Puzzle: A single set or a resting set...

[dark-water-site]

Hi. I'm still trying to understand how it all works. The variations of number of reps and number of sets, and the different effects it has in the gaining of strenght and muscle are kind of puzzling. I do not understand what is the point of doing more than one set! If strenght is the result of adapting our physical structure to the lifting of a certain weight during a certain number of reps, after this is acomplished, what good will we get from repeating the same action one more time? I don't think it will be more strenght...is it resistance, or endurance?

And if we are going to lift a certain weight...one that we can lift for (e.g) 7 reps, why should we do it in two or more separated sets? Why not do it in one single set? I mean, after acomplishing what would be considered to be the first set, why not keep it up by resting just the time necessary to recuperate the essential energy to lift it more one or two times in a row, and keep at it until finishing what could be considered the second part of a unique, single set...

Why make two separated sets of seven reps and not one single set? why not lift it, 7 reps, in the first part of the set, and instead of a considerable long rest, and a second and third set, why not keep at it, resting several times, for a few seconds, just enough to allow us to lift it up just one or two more times in a row, and keep it up in this way until get to the end of the set?

Have you ever tried to lift it this way? What do you think would be the results?

Still, I do not understand...why it is necessary more than one set, or even a single, resting set, like the one I have described just now...

I think we're playing with an interesting puzzle...

 

[Yanick]

Oh boy you might have opened up a big ass can of worms.

I'll start off by saying this, strength is not a product, solely, of structural adaptation by the musculature. Strength (lets say 1-3 RM as once you start getting up there in reps, metabolic factors come into play) is in fact more a product of efficiency of the nervous system (learning the movement, recruiting motor units, increasing firing rate of motor units etc). This can be seen by watching the lower weight classes in the strength sports who put up massive numbers without massive amounts of muscle.

Its late and I'm tired but I'll just say this;

The short and simple answer to your question is...drum roll please...there is no short and simple answer. No matter what any self proclaimed, or otherwise, 'guru' tells you.

 

[Perdido]

Simply put: It's most effective for hypertrophy to have way more muscle contractions than is possible in just one set.

 

[Gazhole]

Usually the amount of stimulation and muscle exhaustion required to produce hypertrophy is not achieved in one single set. This is generally due to the load being sub-maximal and not actually requiring 100% of the muscle's effort in that set.

Protocols like HIT or Heavy Duty focus on the "one set to failure" principle where you only perform a single work set to absolute muscular failure. The reasoning being that one set is all you need - stimulate the maximum amount of muscle in the shortest amount of time, turn on the body's growth response, and get out of the gym and recover.

There was also a training system a while ago that had you do a single set, with individual rest times for each rep of a few seconds, allowing you to perform supramaximal reps in relation to the weight you were using (20 reps at 10rm for example).

But like Yanick said, strength is the by product of neural efficiency as well as increased cross sectional area of muscle fibres/density of muscle fibres. The more times you perform a movement, the more efficient you are at that movement, so your nervous system will be better at recruiting the muscle it needs to perform that movement.

This also applies to a greater load. Strength is generally achieved with lower reps and an increasingly heavier weight in order to stimulate a similar response from the nervous system.

When you perform multiple non-maximal sets (i.e. not to failure) its probably a combination of these things, as well as a pre-cursor to that last, toughest, set where you almost go to failure.

 

[dark-water-site]

Usually the amount of stimulation and muscle exhaustion required to produce hypertrophy is not achieved in one single set. This is generally due to the load being sub-maximal and not actually requiring 100% of the muscle's effort in that set.

Protocols like HIT or Heavy Duty focus on the "one set to failure" principle where you only perform a single work set to absolute muscular failure. The reasoning being that one set is all you need - stimulate the maximum amount of muscle in the shortest amount of time, turn on the body's growth response, and get out of the gym and recover.

There was also a training system a while ago that had you do a single set, with individual rest times for each rep of a few seconds, allowing you to perform supramaximal reps in relation to the weight you were using (20 reps at 10rm for example).

But like Yanick said, strength is the by product of neural efficiency as well as increased cross sectional area of muscle fibres/density of muscle fibres. The more times you perform a movement, the more efficient you are at that movement, so your nervous system will be better at recruiting the muscle it needs to perform that movement.

This also applies to a greater load. Strength is generally achieved with lower reps and an increasingly heavier weight in order to stimulate a similar response from the nervous system.

When you perform multiple non-maximal sets (i.e. not to failure) its probably a combination of these things, as well as a pre-cursor to that last, toughest, set where you almost go to failure.

