What defines a set?

Khannie

A silly question maybe....

I've been going to the gym for a while now. Apart from cardio, one of the exercises I do is 5x5 (logic's suggestion) for building bicep muscle.

Anyway, what I do for a "set" is, 5 reps, have a bit of an oul' break, 5 more, etc.

Is there a defined amount of time for "bit of an oul' break"?

What's too long? What's too short?

Cal

I've always considered it to be about 90 seconds.

Cal

Kai

90 seconds ?
really, i normally do a set of one particular workout and then a set of another type and cycle it around 4 - 5 times depending. maybe a break of a 60 seconds from finishing one set to starting the next.

thinking about it now its probably not the best way to do things.

Mirabae

He'ya,

My trainer told me to take a break between each set of 2 minutes to ensure that the muscle has enough time to recover between the sets.

Normally, when people talk about sets they refer to sets with 5 to 15 reps. It depends of want you want. If you want to improve your muscles you should exercise with a higher weight and few reps. Otherwise, if you would like to improve your strength you should exercise with a low weight and higher reps.

By for now,
Mirabae

logic1

Mirabae wrote:

He'ya,

My trainer told me to take a break between each set of 2 minutes to ensure that the muscle has enough time to recover between the sets.

Depends on if you're incorporating drop sets, supersets or any other type of multiset training.

If you just do one exercise for a given number of reps then stop the break will usually be about two minutes. It doesn't matter all that much as long as you're not cooling down or loosing the pump between sets.

Normally, when people talk about sets they refer to sets with 5 to 15 reps. It depends of want you want. If you want to improve your muscles you should exercise with a higher weight and few reps. Otherwise, if you would like to improve your strength you should exercise with a low weight and higher reps.

This is incorrect. If you want to gain strength you do even less reps than you would for pure mass. You'd also incorporate speed days, West side and DC methods are good examples of training for strength.

If you want to gain endurance you train with less weight and higer reps.

Ideally training should incorporate all three facets of endurance/speed, strength and mass.

.logic.

MrNuked

logic1 wrote:

If you just do one exercise for a given number of reps then stop the break will usually be about two minutes. It doesn't matter all that much as long as you're not cooling down or loosing the pump between sets.

I've been doing ciruits of different weight training exercises. Do one set of each then do another set of each etc. This leaves considerable time between each set of a particular exercise. Would it be better to do all the sets of a particular exercise in a row then?

What I do now:
One set of each exercise doing 8-10 reps
One set of each starting with a weight near my max, and doing 2 or 3 reps, then immediately switching to a slightly lighter one, doing as many reps as I can manage, switch to a lighter one and do as many reps as I can and so on to try to tire the muscle as much as possible.

What do you reckon?

logic1

MrNuked wrote:

What I do now:
One set of each exercise doing 8-10 reps
One set of each starting with a weight near my max, and doing 2 or 3 reps, then immediately switching to a slightly lighter one, doing as many reps as I can manage, switch to a lighter one and do as many reps as I can and so on to try to tire the muscle as much as possible.

What do you reckon?

Hi MrN. That's what's traditionally known as a dropset. It's a muscle shocking technique which promotes extra growth but should be used sparingly. Certainly every exercise in your routine should *not* be worked using dropsets.

You would maybe use one drop set exercise in your whole session. And switch up which exercises you're drop setting on a weekly basis. Also incorporate supersets where you do one set of an exercise then without resting a set of a complimenting exercise. Again these are all shock techniques to promote growth and to be used sparingly as they're extremly hard to recover from.

.logic.

OFDM

What's the general opinion of Low volume, progressive intensity training (ie one warm up set then one work set) as outlined on exrx.net?

Khannie

logic1 wrote:

If you just do one exercise for a given number of reps then stop the break will usually be about two minutes. It doesn't matter all that much as long as you're not cooling down or loosing the pump between sets.

So, just to be clear then, for a 5x5 (I want to build muscle mass), the "bit of an oul' break" is just right?

I wouldn't take anywhere near 90 seconds between sets of 5, but I suppose I could extend the time gap and increase the weight I use.

Quigs Snr

So tell me this, I am currently doing for example on the bench, 5 sets of 8 reps with about 2 minutes between them at around about 80% of max, maybe slightly less.

Is this good for building mass ? I have been told that 80% of benefit comes in the first set, so for that reason 3 sets is as good as 5. What do you think ?

Also, for mass building, say I do 3 tricep exercises, am I better off doing them all together, or spreading them out, maybe with a few bicep curls in the middle or whatever, by better I mean in terms of pure muscle gain.

