1 set vs multiple sets

[desired22]

why is it better to do more working sets per exercise ? is there proven that more sets are better than 1? .
dorian yates did 1 working set per exercise
i don t wanna read any opinions ,i just want you to tell me proven facts

[mferrandi]

if it's to maximum failure, 1 set is better

[NZninja101]

Dorian did several sets of each exercise in the gym before he would hit that one set to, and often beyond, failure. Also by the time he was doing this style of training, he had already built up the majority of his muscle mass. There's also the consideration of how his training volume wasn't as low as it looked on paper when you consider the amount of weight he was using due to his strength.


Going from appeals to authority, you could simply argue Ronnie won more Mr Os and trained high volume and everything he did was right. So it's usually better to have a multifaceted approach to thinking about this.


The perfect amount of sets is whatever will be enough workload to promote hypertrophy the most. The more work you do, prior to the point where you begin to overreach your recovery, the better. That's not to say you shouldn't be training so hard that you require deloads every couple months. If you do multi set training for a month and don't feel beat up or hyper fatigued, then you can rest reasonably sure knowing that you're being more productive than if you were to do a single set.

[SuffolkPunch]

There are now studies showing that multiple sets give more results (subject to diminishing returns) than 1 set. Even if you take them to failure.

[Wewak]

So you gonna do 16 workouts?

[SuffolkPunch]

Here you go, a meta analysis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300012

[SubWooferCooker]

Here you go, a meta analysis:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300012

I have spent some time looking into this whole single vs multiple set idea recently and discovered some older studies that showed no significant difference but the main one people refer to now is the same one you linked to.

I read a very interesting comment on another site regarding this and would love to hear other peoples opinions on it?

All things being equal just doing 1 set vs. 3 sets it makes sense that 3 sets might produce more growth because there is more volume.

However, the whole point of doing one set is not to keep all things equal, it is to increase the frequency and decrease the sets during a single day and maintain the total volume over the same period of time.

Thus, we should compare for example doing a full body single set routine every day or three non consecuitive days a week to doing a three set routine once per week or three times per week.

That would be a fair comparison. The total number of sets is the same by increasing the frequency. Also, one set alone may provide a sweet spot to maximize protein synthesize on a continual basis everyday without exhausting recovery or restart synthesis momentum. Including training to near failure, but not failure would also be a logical inclusion for whole body, single set training if performed every day.

This should also include training of each muscle fiber type, so all rep ranges should be done. Monday (low rep rance, one set) Tuesday (middle rep range, one set) Wednesday (high rep reange, one set) etc. This is how the muscle factor training could be encorporated into single set training. Thursday (start over low rep range, one set). If 7 days a week is too much then do the normally recommended 3 non-consecutive days used with training to failure and multiple set training. However, I believe that taking a day off is supposed to cause 50% drop in protein synthesis as mentioned in Pavel Tsatsouline’s book for example. So, I would try to look into the idea of finding a way to train every day by not training to failure and using one set.

I have recently began experimenting doing just this my self,full body daily one set per exercise, I feel 100% recovered every single day and i am progressing great. I need some more time to make any strong conclusions but so far based on my performance and recovery i feel its very promising.

[magician27]

yes its proven that multiple sets are superior to single set for hypertrophy.

[SuffolkPunch]

I have spent some time looking into this whole single vs multiple set idea recently and discovered some older studies that showed no significant difference but the main one people refer to now is the same one you linked to.

I read a very interesting comment on another site regarding this and would love to hear other peoples opinions on it?



I have recently began experimenting doing just this my self,full body daily one set per exercise, I feel 100% recovered every single day and i am progressing great. I need some more time to make any strong conclusions but so far based on my performance and recovery i feel its very promising.

The high frequency thing is a tempting idea but there are still coaches that believe in a minimum "overloading" volume per session which doesn't have to be done every time but does have to be done now and again to promote progress - muscle damage, satellite cell proliferation and all those good things.

Sure you can feel recovered if you do high frequency but that doesn't mean you are able to spur progress beyond your current myonuclear domain. Mike Israetel and Greg Nuckols both hold this view.

[SubWooferCooker]

The high frequency thing is a tempting idea but there are still coaches that believe in a minimum "overloading" volume per session which doesn't have to be done every time but does have to be done now and again to promote progress - muscle damage, satellite cell proliferation and all those good things.

Sure you can feel recovered if you do high frequency but that doesn't mean you are able to spur progress beyond your current myonuclear domain. Mike Israetel and Greg Nuckols both hold this view.

Are those beliefs evidence based though?

Many scientific studies demonstrate one set is almost as effective as multiple sets, if not just as effective in strength and muscle hypertrophy (Starkey & Pollock 1996)

Hass (2000) compared the effects of one set verses three sets in experienced recreational weightlifters. Both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition during the 13 week study. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between groups for any of the test variables, including muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition.

Baker (2013) conducted a similar 8 week study, also measuring strength and body composition changes in recreationally strength-trained men. Again both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition. Although there was no statistically significant differences in muscular strength or body mass before or after training, the single set training group experienced a significant decreases in the sum of skinfolds. Although the single-set group's beginning 7 site skin fold values were significantly higher than the 3-set group (76+/-28.8 vs 73.5+/-15.4 mm), the single-set group ended up significantly leaner than the 3-set group after 8 weeks (61.8+/-19.5 vs 66.2+/-17.9 mm).

Baker 2013 study showed 1 set group made as much muscular gains as 3 set group, yet ended up significantly leaner.

So there is data that is contrary to the other which is why this still interests me as far as i am aware there are no studies that account for volume when comparing sets which not exactly easy to do the closest thing to doing it would be increased frequency ie, 3 sets 3 times per week vs 1 set 6 times per week.


i am definitely making progress although i am only 10 days in no days off yet, How much of this is due to neural efficiency remains to be seen, One thing i do know is i am really enjoying this way of training, works outs take no time at all and i don't break much of a sweat, and is far less taxing on my joints and ligaments, i also enjoy daily training.

I will be sticking with it for a while so i will update how it goes in this thread.

[SuffolkPunch]

The meta analysis I posted will almost certainly include all relevant studies. I can't tell for sure though since I don't have the full text.

Lets not get confused between number of sets and the frequency issue though. For number of sets it seems clear that more is more subject to diminishing returns. What's not clear is if a single set is just as good 6 days a week as it is 2 days a week...

Israetel and Nuckols almost certainly base their views on evidence. Nuckols always cites references.

[guyver79]

Depends on what is defined as a set?

Only sets taken to failure? Only sets past a certain %?

Whilst it's hard to disagree with the studies it's also hard to disagree with this quote from Dante Trudal "I haven't seen a guy who can squat 500 for 20 reps, bench press 500 for 15 and deadlift 500 for 15 who was small yet."