Thread: What really makes more than one hard set per exercise necessary?

Dave, Charles Staley talks a lot about the preference towards multiple sets. I think his materials can answer your question. Check www.integratedsportsolutions.com.

As I remember, 1 set with maximum intensity is enough to recruit much muscle fibers, but is not enough to fatique them all and trigger hyperthrophy. It's not enough to just recruit the fibers, you also need to recruit them a number of times to affect hyperthrophy (thus multiple sets). I am sure others can explain better.

- Josh

From experience, I need more than one set. I usually do 3-5 sets till failure or maybe one less than failure on some.
Your muscles respond to the amount of stimulus you give them up to the point where they can't recover and that is where you hit the overtraining mark. Your goal is to be right on the edge of overtraining, forcing your muscles to adapt. Now if you can't recover from doing 2 sets to failure then I guess one set to failure is where you'd want to be.

I dont understand why more than one set, of maximum exertion, to complete failure (which most people rarely go to) would not be enough to enduce hypertrophy. If a muscle is stimulated beyond its normal capacities with one set, why would more than one stimulate more fibers than one set? Most of what Ive read, with a few exceptions, basically say that intensity is the main inducer of hypertrophy. If this is the case, then why not just do one super intense set per bodypart?

Just wondering your opinions... thanks

I'm telling you I DO go to failure on most sets and beyond with some forced reps, and one set just doesn't do it for me.

I'm sure one set to failure would produce results better than those wimps you sets doing 3 sets of 10 even though they could have done 20 or 30 reps.
But 3-5 sets to failure, if you can recover from it will put more stress on your muscles than one set and will cause more of an adaptive response (all due respect to Mike Mentzer)

This is just personal experience, so take itwith a grain of salt. I am reasonably new 'back' to the gym seriously, but from what I've found I was doing 1 set training originally, andafter several weeks I just hit a stalemate. I would go until I was ready to drop dead, but right before I started to get the sting of overtraining... but there was no last effect. No fatigue leaving the gym etc.... so I just revamped up to multiple sets on each muscle group and I'm going to see how that works... initially, as always when you change your rtouine, im absolutely exhausted, but I can tell already, that for me at least, multiple just works better...

You have a CNS.

You have muscles.

Does one set taken to failure mean that you've adequately stimulated your muscles? And not just, partially or primarily, your CNS?

I can't really argue for or against multiple sets, I think it's a good idea to switch up the number of reps and sets you do now and then, but for a little justification to go to a multiple set routine... here's an example.

My recent workout history has gone something like this...

3x10 sets using weights at or very near my maximum weights (I almost always train pretty heavy).
2x20 sets (dropped about 10 - 20 pounds of weight per exercise to make this possible, approx 5-10%), in theory this is more weight moved, but mostly it's just something to change the routine a little
1x10 added about 10-20 pounds over normal (which is 20-40 over the 2x20 sets)
2x6 Again adding 10-20 pounds (an extra 2 reps with more weight)

At this point I'm increasing weights fairly frequently using 2x6 (2x6 for most exercises but there are some that I do higher reps on, especially on leg days) but when I start feeling like I'm stagnating I'll probably go to a 2x8 or even 2x10 and try to keep the weight the same... from there I'll likely increase sets or jump the weights up and return to a single set.

That's probably a lot of information to say this... Why would two sets be better than doing one to failure? Because you've been doing one to failure and your body has adapted, time to do two to failure for a while, give your body something new to be a little stiff/sore in the morning over.

Well, lets say one set to failure does fully stimulate your CNS, if you use maximum intensity, that would mean basically one of two things.

Use less than maximum intensity to avoid overloading your CNS. OR
Using one set is enough.

But if you would want to add the most muslce mass possible, do you want to avoid overloading your CNS or do you WANT to overload your CNS? Ive read that overloading your CNS is what creates the hypertrophic environment, since your body is learning to adapt to stimulus it hasnt dealt with before.

On the other hand would you want AVOID doing this, so you could create a maximum environment of recovery for you muscles and NOT over work your CNS so your body COULD recover faster.

It seems like a paradox to me.


Any suggestions?

I think lately we've been over emphasizing the CNS. I think your muscles will fail long before your CNS. BTW the CNS is the brain and the spinal chord. If there's a problem with the nervous system in regards to lifting I would say that it wouls occur at the nueromuscular junction (Motor unit). Obviously you need your nervous system to fire your muscle fibers, but really I think the lmiting factor in your lifts is more likely glycogen depletion, muscle fatigue and or lactic acid build up.
Work till failure as much as possible, listen to what your MUSCLES are telling you.

No, not overemphasizing.

If you do one set and fail, you think that was total muscular failure. Do realize, I didn't say that you've reached total CNS failure, either. That's absurd.

I'm speaking in context.

---

It is not a paradox. You have to learn to recruit your muscle fibers more efficiently. "Stimulate, not annihilate."