weights #2388
The Weights Mailing List
Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
by <Mcs...@aol.com>
Re: Bulgarian Training
by Piers Redmore <pred...@weber.ucsd.edu>
Goals
by Mr. Uxo <u...@hotmail.com>
Back Terminology
by Mr. Uxo <u...@hotmail.com>
Re: Incledon Seminar
by Thomas Incledon <hps...@mediaone.net>
I'm 16 and new to weights
by <Soni...@aol.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: ONE VS MANY SETS
From: Mcs...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:36:02 -0700
On 7/23/00, Joseph Brown<br...@psych.stanford.edu> wrote:
<<
Mel has basically continued a falsehood that demeans the discussion. Ralph
Carpinelli has done a review of research examining this controversy, and
there is a lot more than just one single study...suggesting that one set
work produces results indistinguishable from three or more sets.
>>
***My comments on this "falsehood" are based upon the fact that ALL of
those studies were carried out on "average" subjects or "experienced
weights users". An experienced gym user is by no means a serious athlete.
It is unwarranted to assume that one may extrapolate findings from this
type of population to one of top level sport.
If we examine such studies, are there any which show that the 1RM of
experienced strength athletes from disciplines such as Weightlifting,
Powerlifting and track athletics has been increased by the use of one set
training? Maybe I missed something, but none of these groups of subjects
appeared to be experienced serious athletes or Olympians.
***Let us now examine one of the websites that Joseph Brown quotes, namely:
www.cbass.com/newevide.htm >>
For instance, here are some extracts from the articles which "prove" that
one set training is universally equal to multi-set training:
<<
. . . . . a review of literature by Carpinelli and Otto found that 33 out
of 35 strength-training studies showed no significant difference in
strength or size gains as a result of doing one set or multiple sets.
(Sports Medicine. 25(7): 1998) The two main criticisms of these studies,
according to Dr. Carpinelli, are that they were too short, and that the
participants were often untrained. The suggestion is that seasoned trainers
might benefit from doing more sets.
Dr. Carpinelli now reports in the October 1998 Master Trainer that those
"valid criticisms" are addressed in a series of studies by Michael Pollock,
M.D., and his colleagues at the University of Florida, and another research
group
>>
If on examines all of these studies, there is not one which was carried out
with elite Olympic athletes, especially in the strength sports such as
Weightlifting, so it is very misleading to suggest that the findings can be
applied without qualification to groups other than novices or fairly
regular average gymnasium users. All of these studies which did not use
novices used subjects with several years of "weight training experience".
Now, that it is very far cry from seriously competitive strength athletes
and elite bodybuilders. None of the studies compared one set training with
multi-set heavy training with the sort of loading which characterises elite
strength athletes.
Anyway, the website continues to point out that Dr Pollock and colleagues
carried out a series of more extended one set studies which produced
information such as:
<<
Two of the studies (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement
30(5); 116 & 165, 1998) examine strength and size increases as a result of
one set or three sets of 8-12 repetitions to muscular failure three days a
week. Strength was assessed for both one rep max and reps at 75% of
pretraining max, in the bench press, row, arm curl, leg extension and leg
curl. Muscle thickness increases were measured by ultrasound in
eight locations covering the upper and lower body.
The researchers recruited 40 adults who had been performing one set to
muscular fatigue, using nine exercises, for a minimum of one year; average
training time was six years. The participants were randomly assigned to
either a one-set or three-set group; both groups did 8-12 reps to failure
three days per week for 13 weeks.
Both groups significantly increased their one-rep maximum strength and
endurance. There was no significant difference in the gains made by the two
groups in the leg extension, leg curl, bench press, overhead press and arm
curl. The researchers concluded: "These data indicate that 1 set of
[resistance training] is equally as beneficial as 3 sets in experienced
resistance trained adults."
Another research group, K.L. Ostrowski and colleagues, tested "the effect
of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and
function" in experienced trainers. (Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 11(3): 148-154, 1997) Thirty-five males, with one to four years
weight-training experience, were assigned to one of three training groups:
one-set, two-sets, or four sets. All participants did what I would
call a periodized routine; they changed the rep range every few weeks. They
did free-weight exercises four times a week for ten weeks using 12 reps
maximum (week 1-4), 7 reps max (week 5-7) and 9 reps (week 8-10). All sets
were performed to muscular fatigue with three minutes rest between sets.
The only difference between the three programs was the number of sets.
...As in the Pollock group studies, no significant differences in results
were found. The authors concluded: "...A low volume program ... [one set of
each exercise] ... results in increases in muscle size and function similar
to programs with two to four times as much volume." . . . . .
....The fourth study by the Pollock group (Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S274, 1998), also 6 months long, showed
significant increases in circulating insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) in
both one-set (34%) and three-set (30%) groups. Dr. Carpinelli, who teaches
the neuromuscular aspects of strength training at Adelphi University (Long
Island, New York), says, "IGFs are multifunctional protein hormones, whose
production in the liver and other tissues is stimulated by growth
hormones." They are important because, "They stimulate glucose and amino
acid uptake, protein and DNA synthesis, and growth of bones, cartilage, and
soft tissue."