OFDM

Quigs Snr wrote:

Is this good for building mass ? I have been told that 80% of benefit comes in the first set, so for that reason 3 sets is as good as 5. What do you think ?

"By performing an additional [(more than one)] [work] set (50% to 100% more sets) only 0 to 5% more progress will be observed. exrx.net"

I'd like opinions on this too.

MrNuked

Quigs and OFDM:

jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jrc1/exs%20490/Rimer%20Present.ppt

Multiple sets are better because they exert a greater overload on the body.

Naos

Sighh....

do 3 sets, 8 - 12 reps per set. Take a 30-45 sec break between each set.

OFDM

Mear wrote:

Sighh....

do 3 sets, 8 - 12 reps per set. Take a 30-45 sec break between each set.

Should these sets be to failure? - i.e. Being just barely able to do the final rep on the last set?

Would mixing 1 warm-up & 1 work set (as suggested here: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/LowVolumeTraining.html) for one workout with 3 sets per exercise for the next workout be off any benefit, or is the Low Volume training idea just a load of rubbish?

Khannie

Mear wrote:

Sighh....

do 3 sets, 8 - 12 reps per set. Take a 30-45 sec break between each set.

This is the lowest quoted time yet, and flies in the face of what Logic1 said (who usually provides impeccible information, with reference where applicable), but your post sounds very confident.

What say you logic1? Or mods?

The 5x5 curl is the only bicep exercise that I perform.

I did ask about sets for building muscle mass. It seems (logically, to me at least) that the gap may be different if you were trying to build strength, mass or endurance.

I'm literally just back from the gym. I left 2 minutes in between sets of curls for the first time just now. Man, it takes /ages/ to do them when you're leaving that kind of gap, but I managed to increase the weight that I was using by 20% by doing this. My bicep muscles also feel properly fecked now.

In the absence of advice or evidence to the contrary, I'll probably continue with the two minute gap. It "feels" right and has been given more "votes" than any other time gap (including one by Logic, who generally knows his stuff).

logic1

Ok let's clear this up.

Firstly we must look at why we need to rest between sets. The reason is mainly one of energy recouperation and lactic acid dispensation.

Firstly the main source of energy for muscle is ATP, ATP is made by a chemical process between ADP and phosphate. During a set most of the ATP currently stored in the muscle will be used. For this to be replenished takes time, studies have indicated it takes about 3 minutes for ATP to fully restore.

The muscle also gains energy from carbohydrates, carbohydrate restoration is slower and can take up to 8 minutes depending on level of exertion during the set.

Basic rule of thumb is greater the level of exertion during the set the longer the recovery period will be.

If you try a 1-rep maximum lift you might need to recover up to 10 minutes before doing another set. If you're lifting at 40% of your max you'll obviously need very little recovery time (and you'll be building very little mass)

Secondly lactic acid builds up within the muscle during exertion (contrary to popular belief lactic acid does not cause muscle pain during the days after training, it dispenses from the muscle quite quickly after activity ceases)

Basically for a 5x5 routine if you're really exerting yourself and always struggling on the last rep or two then your two minutes rest period is essential. I might even stretch it a little longer but if you're feeling like you're ready to provide maximum energy application to another set after two minutes then go for it.

I would strenously suggest you don't cut your rest period shorter and certainly never shorter than a minute unless you're supersetting, dropsetting (virtually no rest period) or training for pure endurance.

With the lack of ATP, carbs and build up of lactic acid within the muscle the sets you do within a minute after a heavy set will not be utilising your full muscle strength and will not result in maximum gains.

Khannie I'd stick with the two minutes and maybe even a touch longer if performance is suffering.

.logic.

OFDM

logic1 wrote:

Basically for a 5x5 routine if you're really exerting yourself and always struggling on the last rep or two then your two minutes rest period is essential. I might even stretch it a little longer but if you're feeling like you're ready to provide maximum energy application to another set after two minutes then go for it.

When doing more than one work set how many warm-up sets should you do (if any) and what percentage of the work set weight should you lift for the warm-ups?

logic1

OFDM wrote:

When doing more than one work set how many warm-up sets should you do (if any) and what percentage of the work set weight should you lift for the warm-ups?

Really depends on how many you feel you need on the day. If I'm going for a heavy deadlift I usually do two warmups just to prepare for the exercise but on certain lifts I'll be extra cautious anyway and do an extra warmup. The warmup shouldn't tax you at all it's just to get the groove right, get muscle memory working, prepare the target muscles for use and give you an idea on whether you might have any pain or issues with the target muscle.

I'll usually use about 20-30% of max for warmups and get in 15 to 20 reps depending on the exercise.

