, slow, fashion I suspect the results would still be similar assuming both were done with a high intensity of effort. However, in the long run the group performing a single set of strict, slow reps would suffer less wear and tear and fewer training related injuries.
As for optimal training volume I don’t think the issue is the number of sets or reps or the mechanical work performed so much as the metabolic work and stress on the body, which is more a matter of set duration. This is another reason not specifying and ensuring compliance with a specific repetition protocols in exercise studies is such a huge mistake. As the stress on the body increases you will reach a point of diminishing returns, and beyond some point you will begin to plateau or even regress. While a longer set duration allows the use of a safer level of resistance the longer the time under load the more each set contributes to the overall stress on the body and the fewer can be performed before reaching a point of diminishing returns or overtraining. While there may be little or no difference in results between performing one or more sets in typical fashion, the higher the set duration and relative effort the more of a negative effect on results additional sets are likely to have.
Single set high intensity training protocols makes sense for several reasons. Safety and preservation of long-term functional ability should be the highest priority of program design, so exercises should be performed at a reasonably slow speed and using a level of resistance that can be used for a reasonable number of repetitions in strict form. Because this will result in a longer set duration it is necessary to be more conservative with the number of sets and since research shows little or no difference between performing one or more sets at typical faster speeds and very short durations it is unlikely there would be a benefit to performing more than one set of a longer duration.
With a single set protocol you can perform more exercises or more directly work more muscle groups in a single workout without exceeding an optimal volume of exercise.
It is easier to objectively compare performance of a single sets of an exercise over time than multiple sets without perfectly standardizing interset rest intervals.
All else being equal (duration of sets and rest intervals) single set programs are more time efficient.
References:
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
Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations. Medicine Sportiva Med Sport 01/2011; 15:147-162.
Maisch B, Baum E, Grimm W. Die Auswirkungen dynamischen Krafttrainings nach dem Nautilus-Prinzip auf kardiozirkulatorische Parameter und Ausdauerleistungsfähigkeit (The effects of resistance training according to the Nautilus principles on cardiocirculatory parameters and endurance). Angenommen vom Fachbereich Humanmedizin der Philipps-Universität Marburg am 11. Dezember 2003
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
Comments on this entry are closed.
So Drew, you have to share all of your equipment with other trainers? I was under the impression that was all your equipment in your videos.
Is sharing space ever a point of contention?
Ben,
Yes, the studio I train at rents to several other trainers. I do mostly consulting and writing now and only train a few of my long term clients so working around them usually isn’t a problem.
Drew,
Do you still train clients at Overload Fitness in Altamonte Springs? If so, I can’t image Ken Hutchins letting a trainer get away with that kind of stuff, especially slamming a weight stack down.
Thomas,
I’m renting at another studio which has a line of MedX. I decided to cut my training hours way back and although the MedX isn’t as nice as the RenEx machines and I miss working with Ken, I’m able to charge a higher rate.
The kind of nonsense the other trainer had her client doing wouldn’t be allowed at Overload. They’d fire her on the spot.
Drew,
I realize that a cookie cutter approach isn’t best concerning TUL’s, but do you still recommend the relatively shorter duration (60-90 seconds) or do you think it’s better to focus on “thorough inroad” even if it takes over 3 minutes? If I use a 10/10 cadence I have a longer TUL compared to a 4/4 – and yes the weight is the same, just a higher rep range with the faster cadence. Seems strange, slower is harder, yet I last longer with the slower cadence – perhaps it has to do with mechanical work – perhaps it’s just me.
Matt,
I think 60 to 90 seconds is a good starting point for most people. Some might find they do better with shorter or longer TULs but that seems to work well for most.
I have noticed the same thing with the slower movement speeds and inroad. Years ago I performed an experiment along with several other people comparing the time to failure between a set performed at a 2/2 cadence and another performed thirty minutes later at a 10/10 cadence. Everybody reported a TUL that was 30% to 50% longer on the second set.