....The researchers concluded: "The elevation of IGFs is no greater with
high- than low-volume resistance training." That's noteworthy, because it's
generally believed that high-set training results in more growth hormone
secretion. (See Growth Hormone Synergism by Douglas M. Crist, Ph.D., 2nd
Edition, 1991; you'll find this book listed in our Products section under
Recommended Books.)
>>
*** Interestingly, these studies did not attempt to distinguish between the
different types of high set training, such as the fairly traditional 5-6
sets of 5 reps vs competitive lifting regimes of 6-10 sets of 1-3 reps. No
attempt was made to examine differences that may be introduced by means of
pyramid and reverse pyramid styles of training. None of the studies even
examined the possible differences of altering the sequence of exercises in
a given regime. It is scientifically inaccurate to lump together all
different combinations and permutations of high set training.
The article concludes thus: < After considering this new evidence, Dr.
Ralph Carpinelli sums-up: "The lack of scientific evidence that multiple
sets...produce a greater increase in strength or size, in itself, provides
a rationale for following a single set training protocol." >
For this sort of conclusion to be made in any scientifically valid setting,
it would have be accompanied by a qualifying statement such as :"It should
be noted that this finding applies strictly to the case of novice weight
trainees or trainees with a few years of non-competitive strength training.
Future studies will have to be conducted to ascertain if this conclusion
may be applied to highly qualified athletes or competitive lifters".
If Dr Carpinelli disagrees with the necessity for this statement of
limitations and scope of all of the new studies, then he would be ignoring
the standards that are applied to all peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Research and practical experience show that single set, HIT, Olympic
lifting, Bulgarian style lifting, extensive bodybuilding methods, intensive
bodybuilding methods and other well-known training regimes all may produce
comparable results in enhancing strength and lean body mass during the
first few years of training or among fairly average serious gym users at
various stages of training. No research has ever proved that any single
method used for indefinite periods is universally superior to any other
method. There is usually a time and place for a given training schema in
the preparation of an athlete.
If Dr Carpinelli is even vaguely implying that one set training is
perfectly adequate for the progress of strength athletes, then he would
seriously misrepresenting the significance of the most recent one set
research. If he disagrees, then I challenge him and other of the
researchers cited in his studies to take over the training of a group of
experienced powerlifters or weightlifters and design one set regimes to see
if his such methods will produce comparable results to those produced by
multiple set (low rep) lifting regimes.
It is most interesting to note that a good few of the one set studies
averaged in excess of 20 repetitions, which constitutes a greater volume
than is used by some multiple set competitive lifting and pyramiding
bodybuilding regimes! This sort of volume used in these Pollock and
Cardinelli studies (around 20 reps) is equal to between 7-10 sets of 2-3
rep regimes that are currently used by top lifters. How can they conclude
that their one rep studies involve LESS, when they are actually carrying
out MORE reps than the average serious lifter. The one set evangelists
really are doing MORE reps than competitive lifters to achieve similar or
inferior results! Somebody's arithmetic is a little defective here.
Do those who continue to quote these limited findings seriously believe
that single set training will produce significant increases in the strength
(1RMs) of competitive lifters? If so, would they be so kind as to quote
any national or world class weightlifters or powerlifters who have reached
that level by means of one set training?
In the web article on the http://www.mikementzer.com/moreisbet.html
website, Dr Carpinelli concludes:
<<
Is this the best evidence the ACSM and the NSCA can produce to substantiate
their more-is-better philosophy? The more extraordinary the claim, the more
extraordinary the evidence required, and there is very little evidence
supporting the extraordinary claim that more exercise is better. As with
their unsubstantiated more-is-better recommendation for enhancing aerobic
capacity (refer to Master Trainer 8(4): 8-10, 1998 and 8(6): 12-13, 1998),
the ACSM never allows a lack of evidence to interfere with their opinions
and they do not want any of their opinions threatened by the facts. The
NSCA is disingenuous at best, editorially incompetent at worst. Shame on
the editors. Shame on the NSCA. Shame on the ACSM.
>>
*** Now that the ACSM and NSCA have been shamed, may we be provided with
some serious practical evidence that one set regimes have successfully been
used as the sole method of supplementary strength training for any Olympic
athletes? It would be equally shameful to indulge in extrapolation
research from the world of fairly conventional gym trainees to the world of
international sport.
No, I am not perpetuating a falsehood - the one set folks are doing that!
Subjects in their one set studies do MORE reps than multi-set top lifters,
so they are doing more to achieve the same or less! It is false to imply
the opposite.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcs...@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bulgarian Training
From: Piers Redmore <pred...@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:25:57 -0700
Thomas Incledon, MS, RD, LD, LN, CSCS, NSCA-CPT said...
