WHATS MORE EFFECTIVE?

[LATS]

ok.. lets have some debate.. whats more effective.. doing one set of a exercise for all out concentric failure.. or doing three sets to sub failure? in other words, if one can do 75 pounds for a al out 8 reps.. is he better doin that or doing 75 pounds for 3 sets of 6 reps?..

one school of thought is that one set of all out failure is more intense so therefore more effective.. the other school of thought is that the three sets, although sub failure , is higher in total workload.. now the three sets group, if they avoid ovetraining, will they exceed the one set group in terms of hypertrophy? (remember that the three set group is not training easy per sae just holding back a bit for more sets)

so one group does two exercises a muscle group for three sets a exercise to sub failure for a total workload that is higher.. the other group does two different exercises per muscle group also but, only one set to failure per exrercise... total of two sets to failure per muscle group..

i had this debate with my cousin who was a strength coach at syracuse for a few years and now recruits.. he thinks the three set group is better for total workload...

 

[JETHRO TULL]

Lats, I am no expert but I'll jump in.

I lean towards your cousins point of view.

Here is why:

1. It takes me a while to get fully warmed up.
2. If I train with absolute maximum poundages to failure I tend to get injured.
3. It's easier on the joints.
4. I can get more blood in the muscle.
5.. I can fool around with shorter rest periods and other training techniques in a safer manner.

Guys that know more than I do or who are built better might have different ideas. There are certainly many of those guys on this board.

 

[Tom]

problem is

problem is you have phenominal physiques that have been obtained using a variety of training methods despite what theory shows on paper. probably best to vary your training.

 

[buselmo]

1- I agree with TOM
2- It depends on how you warm up with the 1 set to failure:
if you are going to do one set of 75 lbs for 8 to failure, and do 5 warm up sets with 15 lbs then you do 75 to failure, that would probably be retarded and will cause injury.
if you do say 5 warm up sets... 15 x 20, 30 x 15, 45 x 10, 60 x 6, 70 x 2... then you do 75 to failure... i believe this is almost the same as doing 3 working sets to sub-failure levels and you almost get the same workload.

another arguement is that if you do one really heavy set to failure and nothing more, you are probably not working a muscle optimally. i know that when i do 1 set to failure on, say, decline press... i work my triceps A LOT and don't do that much on chest. If i go sub failure and use a lighter weight, i feel my chest working better BUT i don't feel like i'm getting the most out of it. A combination of both is best IMHO.

 

[smootheavy]

great question, from my experience as well as the research Ive studied (college) there is not much difference in strength changes for either group, however most studies are done on previously untrained individuals and are rarely ever longer than 6 weeks (cost prohibitive)

after 6 weeks (barring such things as anabolics) usually the 3 sets group fairs better in terms of hypertrophy...again this is just from my personal knowledge and the research Ive done

 

[MattyFSU]

problem is you have phenominal physiques that have been obtained using a variety of training methods despite what theory shows on paper. probably best to vary your training.

I think tom makes a good point here. This is the advice i got from the person who got me started in bodybuilding and has kinda always made sense to me.

he said " your muscles are like a vital organ like your heart. if you took a 357 gun and shot that vital organ how many bullets do you think it would take to kill you "????

i do change up the way i train to keep my body guessing but i do always come back to the balls to the wall one good set method. dorian style. ( and thats of course after a good warm up )

just my .02

 

[Trulyhuge]

I stick w/ the shortest route....has worked well for me. No sense in beating a dead horse IMO.....but opinions vary.

 

[Blenderate]

-

 

[anabolic_hippie]

ok.. lets have some debate.. whats more effective.. doing one set of a exercise for all out concentric failure.. or doing three sets to sub failure? in other words, if one can do 75 pounds for a al out 8 reps.. is he better doin that or doing 75 pounds for 3 sets of 6 reps?..

one school of thought is that one set of all out failure is more intense so therefore more effective.. the other school of thought is that the three sets, although sub failure , is higher in total workload.. now the three sets group, if they avoid ovetraining, will they exceed the one set group in terms of hypertrophy? (remember that the three set group is not training easy per sae just holding back a bit for more sets)

so one group does two exercises a muscle group for three sets a exercise to sub failure for a total workload that is higher.. the other group does two different exercises per muscle group also but, only one set to failure per exrercise... total of two sets to failure per muscle group..

i had this debate with my cousin who was a strength coach at syracuse for a few years and now recruits.. he thinks the three set group is better for total workload...

now wouldnt that be amazing if we truly had a concrete answer to that unfortunetly there is none though everything we know is 90% theoretical and based on basic guidlines based on general population. what might work for you may not work for me and what might work now might not work later. guess you gotta wing it hope you picked the right ones. i personally always thought the harder it is the more muscle fibers you need to recruit to lift the weight, the more tissue damage done the more the muscle needs to heal, the more it needs to adapt the bigger it gets. but like i said theoretical.

 

[jayuk]

Lats

Bear with me here - but let me break it down to something more fundamental

Myofibrillar and Sarcoplasmic.

Myofibrilar is the actual hypertrophy of muscle cells.
Sarcoplasmic is pretty much the growth of everything else in the muscle such as increased water, glycogen stores etc

Now, obviously there is only so much sarcoplasmic growth that can occur in a given amount of muscle tissue. Also there is only so much muscle cell growth that can occur in a certain amount of sarcoplasmic growth in order for the muscle cells to cope metabolically.

Its pretty hard to completly miss training for one type of hypertrophy altogether, BUT there are ways in OPTIMISING growth.