I suspect the difference was due to a combination of the longer negative providing more of a respite due to the lower metabolic cost of eccentric muscle contraction, the muscles’ ability to contract more forcefully at slower contraction velocities (force/velocity curve), and possibly the tendency to move more slowly through portions of the range of motion with relatively lower resistance. I suspected some of it might have been due to the Nautilus Nitro cams being less than optimal, but I repeated this test on SuperSlow Systems and RenEx equipment with adjustable cam timing and had the same results.
The optimal speed range is probably somewhere in the middle – slow enough to be able to maintain strict positioning and path of movement, smooth turnarounds, and to be able to focus on contracting the target muscles, but not so slowly that inroading becomes less efficient due either to the reasons mentioned or other factors I’ve overlooked or am not aware of.
Drew,
Thanks for the input. I’m gonna use a 5/5 tempo for today’s workout – and use the same weight I’ve been using with 10/10. It’s been 8 days since my last workout, so it will be interesting to see the difference.
Matt
Drew,
Yes, I find that 60-90 seconds seems to be that magic number. I felt like I stumbled upon that by trial and error.
To articulate, it feels as if the load is heavy and meaningful and the drop off in force output comes quickly, i.e., you can pretty much see it on the horizon. When the TUL moves past 2 minutes it’s almost as if the motor units are recovering faster than they drop off. Basically it seems that if the TUL is too long, the exercise starts moving towards manual labor. Then again, if the TUL is too short, it feels more like a one rep max or simply a feat of strength.
I can’t really expound on the difference between fatigue caused by meaningful inroad and the failure to move a weight more than 1 or 2 reps. I guess that’s why power lifters are able to throw around so much weight for hours because they’re not globally fatigued? I suppose it becomes an economy of motion.
For the record, I respect the sport of power lifting, but it seems so chock- full of potential injuries.
Drew,
I find it very interesting that you got the same results even when using
a 10/10 cadence on RenEx equipment.
Your results contradicts the RenEx suggestion to use a 10/10 cadence in order to achieve a deep inroad as quickly as possible.
Do you recommend a 5/5 or 6/6 cadence for optimal stimulation of the targeted muscles?
Andy
Andy,
I was surprised as well. I figured with better cams there would be less of a difference or the difference would go the other direction, but that’s not what happened.
I recommend a minimum of about a 4/4 cadence since most people need to move at least that slowly over a typical exercise range of motion to be able to turnaround smoothly. I also have people perform a three second hold on simple and compound pulling exercises and a squeeze starting with the third rep, and a brief pause at the start point on exercises beginning in a stretched position (eg. heel raises).
Drew,
Thank you very much!
Andy
I currently do a protocol of 12 exercises of 5-8 or 8-12 reps, one set to positive failure. In reality that means 17 sets to failure.(5 are done for each arm/leg) Only about 6 of those are compound movements. Is this considered excessive for HIT workout?
I also recently though about frequency. How often the need for decreased frequency/volume really occurs over time if one finds his ideal frequency he can progress on? And isn’t it in reality just the approximation of one’s potential that slows the progress and lowering frequency/volume can’t really do much about it except that trainee sees some progress in numbers that doesn’t reflect body composition changes?
Thanks
I know the amount of work done increases, but what about body adaptation to higher amount of work? I think currently the only way to know is real-life experience.
Ondrej,
I’m not sure I understand your question, but muscular stamina or endurance improves proportionally to strength. While the exact ratio varies between individuals, as a general rule the stronger you become the greater your work capacity.
Ondrej,
The optimum volume and frequency of exercise varies between individuals so there is no way to say whether a particular program is excessive without knowing how an individual is responding to it. That being said, I don’t recommend working your arms and legs independently and suggest performing the exercises bilaterally instead.
The closer you get to the limits of your genetic potential the slower progress becomes. Determining the optimum volume and frequency is still a matter of accurate record keeping and experimentation at that point, but people generally require a reduction in both as intensity increases or as they get older.
Thanks. I’ll probably have to change bent over row for bench row, do wrist flexion/extension and french curl simultaneously and fgure out the way for safe simultaneous calf raise on step, but this could significantly reduce workout time, by as much as 30%. I strictly adhered to book recommendations (Dumbbell Training for Strength and Fitness) but I realize that workout authors had little word in exercise selection and detailed description.
