How many sets Vs reps

[bodyshop20]

Hello all that know me.
This is not a question, but a sort of forum so we can all find a good answer.
How many sets do you think is most effective for body parts
And how many reps per set.
Please list all body parts.
As i do 6sets for like bicep,
2x8 140lb barbell curl
2x8 160lb E z curl
2x8 45lb concentration curl
Hope you see my angle
And i change work out every month:

[trainerty]

I have to be honest, I don't think I quite have the concept that you are pitching here:

BUT.... I know experts like Charles Poliquin have gone into great lengths to address each muscle and how (how many reps/sets and what movement) to stimulate them best. I like his break down looking at the natural function of each muscle, the dominant fiber type and the cost of the effect of training them (recovery time and what not).

Also, what is the training goal for the muscle? Strength, mass, speed?
Looking at the rep ranges you are using, I'm guessing mass training.

[Dan C]

If you work hard enough, a single set is all you need to stimulate growth. There have been studies that confirm this, but all you need to do is a set of breathing squats (aka "20 rep squats") for anecdotal evidence. Most trainees are not willing to work this hard though.

[trainerty]

Ahh, the single set versus multiple set debate. I was pretty sure the single set notion was proven not as optimal (not that it doesn't work at all).

Interesting to see someone through it right back into the game. You are talking about single set to some form of failure (concentric,isometric, total or eccentric failure) Dan?

I definitely agree on higher reps for squats.

[bodyshop20]

Your correct trainerty, so please could people only put in mass training info.

[Dan C]

Yes, 1 set to failure. Even if you are training for size, 1 set to failure is enough. If you have the mental fortitude to go to true eccentric failure, more power to you!

I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but I busted out the nearest reference I had that cited this. Powers & Howley's "Exercise Physiology" (4th edition) states, "Historically, it has been believed that multiple sets produced maximal gains in size and strength. However, a recent review concludes that there is limited scientific evidence to support the idea that a greater volume of exercise elicits greater increases in strength or hypertrophy. To support their claim, these authors argue that several recent studies suggest that resistance training using one set of 8 - 12 repetitions is as effective as a 3 set (8 - 12 repetitions) program." (Carpinelli & Otto)

I am well aware that this is a highly debated subject, and I've been on both sides of the fence, and I still use multiple sets in some cases. Regardless, I still think most trainees could benefit from working HARDER instead of longer.

The original poster claims to do 3 different elbow flexion exercises for 2 sets each. How are these movements different from a mechanical standpoint?

If he's using the same weight for both sets, why not do 1 set of 16 reps instead of 2 sets of 8?

If 2 sets are somehow better than 1, why not do a 3rd or 4th set?

[trainerty]

That's funny, I think I read at least 12 sources saying multiple sets are undisputed. This was about a month and a half ago....I was flipping through a Poliquin book. Also the latest NSCA and ACSM still back up multiple sets. Well, like I said...a slightly high debated subject.

I think the level of mental hardness it takes to go full throttle for one set to absolute (I wish I were dead) failure is pretty impressive. I also think movements like squats and deads....you're just asking for trouble. Breaking form in those movements can be quite costly.

I do think it takes a serious mental hardness to do.....but why:confused:
Unless the person's goal specifically is to become as mentally tough in and out of the gym as a maximal security inmate.... it may not be the best route to go.

It is less demanding to break up the sets. Also, I bet we can be here all day matching references, but multiple sets are a "work smarter not harder" way to go.

Don't get me wrong, I think single failure sets have their place when needed. Every blue moon or so, I like to do the complete failure or 100 rep workout with a few exercises....but I know the recovery period is pretty high for that type of onslaught.

Just to get back on the original topic

I like squats for mass at 10x10-15 reps
I like building mass for chest area with eccentric emphasis dumbbell bench
say 4x8/12/24/4 30 sec rest breaks between sets (lower rest higher lactate buildup and higher gh release)....tempo would look like this 4-2-0 (ecc/iso/conc)

[bodyshop20]

Dan c nice reply as was trainertys, i do 6set of 8 because i could not use same weight to complete 48reps, Thought that was simple to understand.
2x8 -16 reps if i lower the weight to reach 16 reps or in my case 48reps id be using very light weight and end up doing cardio

[Dan C]

Originally Posted by trainerty

Also the latest NSCA and ACSM still back up multiple sets. Well, like I said...a slightly high debated subject.

