Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 , Not over the long term, but try implementing it for a few months and you'll likely be delighted with the results. I did, and I was. Regards, Pérez Reynosa, Mexico ________________________________ From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On Behalf Of Cowell Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:05 AM To: Supertraining Subject: High Intensity Training? (Was Explosive Exercise is pointless) Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? ================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 , Not over the long term, but try implementing it for a few months and you'll likely be delighted with the results. I did, and I was. Regards, Pérez Reynosa, Mexico ________________________________ From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On Behalf Of Cowell Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:05 AM To: Supertraining Subject: High Intensity Training? (Was Explosive Exercise is pointless) Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? ================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 , Clearly there are, and most seem to be card carrying members of the Flat Earth Society. Regards, Plisk Excelsior Sports, Shelton CT www.excelsiorsports.com Prepare To Be A Champion! ============================== Cowell wrote: Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? ================================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 , Clearly there are, and most seem to be card carrying members of the Flat Earth Society. Regards, Plisk Excelsior Sports, Shelton CT www.excelsiorsports.com Prepare To Be A Champion! ============================== Cowell wrote: Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? ================================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 , I think single set protocols have been proven to be as effective as multi set for pure beginners. For intermediate trainees who need more volume and/or intensitey I think there are some advanced single set approaches that can provide benefits that approach what a multi-set training approach would attain. These include: - drop set - J- rep set - super set (perhaps not really considered one set because it is comprised of 2 or more exercises - but because there is no break in between I mention it here). - rest / pause Ed White Sandwich, MA USA ============================== Cowell wrote: Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? ======================================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 , I think single set protocols have been proven to be as effective as multi set for pure beginners. For intermediate trainees who need more volume and/or intensitey I think there are some advanced single set approaches that can provide benefits that approach what a multi-set training approach would attain. These include: - drop set - J- rep set - super set (perhaps not really considered one set because it is comprised of 2 or more exercises - but because there is no break in between I mention it here). - rest / pause Ed White Sandwich, MA USA ============================== Cowell wrote: Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? ======================================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Can you provide any scientific evidence that, in the training of adapted athletes (as opposed to novice lifters) a single set produces even close to the results of multi-set protocols for strength, speed or power? Pragmatically, can you name one world record holder in the sport of powerlifting or weightlfiting who does only one set? I can name dozens who use multi-set protocols. Drew Baye wrote: > Cowell asked: > > " Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single > set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power > or hypertrophy gains? " > > In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar > results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it depends on > the individual. > > Drew Baye > Orlando, FL > www.baye.com > > -- Hobman Saskatoon, CANADA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Can you provide any scientific evidence that, in the training of adapted athletes (as opposed to novice lifters) a single set produces even close to the results of multi-set protocols for strength, speed or power? Pragmatically, can you name one world record holder in the sport of powerlifting or weightlfiting who does only one set? I can name dozens who use multi-set protocols. Drew Baye wrote: > Cowell asked: > > " Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single > set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power > or hypertrophy gains? " > > In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar > results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it depends on > the individual. > > Drew Baye > Orlando, FL > www.baye.com > > -- Hobman Saskatoon, CANADA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Drew - Sorry, but I'm lifting proof I wouldn't be the puller I am now with a single set protocol. I have yet to train anybody who is better with 1 set than the 3-5 working sets and I do think NSCA is right on this one. That's over a decade on the platform and coaching drug free men and women as well as my own lifting. You get what you pay for, in sweat equity. The years of PL and long hours in the gym are what paid off for me, without drugs, to be as well muscled, lean, and strong as I am, without resorting to drugs and other unsavory methods! Quick fixes are just that. Sure, a newbie might gain on any program for a bit....but eventually they too have to put in the long hours to gain after the newbie gains are over. Lifting programs are by nature INDIVIDUAL and you adjust them to fit...but so far I have found NO lifter I thought would succeed on your suggestion. That's people wanting muscle gains and strength.... They say about Powerlifting - " IF it was easy, everybody would do it... " and " Why do we do it? Because we CAN... " . Even a cursory examination of the tv fat loss shows, the extreme workouts....they aren't doing one set, no lol. those people are doing HOURS of grueling workouts and strict dieting. If your 1 set was going to work, I'd say fat people would make a good choice for a trial! I'm sure they would welcome a 1 set workout rather than the brutal trainers repping them and sweat streaming from every chubby pore on national tv....! The Phantom aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter Denver, Colorado, USA -------------- Original message -------------- Cowell asked: " Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? " In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it depends on the individual. Drew Baye Orlando, FL www.baye.