Ondrej,
It is possible to do bent over rows with dumbbells simultaneously, you just have to be careful to maintain strict body positioning.
For calves I recommend getting a dipping belt to add weight so you can work both legs simultaneously.
Is it standing dumbbell bent-over row then? I can’t imagine doing b.o.row simultaneously using the bench as I’d lose the non-working arm support. And if I lied to the bench, isn’t it called bench row? Maybe I am just lost in exercise nomenclature.
The frequency: I basically meant that recovery might be trainable to extent that one shouldn’t do less over time, because one never really recovers on all levels from workout to workout anyway, and the body adapts to what one throws at it, at least to some extent…I¨ve seen some experiments with daily squatting…just a theory. Practical experience might tell otherwise especially with high intensity workouts. It was all about more complex theory of overtraining than that is often presented.
Ondrej,
A bent over dumbbell row is done standing with the hips flexed so your body is around fifteen to thirty degrees above parallel with the ground.
Recovery ability might be trainable to a degree but is largely genetically dictated. If you allow adequate time between workouts you will recover fully. If that wasn’t the case you would progressively become more overtrained regardless of your workout volume and frequency and this doesn’t happen.
“Most exercise research on single versus multiple sets doesn’t specify or standardize repetition cadence, and when it does it is usually not supervised and timed to ensure strict compliance.”
AYE AGREE! I’ve scoured through dozens of research on multiple vs single set and noticed two things to be common.
Jinx #1
Doing a single set to failure vs Multiple sets to failure
The repetition count in single and three sets are usually the same between 8 to 12 until failure
If a set is truly done to failure a second or third set is impossible with the same weight! Meaning in all the research I’ve examined have falsely assumed that when the person finishes his/her set that it’s actually done to the real point of failure
Jinx #2
The cadence
Some multi vs single set research seemed to have great methods up until the point I noticed a 1-0-1 sec cadence stated!
Who designs these research programs??
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore….
Pete,
Most of these studies get so much wrong they are nearly worthless, except maybe as examples of how little the researchers know about exercise and how little confidence we should have in their conclusions about the subject in general.
Yeah and further the real problem lies with the fact that they leverage credibility out of their status as researchers and we have no critical thinking skills in general to assess their work. So blame on us or them?! 😉
Pete,
I blame the researchers for not designing and conducting their studies more carefully and objectively and the people who perpetuate the erroneous conclusions of those studies because they don’t bother to read them critically.
Many good points here.
People get caught up in arguing single vs multiple sets, yet there are almost always other major differences between the ‘systems’ that people actually use. Studies which just focus on the number of sets are pretty useless for deciding among, for example, HIT versus high volume body building vs low rep/high weight strength routines.
Hi Drew,
Fantastic article. The way I see it, slow reps are the building block of the entire HIT methodology. Without them, everything else that HIT is famous for, or the reasons HIT is different and better are rendered useless.
As you say above, slow reps to failure condense large amounts of high quality muscular and metabolic work into a relatively small amount of mechanical work. This allows the trainee to get all the stimulation they need from no more than, say, 2 minutes per exercise.
Even though “traditional” sets may only take 15-20 seconds each, by the time you’ve done 3 or 4 of them with at least 2 minutes in rest in between each one, the HIT trainee has long since finished off his shoulders and is almost done training his thighs as well. The traditional guy is still benching his heart out.
So it’s not just the time efficiency, it’s also the safety aspect and the ability of the trainer/trainee to spot or feel form related errors more easily, focus better on contracting ONLY the target musculature, and because of the heightened FEEL that slow reps give.
The enhanced communication i.e. feedback from the muscles, also makes it easier for the trainee to detect genuine muscular failure.
If you’re blasting through the range of motion in a second or less in my experience, you have very little appreciation for what your muscles are going through and how and when fatigue accumulates. Slow reps allow you to communicate much better with your own body during the exercise. Fast reps hamper or sever the communication link altogether.