The ACSM reference book states 1-3 sets. I don't recall what the NSCA's "Essentials..." text states. You are right though, there are "experts", "guru's" and "science guys" that support both. To hell with those guys and what they think (I knew I shouldn't have posted that quote), let's talk about what we think!

I think the level of mental hardness it takes to go full throttle for one set to absolute (I wish I were dead) failure is pretty impressive. I also think movements like squats and deads....you're just asking for trouble. Breaking form in those movements can be quite costly.

Agreed. Though I thought it was understood that "1 set to failure" actually meant "1 set for as many reps as possible in good form".

I do think it takes a serious mental hardness to do.....but why:confused:
Unless the person's goal specifically is to become as mentally tough in and out of the gym as a maximal security inmate.... it may not be the best route to go.

I think the mental toughness thing is an important asset in training. You don't want to quit when the going gets tough, and that applies in training and in life in general. Let's not over play (or under play) the reality of training to failure - you lift a weight until you can't lift it anymore. That's it! ~60 seconds of an all out effort is hardly "maximal security inmate" (and it's only the last rep or two that is really "all out" effort). Every man should be able to do this.

I think intensity as it is being described here is a key component to making gains... and you should know what you're capable of.

It is less demanding to break up the sets. Also, I bet we can be here all day matching references, but multiple sets are a "work smarter not harder" way to go.

It is less demanding to break up the sets. But you can't equate that with being "smarter." Smarter how? Pseudo-science might theorize lactate levels and GH release, but if we are honest with ourselves, and set ego aside, common sense tells you that working harder will get you there faster.

Speaking of ego, this is more for bodyshop than trainerty, since he mentioned "light weight" and "cardio", this is something that I have had problems dealing with. I'm a competitive strength athlete. I consider myself a strength coach over a personal trainer. Putting more weight up is ALWAYS a goal of mine!

Having said that, know that it was difficult for me to embrace a program that has me using less than half of my 1RM. I've clean and pressed 250x2 on a thick bar, and now I'm using 135 for military presses?! But it all comes down to building muscle, and I'm working harder with 135 than I did with the 250.

As competitions come around, I start working with heavier weights again, not training to failure (as we've been discussing here) pyramiding and gradually working towards 1RM's. But that's my goal, heavier weights! I don't lift for "mass" but when I do it's 1 set to failure in the 8-12 (20+ for legs) rep range. 16 reps is "cardio" only if you are an unconditioned fat slob!

[Dan C]

Originally Posted by bodyshop20

Dan c nice reply as was trainertys, i do 6set of 8 because i could not use same weight to complete 48reps, Thought that was simple to understand.
2x8 -16 reps if i lower the weight to reach 16 reps or in my case 48reps id be using very light weight and end up doing cardio

What is so special about reaching 16 (or 48) reps?

Here's what I propose. For your next arm workout, instead of doing 2 sets of each exercise, try doing just one. See if you can get 10 or 12 reps, instead of 8. Use the same weight, do the same exercises, in the same order, and do it as many times a week as you've been previously doing it.

You said you could change your routine every month, so try that for 4 weeks and give us your honest opinion. Take measurements if you'd like. What do you have to lose?

[bodyshop20]

Dan c i will try that and i will be totally honest
Always like new avenue's and i thank you for your well educated input

[trainerty]

See Dan, I was going to drop it BUT you pulled me right back into battle (just teasing).

Seriously speaking, I se form failure is what you speak of. How far do you go with this idea? Is the tempo part of the failure?? (Meaning if you need to hit 2-1-1 tempo and begin slowing down dramatically.... is this the point of failure?)

I'm with you with throwing aside the science books for a little brutal no science training. However, some rules simply are already layed out for us... they are basic and pretty debatable in themselves.....but seriously, you can't change principles.