.logic.

Khannie

Thanks for the comprehensive reply logic. Great stuff.

Naos

From http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/phano62.htm

You have to come to the realization that no two bodies are alike and it may take you 30 seconds to fully recover from a work set while it may take me 90 seconds to fully recover.

Now that we've agreed that rest time is important for good training, how do we go about gauging our rest times. Well, for most well trained individuals, 60-90 seconds is optimal rest time. It is a good rule to use because various studies have indicated that 60-90 seconds of rest is enough to recover about 90% of your muscle's capacity to do work.

>>>> I may have been a little drastic with my sigh, but I am doing the sets which i was told to do by my gym instructor.. The reason i posted the above is to show that I can admit if im wrong, and this states I am . So im in the wrong. But such is life, you live and learn. I shall however still do the 30-45 sec rests

brian

logic1

Mear wrote:

From http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/phano62.htm
you live and learn. I shall however still do the 30-45 sec rests

brian

So you're just living really.

.logic.

Naos

rofl..

seriously thinking of kicking ur ass lol

OFDM

MrNuked wrote:

Quigs and OFDM:

jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jrc1/exs%20490/Rimer%20Present.ppt

Multiple sets are better because they exert a greater overload on the body.

If that's the case then explain this article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine:
http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/36/5/319

Excerpt:
If the multiple set training philosophy—the volume theory—were a valid training concept, the results of Berger's [1] study would have been replicated in most of the subsequent research—and they have not. There are 57 studies,[7],[9],[14–68] albeit many with potentially confounding variables, that show no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains or muscular hypertrophy (whenever measured) as a result of performing a greater number of sets (table 4).

logic1

OFDM wrote:

If that's the case then explain this article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine:
http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/36/5/319

That article merely highlights the potential issues with Bergers original study. If you read the article you would see clearly stated at the bottom:

More research is required to determine if the potential health benefits from strength training require multiple set protocols.

I don't see what explanation is needed.

.logic.

OFDM

logic1 wrote:

That article merely highlights the potential issues with Bergers original study. If you read the article you would see clearly stated at the bottom:

I read the whole thing: it states that Berger's results have not been verified; it shows how Berger's study was not conducted under proper control conditions; it shows Berger's own conclusions to be contradicatory; it shows how Berger cites his own flawed 1962 study as the basis for using multiple sets in his subsequent studies; it cites 57 studies that "show no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains or muscular hypertrophy (whenever measured) as a result of performing a greater number of sets"; it states that "the evidence to support the performance of multiple sets is extremely weak."; it states that "the genesis of the belief that multiple sets of each exercise are superior to a single set for maximal strength gains is one very poorly controlled 40 year old strength training study by Berger."; it shows how articles by physiologists who recommend multiple sets all cross-reference back to Berger's flawed 1962 study.

In summary it does a lot more than than highlight "potential issues" in Berger study - it shows how the basis for multiple set training is seriously flawed.

logic1 wrote:

I don't see what explanation is needed.

An explanation is required for why people keep saying that that multiple work sets are better than a single work set, when the grand majority of scientific studies have found there to be no significant difference in gains obtained from using either a single work set or multiple work sets.

Why spend all that extra time in the gym to potentially only make 0-3% greater gains after 12 weeks, unless you're an elite bodybuilder or strength athlete, where 3% could be the difference between winning and losing?

logic1

OFDM wrote:

In summary it does a lot more than than highlight "potential issues" in Berger study - it shows how the basis for multiple set training is seriously flawed.

No it simply states how Bergers study and any studies based on his findings may be flawed. The Paper doesn't provide any findings of it's own on Multiple set training or even do any research or peer reviewed double blind studies into Multiple set training.

An explanation is required for why people keep saying that that multiple work sets are better than a single work set, when the grand majority of scientific studies have found there to be no significant difference in gains obtained from using either a single work set or multiple work sets.

List the "Grand Majority" of studies that show this. Are you assuming the, unverified, 57 studies mentioned in that paper contribute to the "Grand Majority" of scientific studies on Multiple set training?

I'm more than happy to follow the likes of Ronnie Coleman, Flex Wheeler, Lee Priest, Franco Colombo, Dorian Yates who all promote multiple set training and have used every type of strength training imaginable to garner the type of results that they did.

Why spend all that extra time in the gym to potentially only make 0-3% greater gains after 12 weeks, unless you're an elite bodybuilder or strength athlete, where 3% could be the difference between winning and losing?

Well you train with single sets and I'll keep doing multiples and in 12 weeks we'll see who has progressed the most.

.logic.