Muscular failure may seem to catch up with you even if you use fast rep speeds, but only after you’ve loosened your form and squirmed, fidgeted, wriggled, braced and strained your way through the final 2 or 3 horrifically ugly reps of your set using the val salva maneuver. It’s more likely, after this experience that you actually terminate the set due to pain, discomfort, worry, oxygen debt or loss of mental focus rather than genuine muscular failure.
As you’ve said in a number of previous articles, we should focus on quality muscular contraction and not just external measures such as weight, reps, sets etc. Trying to do this in the absence of slow, controlled, methodical reps would be a complete joke. If the positive phase of one of your reps lasts about a second, then you can’t really have any idea of what quality muscular contractions are. Your frame of reference is completely inadequate.
In my mind, 1 set of slow reps to failure would easily offer more stimulation than either a single set or multiple sets of fast sloppy reps. It would also be better than multiple sets of slow reps to failure as they would very quickly lead to over training.
A single set comprised of reps performed the way most people perform their reps wouldn’t do anything to stimulate improvements in size of strength.
That I believe is THE reason that most people can’t understand why a single set would be effective, and why they argue so hard against it.
Nobody in the discussion has even mentioned REPS and how the performance of the REPS differs between training methods. REPS are the building blocks of SETS, and instead we’ve gone straight into talking about sets without standardizing rep performance and that’s why the arguments are null and void and a complete waste of time.
If you slow your reps down then everything else has to follow in terms of time efficiency thanks to quality muscular and metabolic work in fewer reps, reduced volume and frequency, because many sets performed this way would kill you. Then there is the increased safety thanks to the absence of injurious forces and better mental focus on each rep as a separate entity.
Without slow reps, the rest of the HIT paradigm doesn’t work.
AC,
I would estimate most people take around fifteen to twenty seconds to perform ten repetitions if they do them continuously. Most people also rest for anywhere from thirty seconds to a few minutes between sets. If you’re used to doing three or more sets of around a dozen exercises with a lot of rest in between cutting back to only one set of a few exercises seems absurd.
When you’ve learned how to do an exercise correctly and with a high level of intensity and rush from one exercise to the next doing any more than one set of a few exercises seems absurd.
New trainees are usually skeptical when they hear they’ll only be doing one set each of a few exercises. Once they’ve done it they get it. I think the only way to help people understand they only need one set is to teach them to do it correctly. Unless you can do that talking with them about it is probably a waste of time.
Hi Drew,
I was wondering what your opinion is on Mike Mentzer’s Consolidation workout. It’s where you alternate weekly two workouts. Workout A is a set of squats and a set of close grip lat pulldowns to failure. Workout B is a set of deadlifts and a set of dips to failure. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Mike,
These types of consolidation routines can be very effective for people who have difficulty recovering from more volume but I don’t think they are optimal for most people since some muscle groups are not worked as effectively.
Hi Drew, Ive added my surname as another Pete has popped up.
May I ask, in terms of selecting an appropriate TUL or RCT for a given movement on quality machnes, I find on chest press 60-80 secs inroads effectively and I respond well,compound row the same, however leg press & bicep machines I am not responding well at 80-90 secs, I am experimenting with modulating the weight on those to go a higher TUL/RCT, my question is, I re-read Doug’s BBS and refer to his comments on high intensity responders, modest intensity responders & Angiotenisin, alpha actinin 3 etc, without genetic profiling do trainers/trainees need to experiment more to find the appropriate dose?
Pete
Pete,
Those times are a good starting point for people but due to genetic differences some people will respond better to longer or shorter set durations. The most practical way for most people to determine what works best for them is to keep accurate records of their workouts and experiment.
Hi Drew,
great article,
I am not sure if everyone missed this point, “Safety preservation of long-term functional ability should be the highest priority of program design”…to me this statement is a classic, way above everything else in the exercise program design.
I just updated my first aid certificate, first aid courses stress “preventative measures” before an injury/accident happens.
