HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

being superior, thanks chris

http://www.arthurjonesexercise.com/Other/arthurjonesreview.pdf

ive read that, but looking for recent ones, im tired of volume trainers posting on other boards about studies of one set loses to multiple

Please read this carefully…

Generally, the people that use multiple sets push themselves to a higher intensity on the last set than those that came before it. The reason the session is productive at all has nothing to do with the preceeding sets, only the most intense (most productive) point that was reached in the entire session. Again, this is usually the last set. The only reason the session is productive at all is that point in the session at which the highest intensity was reached.

The experience of individual bodies (Intensity) cannot be measured and therefore no correlation can be drawn between it and the number of sets. Therefore, studies on the number of sets are not valid measurements of growth stimulation, because it is INTENSITY that stimulates growth, not volume. Both achieve the same thing (a certain point of Intensity), but the person who accomplished that same exact thing will benefit more, because the body will retain more reserves for the process of recovery/growth.

You can′t measure growth stimulation by number of sets because that is a measure of Volume and Volume is not what stimulates growth; Intensity is, and unfortunately Intensity is not something you can quantify with current technology. You cannot measure the experience an individual′s body is going through, physically and psychologically, relative to what he or she has evolutionarily been prepared to experience. You would have to be able to measure physical and psychological threat.

Again, you cannot quantify how successful a person was at stimulating growth because YOU CANNOT QUANTIFY INTENSITY. If you could, we could do some amazing, productive research! But the reason for this "clashing" of results and conflict of conclusion in research is that the thing they are measuring is not actually what stimulates growth (!). This is exactly why these studies don′t agree. They are not viable for a measurement of growth stimulation because the variables they measure do not include that which stimulates growth.

Hello friend ttwarrior,

The problem is, that the single-set studies are not a High Intensity set, how we know it. They are simply one volume set, without a high level of Intensity.

Here are a study:

Carpinelli RN, Otto RM.

Human Performance Laboratory, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, USA.

Perhaps the most controversial element of any strength training programme is the number of sets required to increase muscular strength and hypertrophy. There is a prevalent belief that at least 3 sets of each exercise are required to elicit optimal increases in strength and hypertrophy. However, most of the studies that reported the results of training with single versus multiple sets do not substantiate this tenet. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests that for training durations of 4 to 25 weeks there is no significant difference in the increase in strength or hypertrophy as a result of training with single versus multiple sets. Because of the design limitations of these studies, conclusions concerning the efficacy of multiple sets should be tentative. However, there is little scientific evidence, and no theoretical physiological basis, to suggest that a greater volume of exercise elicits greater increases in strength or hypertrophy. This information may represent an important practical application of time-efficient, low-volume exercise.

PMID: 9777681 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]