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Drew - Sorry, but I'm lifting proof I wouldn't be the puller I am now with a single set protocol. I have yet to train anybody who is better with 1 set than the 3-5 working sets and I do think NSCA is right on this one. That's over a decade on the platform and coaching drug free men and women as well as my own lifting. You get what you pay for, in sweat equity. The years of PL and long hours in the gym are what paid off for me, without drugs, to be as well muscled, lean, and strong as I am, without resorting to drugs and other unsavory methods! Quick fixes are just that. Sure, a newbie might gain on any program for a bit....but eventually they too have to put in the long hours to gain after the newbie gains are over. Lifting programs are by nature INDIVIDUAL and you adjust them to fit...but so far I have found NO lifter I thought would succeed on your suggestion. That's people wanting muscle gains and strength.... They say about Powerlifting - " IF it was easy, everybody would do it... " and " Why do we do it? Because we CAN... " . Even a cursory examination of the tv fat loss shows, the extreme workouts....they aren't doing one set, no lol. those people are doing HOURS of grueling workouts and strict dieting. If your 1 set was going to work, I'd say fat people would make a good choice for a trial! I'm sure they would welcome a 1 set workout rather than the brutal trainers repping them and sweat streaming from every chubby pore on national tv....! The Phantom aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter Denver, Colorado, USA -------------- Original message -------------- Cowell asked: " Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? " In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it depends on the individual. Drew Baye Orlando, FL www.baye.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Pérez wrote: <<Not over the long term, but try implementing it for a few months and you'll likely be delighted with the results. I did, and I was.>> In my experience, and this is very anecdotal, those who tend to get better results from HIT types of programs are overtrained in terms of volume. Has anyone else in the group shared this experience? I don't doubt that good results cannot be obtained from a HIT program. My doubts stem from the assertion that a HIT program produces better or superior results to a multiple set program (assuming the athlete is not volume-overtrained). I believe it was Poliquin who wrote that if one were to look at the training journals of the bodybuilders who benefitted from the HIT protocol, they were doing a tremendous volume of work prior to adopting the HIT system. The HIT system served as somewhat of a " de-load " thus allowing adaptation. Any thoughts? Cowell Raleigh, NC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Pérez wrote: <<Not over the long term, but try implementing it for a few months and you'll likely be delighted with the results. I did, and I was.>> In my experience, and this is very anecdotal, those who tend to get better results from HIT types of programs are overtrained in terms of volume. Has anyone else in the group shared this experience? I don't doubt that good results cannot be obtained from a HIT program. My doubts stem from the assertion that a HIT program produces better or superior results to a multiple set program (assuming the athlete is not volume-overtrained). I believe it was Poliquin who wrote that if one were to look at the training journals of the bodybuilders who benefitted from the HIT protocol, they were doing a tremendous volume of work prior to adopting the HIT system. The HIT system served as somewhat of a " de-load " thus allowing adaptation. Any thoughts? Cowell Raleigh, NC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Cowell asked: " Honestly, is there anyone out there who truly believes that a single set protocol is superior to a multi-set protocol for strength, power or hypertrophy gains? " Drew Baye wrote: In most cases, yes, if for no other reason than it will produce similar results with less time invested. Like many things, however, it depends on the individual. Casler writes: The above, seems to be one of the primary issues discussed when Classic HIT devotees, engage conventional Strength Training Sources. I would suggest that the answer is really quite simple. We all know that the results we experience during our " beginner " stages are by far the greatest and most rapid, if we train with any type of intensity and seriousness. This is many times referred to as SUPER COMPENSATION since it " seems " like the laws of Thermodynamics are thrown to the wind and the body " OVER " adapts to a stimulus. I will not go into why I think this is faulty at this time, but let it suffice to say that, this fertility of potential has a more rapid realization and simply said, you get fast progress. Additionally generally the loads we use during this beginning stage are lower and can be handled with less concern to injury. At this stage, I believe a single set of 8-12 repetitions with the goal of a Rep Maximum for each set would create a VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE result when compared to a multiple set application. I do think the Multi-set would still have the advantage, but that advantage would be less, than later on as the " Beginner Burst " has abated and gains are realized in much smaller increments. At this point, we have surpassed the Intermediate Level, weights are MUCH higher and we can no longer fit the stimulus into a " single set " of a RM for 8-12 reps. Additionally, due to the fact that additional Overload is needed to stimulate adaptation, the single set model cannot create that stimulus, and a Multi-set