The tricky problem is, how many reps and sets do you need to do in order to optimise these types of growth?

In my own opinion i think this can vary and can be determined by how training/experienced the trainer is and obviously there genetics, so the figures I am about to give you now are my own opinion but I would say would be agreed on by most as they are very rough figures etc..

Neuromuscular conditioning: 1-4 reps
Myofibrilar:5-9
Sarcoplasmic:10-15
Endurance: 20+

So if you can hit Myo and Sarco and Endurance [like for example DC / FL7] you have in theory an optimal training method.

So let say

Rest Paused set x 1 [so there are 3-4 rest paused]
Drop the weight to say something you can do 20+ reps

You have in theory the "ideal" tool to create optimal muscle and strength gains.

Now we could probably talk about how many movements per body part to do - and Id guesstimate even the most jacked person doesnt need more than 2 movements if they are going to ultimate muscle failure.

[might have gone off tangent abit but thought it MAY add something]

 

[Mr_Magoo]

it's too long to go into discussion of any mitigating factors in the hypothetical question posed. If someone was coming off a volume phase a high-intensity set may be what is needed and vice versa but for the general public i always go for more sets which gives more overload on the muscle

keep in mind that the last set of 6 in the guy doing three sets may have him working as hard the guy do one set of 8...i know people will say cut out the middle man and just do one set but u dont get the same overload plus training to failure kills the CNS and the chance to hit the muscle again may be there but the cns may have not have recovered by this time whereas the 3 set guy not taking his sets to failure despite the possibility i wrote above about his last set will be able to hit the muscle again sooner with a better cns

many ways to skin a cat...I've tried EDT for certain bodyparts when i get injured and i always grow off of it although it just is not my preferred choice of training

 

[massmonster32]

I like both a mixture. I also only do two sets with a few warmup sets before my two sets to failure. I also only use one excercise and train the part a couple of times a week. I found as I get older I need less sets and more recovery time. MM

 

[btech]

5x5 is a very reputable routine. 'Nuff said.

but,

DC is also a reputable routine. 'Nuff said.

 

[Big Bapper]

I am with Dorian and Mike Menzer on this, when the light switch is turned on to signal growth what is the point of turning the light on over and over. It can only lead to overtraining.

 

[Athlete]

I've trained to failure and gained, and I've done more sets and gained.

I never went to failure on the higher set routine. I went by 2 things: time + total workload.

On the low volume routine I did 5 sets, where 3 sets are warm up sets, one is a set with a weight I can do 10-12 reps, but I only do 8. And the last set is an all
out 8-10 rep set to failure.

On the high volume routine I did 10 sets x 10 reps, no warm ups, always using the same weight on all sets. (usually half of what I normally use for my 8-10 rep failure set) I keep the rest short, 30 sec to 1 minute max.. trying to get in as much work as possible in the shortest amount of time.

As I've done DC in the past, I still use my logbook. For the "workload" training, I type up weight used and total time. Next workout I try to either shorten the rest between sets or up the weight slightly.. always getting more work in with the same or less amount of time.

 

[btech]

I am with Dorian and Mike Menzer on this, when the light switch is turned on to signal growth what is the point of turning the light on over and over. It can only lead to overtraining.

hmmm.....

the several sets training the OP referred to is training to failure only once, thus turning the light switch on only once, right? I believe the OP brings that style of training up as a way in which the body tricks itself into performing a 12 rep set with a weight that it can only regularly perform an 8 rep set with.

Didn't Mike do the rest pause with the heavy singles? Isn't this an example of turning the light switch on several times?

 

[Big Bapper]

Sorry mabe I missed somthing, I will reread the thread. I would call it more of making sure the job is done in one set. Making sure the light is switched on with on set by whatever means possible to cause maximum trama in the muscle.

 

[smootheavy]

the fact of the matter is that ALL routines work at some time and up to some point...now add anabolics and excellent diet, etc any routine works damned near indefinitely

I have read clinical research that showed administration of 300-600 mg/wk test men who did not modify their diet, nor did they train while "on" still gain muscle mass (nothing overly significant) and reduce bodyfat during the study.

point in case anything can and will work

now minus AAS with proper diet they still work, however one must pay proper attention to detial and other factors, adrenal, rest/recover/overreaching, etc...therefore it is best to alternate often in both methods and methodologies throughout the training year...

another good advice is try it yourself and see what works best for you!

Mentzer HIT training worked great for me, however I found that in terms of a pure athletic and strength protential WSB style with strong-man training works best for me and I still look "kinda" like a bodybuilder....

 

[Mr_Magoo]

Mentzer HIT training worked great for me, however I found that in terms of a pure athletic and strength protential WSB style with strong-man training works best for me and I still look "kinda" like a bodybuilder....

this is why I train the way I do, DC worked great for me but I couldn't adhere to it fully when training cleans, snatches, strongman work...for pure size i believe DC is great but doesn't train the body the way an athlete would train...kinda hard to go to failure on cleans as u either get the weight or don't and im not counting continental cleans. snatches can turn to muscle snatches but it isn't a snatch anymore and certain exercises like the olympic lifts are best done for low reps and multiple sets

 

[Chrisco915]

another arguement is that if you do one really heavy set to failure and nothing more, you are probably not working a muscle optimally.

The constrasting arguement is that it you do an all out set optimaly.........you wouldn't be able to do another set. Is that meant without doing warm-up sets? Even Yates didn't do that.