What if we add two or more sets in one single set? Will this way of training the muscles have a different effect compared to the traditional way of training it? By traditional way of training I'm refering to lifting a weight, one that we can lift around (e.g) 7 reps in one individual set, and repeat it, after a considerable rest pause, for 7 more reps, each set being complete in his own number of reps, and this number of reps being equal to all the sets, and each set, therefore, needing to be separated from the next one by a longer rest pause than it would be necessary in the case of a single set of (e.g) 7 reps, followed by frequent rest pauses and frequent two rep lifts, until reaching a number of reps equal to the sum of all the reps found in all the individual and traditional sets, now, replaced by a single set, where after lifting the first (e.g) 7 reps, we replace the considerable long pause rests between the traditional (e.g) 7 rep/sets, by more frequent and shorter pause rests, allowing no more than two rep lifts, and this pauses and two rep lifts being repeated frequently until reaching the sum of reps used in the traditional number of reps/sets way of training...

Could a single set of (e.g) 7 reps, followed by frequent rest pauses and frequent two rep lifts, change in any way the way we gain strength and muscle, compared with the traditional way of training?

Will it speed it up? Will it slow it down?

Or, will it still, have the same effect as the traditional way of training?

 

[gtbmed]

I think you're way overthinking something that should be very simple. There are a lot of good ways to train, but the key to all of them is progressive overload. Do that, eat right, and rest well, and you should grow.

Apart from that, what you're talking about sounds like a good way to cause an injury.

If you're dying to know the answer, why not try it yourself and see if it works?

 

[dark-water-site]

Am I going to hurt myself?

I think you're way overthinking something that should be very simple. There are a lot of good ways to train, but the key to all of them is progressive overload. Do that, eat right, and rest well, and you should grow.

Apart from that, what you're talking about sounds like a good way to cause an injury.

If you're dying to know the answer, why not try it yourself and see if it works?

Why could it be a good way to cause an injury?

I will be using the same kind of weight used in a traditional way of training. It wouldn't be heavier, it would be only heavy enough to not allow me more than eight or nine reps in the begining of the set. The only difference would be adding to it, after acomplishing the first 7 to 9 reps, frequent and shorter pause rests allowing me no more than two rep lifts, and this pauses and two rep lifts being repeated frequently until reaching the sum of reps used in the traditional number of reps/sets way of training...

What could make this way of training a good way to cause an injury?

I'm dying to know if training in this way will change in any way the way we gain strength and muscle, compared with the traditional way of training.

But I don't want to die trying to find it out...

 

[Marat]

And if we are going to lift a certain weight...one that we can lift for (e.g) 7 reps, why should we do it in two or more separated sets? Why not do it in one single set? I mean, after acomplishing what would be considered to be the first set, why not keep it up by resting just the time necessary to recuperate the essential energy to lift it more one or two times in a row, and keep at it until finishing what could be considered the second part of a unique, single set...

Why make two separated sets of seven reps and not one single set? why not lift it, 7 reps, in the first part of the set, and instead of a considerable long rest, and a second and third set, why not keep at it, resting several times, for a few seconds, just enough to allow us to lift it up just one or two more times in a row, and keep it up in this way until get to the end of the set?

Where did you get this training concept from?

 

[Gazhole]

What if we add two or more sets in one single set? Will this way of training the muscles have a different effect compared to the traditional way of training it? By traditional way of training I'm refering to lifting a weight, one that we can lift around (e.g) 7 reps in one individual set, and repeat it, after a considerable rest pause, for 7 more reps, each set being complete in his own number of reps, and this number of reps being equal to all the sets, and each set, therefore, needing to be separated from the next one by a longer rest pause than it would be necessary in the case of a single set of (e.g) 7 reps, followed by frequent rest pauses and frequent two rep lifts, until reaching a number of reps equal to the sum of all the reps found in all the individual and traditional sets, now, replaced by a single set, where after lifting the first (e.g) 7 reps, we replace the considerable long pause rests between the traditional (e.g) 7 rep/sets, by more frequent and shorter pause rests, allowing no more than two rep lifts, and this pauses and two rep lifts being repeated frequently until reaching the sum of reps used in the traditional number of reps/sets way of training...

Could a single set of (e.g) 7 reps, followed by frequent rest pauses and frequent two rep lifts, change in any way the way we gain strength and muscle, compared with the traditional way of training?

Will it speed it up? Will it slow it down?

Or, will it still, have the same effect as the traditional way of training?

Why don't you go and find out?

I think what you're trying to say is instead of doing 3x8 (24 reps total volume), to do 12x2 (24 reps total volume) but with very short rest intervals. Or something. Or 1x8 followed by 8x2 with short rest intervals. Honestly, you're not explaining it very well.

In answer to your question, though, so long as you are progressively adding load to the bar you will get stronger. So long as you are lifting weights and eating in a caloric surplus, you will get bigger.

Trying different training methods keeps the stimulus fresh, so ensuring progress, but the other two things need to be present as well. No one training method is "best".