Most of the so-called fitness experts wouldn’t know what was meant by “long term-functional ability” confuse it with functional movement exercises. Many of the so-called functional movement exercises and other fitness industry trends/fads have no considerations for safety and preservation of long-term functional ability. Many functional movement exercises are high risk of injury. For someone who is 20 years old imagine the same person doing those same functional movement exercises at say 70 years “young”.
Thanks Drew, I’m on track, have been using record cards of RCT/TUL & machine settings for some time, however recently my trainer and I are improving our analysis pre & post workout of the results. I hope to improve my skills by gaining Level 1 RenEx Trainer Cert, Jeff has emailed me the registration docs.
Pete
Pete,
You’ll find the RenEx certification process very educational. It is the only HIT based trainer certification worth doing.
@Steven Turner
Great post, that is my goal as a 44 yr old trainee wanting to stay functional into a ripe old age.
I would like to make contact with you, I did send my contact details to RaceFit, got an email confirming? Any Ideas mate?
Pete
Hi Pete,
Thanks for the response I have just got back to teaching the past couple of weeks have been extremely busy once things settle down in a week or two I will make contact with you. Hopefully we will be able get something organised.
I love training High Intensity…. I still love Mentzer’s heavy duty approach. I kind of giggle to myself when I take only 20 minutes tops to train and all the meathead wannabes swing their weights around. I can see the look on their faces when they see me move slow and steady through exercises. I’m fairly large and muscular for 43 years old and lift more than most of these kids. Yet, they continue this long drawn out approach to lifting while I walk out of the gym.
Drew,
What do you think of using set variables like drop sets, after reaching muscular failure? Do they intensify the stimulus for muscle growth or just increase the risk of overtraining by increasing workout volume?
Andy
Andy,
I don’t generally recommend them because most people misuse them or perform them poorly. There are certain limited circumstances under which they might be valuable, but generally not as a way of increasing intensity. I cover this in detail in the book Elements of Form, which I hope to have completed soon.
Drew,
thanks for your answer!
I´m really curious about EOF which I have already ordered.
Andy,
I’m still working on it and rewriting major sections. Everybody who has pre-ordered it will get it well in advance of when it is available for regular purchase.
Hi Drew,
I think that with most research on strength training the researchers do not understand what loading a muscle means. I think most researchers just think that loading a bar or exercise machine with an amount of weight is all you need to. Or they think that all you need to do is put a weight on a bar and move it as fast as possible. But what really puzzles me is that many researchers are highly qualified exercise scientist who should know better. The mistakes that many exercise scientist make in their research projects are learnt at the basic experiemental research methods stage. If the same basic experimental research mistakes were made in the medical field one could imagine the outcomes.
Steven,
I think you overestimate most people doing exercise research.
Drew,
You recommend a squeeze on compound pulling and single joint exercises beginning with the third rep of a high intensity set.
Is a squeeze duration of 3 secs enough or do you think 5 or more secs are more appropriate?
Thanks Andy
Andy,
Three seconds appears to be enough and is working well.
Drew,
When training two times per week according to your recommendations do you see any advantage for an advanced trainee in combining all related exercises in one workout:
E.g. Chest press, shoulder press, triceps extension on workout 1.
Lat pulldown, row and bizeps curls on workout 2?
Or would you prefer to separate at least the big compound exercises and train each on different workouts?
Best regards
Andy
Hi Drew,
Is my question something you will cover in EOF or is it something that is too individual to answer concretly ?
Best regards
Andy
Andy,
The general principles are covered in EOF. It’s getting there. I hope to have it out in the next two months.
Okay…thank you!
Andy,
I prefer to divide exercises for the same muscle groups or movement types (upper body pushing, pulling, etc.) into separate workouts so they can be trained more frequently.
I feel sorry for clients who employ the services of a trainer that advocates or utilizes stupid, inefficient, and even dangerous training methods. This is a very good reason why people owe it to themselves to do some of their own research before being stuck with “buyers remorse” or even worse a permanent injury. A large majority of these so-called fitness professionals got there degree or license from a “Cracker-Jack” box.