ACSM and NSCA conferences have put out multiple set superiority. I'll look it up for ya' if you need it.

Growing in strength and mass are heavily relying on the speed and load. We should be in agreement with that. So, if you drop speed in a movement are you really recruiting as many receptors and fibers at a given period? Highly unlikely. That would be like saying a person can re-recruit tapped out muscle fiber types and energy system without rest.

To re-iterate look to evidence from the real experts and gurus, you will see that their training methodologies will use multiple sets over a single set always. You would also see they will use bouts of single sets for timed bouts. However that mode is specifically for glycolysis and aerobic endurance.

Mental hardness is a good aspect. Maybe max prison was a little harsh for an example of this need. However, the mental discipline you are talking about will come from any training regiment followed (IMO)....especially maximal strength training, which by nature needs multiple sets.

I see your side, but I am still not persuaded it is a superior methodology.

[Dan C]

Originally Posted by trainerty

I'm with you with throwing aside the science books for a little brutal no science training. However, some rules simply are already layed out for us... they are basic and pretty debatable in themselves.....but seriously, you can't change principles.

ACSM and NSCA conferences have put out multiple set superiority. I'll look it up for ya' if you need it..

This is a good discussion, but again, let’s leave the “powers that be” out of it. I’m not particularly impressed with either the ACSM or the NCSA (even though I know they are the most respected). My degree program was based on the ACSM’s guidelines and my certification is through the NSCA, yet I am not fond of most of the information either body is presenting… and you can still find people in both groups that sit on either side of this debate.

You mention some rules and principles that are “already laid out for us”… which ones are you speaking of specifically?

Growing in strength and mass are heavily relying on the speed and load. We should be in agreement with that. So, if you drop speed in a movement are you really recruiting as many receptors and fibers at a given period? Highly unlikely. That would be like saying a person can re-recruit tapped out muscle fiber types and energy system without rest..

Let’s talk about speed. When I am training in a high-intensity fashion (ala 1-set to failure) I am using a 2/4 cadence. 2 seconds up, 4 seconds down. Are you telling me that by eliminating momentum I am recruiting LESS muscle fiber to move the weight?

While I’m on the topic of cadence, let me just say that when I know that I cannot complete another rep, I will lower the weight as slowly as I can. That is my way of safely training to failure.

To re-iterate look to evidence from the real experts and gurus, you will see that their training methodologies will use multiple sets over a single set always. You would also see they will use bouts of single sets for timed bouts. However that mode is specifically for glycolysis and aerobic endurance..

Again, real experts and gurus (what is “real” anyway) are mixed on this topic as well. I just did a stint with the Baltimore Raven’s, and they use single set to failure training in most workouts. Is Jeff Friday not a “real” guru? Ever hear of Kim Wood or Dr. Ken? A good portion of the NFL uses the methodologies Arthur Jones (creator of Nautilus and MedX) espoused in the early 70’s.

Mental hardness is a good aspect. Maybe max prison was a little harsh for an example of this need. However, the mental discipline you are talking about will come from any training regiment followed (IMO)....especially maximal strength training, which by nature needs multiple sets.

If we are talking maximal strength training (which is not what the original poster inquired about), I would agree. Multiple sets of progressively heavier weight is required. I also think this is an integral part of a larger more extensive training plan. I believe, just as one needs to know how to train hard (via 1-set to failure), one also needs to know how to heavy (via 1 rep max).

I see your side, but I am still not persuaded it is a superior methodology.

I didn’t mention anything about being superior but since you brought it up, I’ll say that training 1 set to failure will optimally develop *both* size and strength (at the same time) in the most time efficient manner possible. Not strength as in the 1 rep max powerlifting sense, and not size as in the pumped up non-functional hypertrophy bodybuilder sense, but muscular size that is as strong as it is big.

Great discussion guys. This is what Discuss Fitness is all about. I'm sitting on the sidelines learning so keep it up, and thanks for being civil.

[.V.]

Interesting discussion, I too shall follow it because I'm enjoying learning from you guys.