 

[Patrick_01]

Or 1x8 followed by 8x2 with short rest intervals. Honestly, you're not explaining it very well. - I think this is what he means

In answer to your question, though, so long as you are progressively adding load to the bar you will get stronger. So long as you are lifting weights and eating in a caloric surplus, you will get bigger.

Trying different training methods keeps the stimulus fresh, so ensuring progress, but the other two things need to be present as well. No one training method is "best". - good answer!

Sounds like something I might do from time to time anyway. If I fail near the end of a set I will usually put the bar down/let go, wait a few seconds and pump out the last couple of reps.

 

[Gazhole]

Sounds like something I might do from time to time anyway. If I fail near the end of a set I will usually put the bar down/let go, wait a few seconds and pump out the last couple of reps.

Yeah, me too. Rest pauses are a technique used by a lot of people. They're cool to throw in now and again, but i wouldn't build a whole program around them. I think time under tension is more important than the number of reps for one thing. Though the 20 rep squat program is phenomenal and that program is built around a sort of rest pause method.

Sticking to one method is a sure fire way to stall anyways, lol. I hate when people have that volume vs intensity debate. Why debate? Just do both!!!!

 

[dark-water-site]

Rest pauses are a technique used by a lot of people. They're cool to throw in now and again, but i wouldn't build a whole program around them. I think time under tension is more important than the number of reps for one thing. Though the 20 rep squat program is phenomenal and that program is built around a sort of rest pause method.

Sticking to one method is a sure fire way to stall anyways, lol. I hate when people have that volume vs intensity debate. Why debate? Just do both!!!!

If time under tension is more important than the number of reps, wouldn't be a waste of time and energy to repeat the first set of an exercise? To add a few more sets to the first set of an exercise, would be a way of adding a few more reps to the first set, and wouldn't make a great difference in altering the time under tension of a first set...

It would take more time to recuperate from training, but the increase of time under tension of a set wouldn't be much greater compared with the increase of time under tesion of a training program where we would be using a single set.

Wouldn't the use of a single set make the time to recuperate more reduced than the time necessary, when using multiple sets? If that is the case it seems that adding more sets would only slow our progress in altering our time under tension in a first set...

I would like to gain strenght and muscle as quickly as possible, wasting the minimum of time and energy necessary. I would like to speed it up, not slow it down...wouldn't a single set acomplish this purpose?

 

[Gazhole]

Just get in the gym and lift some fucking weights.

 

[gtbmed]

Like I said, if you want to know if it works, try it out. No single program is best for every person - each person responds to different types of training. If you want to know how you will respond to a certain type of training, you have to train that way for a while and find out.

You're still complicating something that should be simple. Go to the gym, lift weights, eat, rest, and you'll see gains. Keep progressively putting more weight on the bar while you do that and things will work. If you want optimal results, you're going to have to figure out what works best for your body, but we can't do that by speculating about things that seem somewhat unimportant.

 

[dark-water-site]

Just get in the gym and lift some fucking weights.

I just started lifting weights, and I want to make sure I will not waste any time nor energy, and that I'm in the quickest road to arrive where I want to go...

 

[Perdido]

Just get in the gym and lift some fucking weights.

You have allot more patience than me! A most admirable trait.

I just don't get the re-inventing the wheel stuff. Read the stickies DWS. It's all there.

 

[quadluver]

It all has to do with recoup. Muscles need to regenerate and they need time to add phosphates (ADP-ATP). Without the rest time, your strengh is compromised.

 

[Yanick]

+1 to Gaz.

I'm surprised this hasn't turned into a HIT vs. Volume debate.

This is a nice topic but is mostly mental masturbation. DWS, you can never tell if you could be making better or worse progress in the gym. To ascertain that you'd need a control (genetically identical twin, with the same exact lifestyle, job, stress, diet, stats etc) compare yourself against. As I've mentioned in a thread a little while ago, evening listening to the guys who say stuff like, "I gained 10lbs with X training program but only 5lbs with Y," is somewhat irrelevant for 2 reasons. The more experienced you are the less you will see gains, its just the way it works. First 10lbs is easy, next 10 might take you a year or more. Second of all you can never judge 2 different training programs at 2 different times of your life. The little things can make all the difference. A fight with your G/F, a busy job/school schedule, a missed/cheat meal here and there will skew the results. You can never control those types of variables.

So like Gaz said, get in the gym and lift some fuckin weights. You're doing more harm than good worrying about minutia like this, the extra ounce of muscle you might build with a 'more optimal' program will be catabolized by the cortisol from the worrying about bullshit.

 

[Kevsworld]

I think you are over-thinking things just a bit. As other posters have explained, one set is not ideal for hypertrophy.