>The same survey, if it included questions on injuries, aches and pains,
>plateaus, etc. would also find they are much higher. Without having the
>benefit of training at the Olympic Training Center or working directly with
>coaches, I made far more progress than most of their nationally ranked
>athletes during the 2 year period above (based upon competition results.
>>From my observations, most of these guys had good totals and then only
>improved slightly).
Tom, I enjoy your posts, but I'm going to have to call you out on this one.
I think you're stating that your training program is good because your
snatch and C&J totals improved faster percentagewise than the totals of
elite national weightlifters. By an astonishing coincidence my bench press
has improved faster percentagewise than any top benchpresser in the
country. I don't think it's because of my great training program, though. I
think it's because it's a lot easier to make improvements when you are
benching 250 than when you are benching 600. Likewise, a 5% improvement in
the C&J from 220 to 230 is much more difficult than a 30% improvement in
the C&J when you are only cleaning 120. I'm not knocking your progress, I'm
just saying that it's a mistake to compare the progress of an elite
weightlifter (who is close to his genetic limits) to the progress of a good
weightlifter who still has plenty of room for improvement.
>If training 4-6 days/week was vastly superior, than the
>majority of athletes should have made better progress, especially
>considering that they were training together, had coaching, and restorative
>techniques available to them, and at least some that I know of had chemical
>assistance.
>This makes me think that we should forget about cookie cutter
>type training routines and actually pay attention to the athletes we are
>training (or in my case what our performance indicates). If one is keeping
>a half-way decent training journal, then over time it will become fairly
>evident if 4-6 days per week is OK or not. In my mind the number of days,
>sets, reps etc is not as important as the progress one makes. Too often
>people get caught up with all these other variables and lose sight of what
>they were trying to achieve.
I agree with this 100%. I'm trying to improve my OL totals, and I'm making
very slow progress on a 6 day/week program. It's a good program, and one
of my friends has made great progress on it, but it doesn't seem to be
working for me. I'm going to try cutting back to a 3 day/week program and
see what happens to my totals.
Piers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Goals
From: "Mr. Uxo" <u...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:26:41 -0700
Thees nothing wrong with wanting to train to look good. Its just your
goal, one of many goals of people who train in gyms.
And how about the debate between little rest time in between multiple sets
and max rest, say 30 secs VS 3mins.
3 mins using multiple sets produce greater muscle hypertrophy and strength
gains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Back Terminology
From: "Mr. Uxo" <u...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:25:27 -0700
http://www.mayohealth.org/mayo/0007/htm/backsurg.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Incledon Seminar
From: "Thomas Incledon" <hps...@mediaone.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:28:29 -0700
Laree:
Thanks for the kind words. I am waiting for the vidoe myself so that I can
critically evaluate it and see what areas of my presentation need to be
worked on. I am used to presenting technical data to scientific audiences
so I need to polish up my act for more lay audiences. The feedback I
received from the evaluation forms has been very helpful and I plan on
making some changes in the topics. Of course you can never cover
everything that each person wants to hear about, but I try to get in as
much as possible so that people fel they got some value for their dollar.
Thanks for mentioning the videos. I do want to point out that originally
we could not afford to have the videos done the way we wanted, with actual
Power Point slides and graphs interfaced with the video equipment. We
chose to have the seminar just recorded outright without any editing, etc
so that we can decide what to change or improve for the future. As it
turned out people started asking if they could buy the videos so we agreed
to sell them. This was a first time thing for me and I expect that the
videos will have areas that could be improved upon. This is one reason why
we chose to offer 3 tapes for only 39.95. We estimated that we should just
about break even. I never realized how expensive it was to rent all this
equipment and hire people to record. As the cliche goes, experience is the
best teacher.
Thanks again,
Tom
Thomas Incledon, MS, RD, LD, LN, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Adjunct Professor of Kinesiology and Nutrition
Math, Science, and Technology
Nova Southeastern University
and
Research Scientist
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Department of Exercise and Sport Science
University of Miami
Mailing address:
619 NW 90th Terrace
Plantation, FL 33324
954-577-0689
hps...@mediaone.net
Journal of Performance Enhancement
http://members.tripod.com/JPE_Sportscience/
Coming soon: Performance Nutrition Newsletter!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm 16 and new to weights
From: Soni...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:27:22 -0700
Like i said I'm new to weights. My dad would like to know what is the max I
should do on the leg press. I don't know the exact name of the machine, but
it is positioned so that you are sitting down and pushing the weights up at
an angle. I am currently doing 14 plates of 45 pounds each, 630. Can you
tell me how much weight I shouldn't pass so that there won't be a risk of
damage to my lower back. I would really apprecate it. Thank you.
Andy Alarcon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of weights
Issues of the weights digest, along with a Links directory, a bookstore,
and much more, are available at WeightsNet:
To contribute to the next issue, please send email to:
mailto:wei...@WeightsNet.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to:
mailto:weights...@WeightsNet.com
For further information, contact Michael Sullivan at:
mailto:sull...@WeightsNet.com
The views expressed in weights are those of the individual authors only.