Khannie

logic1 wrote:

Well you train with single sets and I'll keep doing multiples and in 12 weeks we'll see who has progressed the most.

It raises an interesting point though.... I do 5x5 bicep curl sets. If I leave two minutes between sets, that costs me 8 minutes rest time (per arm*).

If the benefits over time are marginal (or entirely contested in some cases), then it sounds like someone like me probably wont notice the difference between one set to failure and multiple sets.

Is that correct?




*as a side note, after my last gym trip costing me 16 minutes rest time, I decided to switch arms during the rest period for my next trip, so it should only cost me a total of 8 minutes rest time.

logic1

Khannie wrote:

It raises an interesting point though.... I do 5x5 bicep curl sets. If I leave two minutes between sets, that costs me 8 minutes rest time (per arm*).

I'm not sure how you're working that one out. On single arm bicep exercises, say for instance you first work the left arm, you finish with the left arm and immediately start on the right arm. The right arm takes 90 seconds to work, you have now rested the left arm for 90 seconds and are ready to start the next set.

You have zero downtime as such.

Using exercises like olympic barbell curl or preacher curls you'll do a warm up set little or no rest needed - straight into work set *rest* work set *rest* work set - giving 4 minutes total rest time on the whole exercise.

.logic.

Khannie

logic1 wrote:

You have zero downtime as such.

I had considered doing it that way (that's what the * point was about) but just hadn't done it yet (I was focusing on one arm at a time so my 8 minutes figure came from 4 rest periods of two minutes each). My point was though, that single set to failure might offer the average joe enough of a time saving to warrant losing out on the multiple set benefits. The 3% figure quoted above equates to around 5 gym trips per year for your average punter.

If I were serious about weight training to gain mass, strength or stamina, I would definitely be doing multiple sets. All the (limited) documentation that I have read suggests that, at the very least, there is no downside to it.

This looks like a different strokes for different folks thing, though it is interesting.

logic1

Khannie wrote:

The 3% figure quoted above equates to around 5 gym trips per year for your average punter.

The 3% OFDM is using as proof that multiple sets are unnecessary comes from the very same Berger study that he's stating is flawed and unreliable.

As was stated more scientific research would be needed to correlate any of the points made in the study.

Personally at the lack of a full and comprehensive scientific study into the subject I suggest you check the commonly used training routines of any of the superior strength and power atheletes.

Westside barbell, Louie Simmons training company boasts 25 World and National champions and 27 lifters who have totaled over 2000 lbs aswell as a host of elite rated strength atheletes. He utilizies multiple set exercises and the use of speedwork, bands and chains.

Dr. Hatfield (a.k.a Dr. Squat) who has a 2303lb total also has a reference to single set training on his site;

http://www.drsquat.com/index.cfm?action=viewarticle&articleID=74

Dr. Hatfield wrote:

"...numerous research studies -- which I once again am probably viewed as dreaming up--have shown that there are no significant differences when performing either one, two or three sets of an exercise..."

Yep! You're dreaming pal! Dr. Richard Berger (my mentor during my doctoral studies at Temple) years ago showed that there IS a significant improvement in gains with three sets as opposed to one. Other studies have shown the same results. Nowadays, many athletes (bodybuilders included) do as many as 10 or more sets. Even Arthur Jones --the original HIT man --showed that people with white, fast-twitch muscles require fewer reps, sets and workouts per week than people with predominantly red, slow-twitch muscles.

Apparently, all HIT men are white muscle fiber guys? I think not! So, while none of the seven laws are violated here, some (especially the overload principle and the SAID principle) are not being applied to their maximum potential.

Again he references the Berger study which while I agree that the methods used in obtaining the results may have been flawed the results will stand true in any study carried out today.

Multiple set training is far superior to single set training and is being practically displayed by every world record and elite level power and strength athelte in existence today.

.logic.

Guvnor

I cannot believe there are still people who carp on about single sets and hit training. What a load of garbage this system really is. Lets forget the 3/4 warm-up/work sets required before one does there HIT one set workout.

Are we to think it's possible to walk into the gym and just step under the bar and start squatting heavy, do your hardcore single set and leave? Just one set no warm up nothing?

Some people actually enjoy training and are not in a hurry to leave the gym in five minutes.

The guys who made HIT popular actually trained volume although not as much volume as arnold but still way more than one set.

Best bit of HIT philosophy apart drinking your own urine was to do a set of 20 reps with a weight you can only get 10 reps with. If you can get 20 reps I say it's not a weight you can only get 10 reps on.

Khannie

logic1 wrote:

Multiple set training is far superior to single set training

Sold!