Model is required to produce Cumulative Overload, and Corresponding Compensation to that Load Stimulus. That is how I see it. Now there are some who have LARGER genetic potential and can go a long way on the Single Set Model, but none can reach their maximum potential due to the fact that a Single Set Rep Maximum, CANNOT create OVERLOAD. This is why you will never see a High Level, World Caliber Strength Athlete or Bodybuilder reach the top (or even close) with the SSTF model. And I might make a perfectly clear point that this suggestion is not to " slight " the real application of Intensity to training, but to offer a realistic perspective to its potential as a training model for certain applications and populations. It can only create a load stimulus, and once you have reached the first plateau, you cannot go further without additional stimulus to drive the stimulus to a load beyond the previous, and then harvest the Direct Compensation from that stimulus. It is not a matter of " digging deep " and mentally pushing, for that is expected for Rep Max efforts anyhow. It is the fact that the level of stimulus needed for further adaptation cannot be created within the boundaries of a single consecutive rep set. I don't see this as a detrimental realization, and find it interesting that the HIT community wishes to perpetuate the myth that the SSTF (single set to failure) model can accomplish this, and further any stimulus beyond this set will cause over-training. This is where the credibility gap widens, and respect for a key training element (INTENSITY) tied to this Philosophy is some what maligned. So to recap: A High Intensity Single Set will stimulate a " high percentage result " early on, and will not take one to their maximum potential overall. Regards, Casler TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems Century City, CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Thank you . Very nicely put and dead on. W.G. Ubermensch Sports San Diego, CA, > > Rob, > > A perusal of the archives and a lot of what Mel left us in postings shows we've been over this several times already. The notion that this is the first time this discussion has come up AND that it's the only time it's been of interest to this varied and quite well thought group is false. > > You seem to take this group in a fashion that perhaps says it is not to your general liking, having complained about the quality of discussions? And by the way, having read your postings on the other threads, it appears that you take a side and defend it without sufficient backing in your own right? No offense meant, but you have taken the critical stance on postings of others without maintaining the " quality " requirement for your own work here? Acceptable arguments on this forum being both those of academia and of actual field experience...and at times, medical commentary. > > I disagree with you about both the quality and the tendencies of this excellent group AGAIN and I give a nod to the moderators who maintain it in Mel's absence. > > The Phantom > aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter > Denver, Colorado, USA > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > I did not say multiple set users are also drug abusers. I asked if the individual asking the question considered that some of the gains made in professional powerlifting and weightlifting could have been due to doping and / or genetics. It was a question, not a statement. > > This whole HIT vs OL, single set vs multiple set has gotten out of hand.The discussion began because people in this forum continually disagree with everything posted rather than ask questions or share what works. > I enjoy coming on this forum and seeing people ask questions and receive help. Or someone sharing success and receiving feedback. Instead I see people go through every post and " disagree. " This started over the content of posts and has turned not only into a HIT vs OL debate, but has branched off into single set vs multiple sets, speed of repetitions, principle of specificity and so on. If you go through the posts and read up it is clear which camp is making an argument at every turn. I am not founded in any one camp. > > To be clear I take a periodized, double progressive approach. Regardless of how many sets I choose to accomplish I perform specific sets to designated fatigue and I keep a tempo from one set to the next. I incorporate multiple muscle groups, multiple modalities and multiple planes of movement. Some exercises negatives are emphasized and other exercises are performed in an " explosive " fashion. Does that sound like any one camp? This of course is a generalization because I make adaptations to this foundation based on the target population and desired goal. I can read research all day but it will only fine tune what I am doing. I've been doing this long enough that I know what I hope to accomplish within the framework of my program. Now if the goal was to use OL's then I'd comfortable arrange that program as appropriate (i.e. proper recovery between sets...). > > If this did anything it has set the forum up for some great discussions, i.e. Principle of specific adaptation, negative training, HIT, Olympic lifts, number of sets... I haven't seen a great set up for discussion like this in a while so lets take advantage of it. > > Back to thank you for clarifying. I espeically like " refusal " ha ha. That is excellent and I'm going to steal that from you. I had always tried to get away from " failure " back in the day. It does not sound very productive. When I think of traditional " HIT " I think of one set, machines, no rest, every set to failure, ect... Personally I do not feel this is as productive and this is why I generally outlined my basic protocol above. I would say the only factors that determine what exercises I choose is safety, productivity and efficiency. If an exercise can fit in this (and based on the goals of the individual(s)) then I use it as needed. > Thanks for the insights into your program and the clarity from the last post. I was not arguing your statement but simply throwing out something to consider when looking at professional powerlifters/weightlifters. > ============================== > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.