one set per exercise ?

[Joe Black]

anyone tried this sort of training ? I am curious to peoples expereiences with it...

I.e something like a whole body routine done twice a week..

5 or 6 compund exercises, a few light warm ups for each and then one hard work set with foced reps for each compound exercise.. Workouts would be short too...

Might try something like this out..

Anyone tried this or have a cool routine like this ?

[Large And In Charge]

Never tried it Hulk but it sounds very interesting! I will have to give it a go.

[king_gregz]

Hey Hulk,

When I first started I did a routine similar to the one you mentioned above, working my whole body twice a week, basing the whole routine on compound exercises. It worked well for me as a beginner (which I still am) and made huge gains.

I sometimes do a full body in with my normal routine just for abit of change

[frankrul]

Hey guys, I'm new here. I'm doing something similar right now. I start about 3 weeks ago, doing full body workouts over two days.
Im doing it
saturday + sunday = workout
monday + tuesday = off
wednesday + thursday = workout
Friday = off

I've modified my diet (eating 5 meals a day + protein supplements + creatine) and i've put on about 7 lbs
since new years. I had a fitness evaluation done this
weekend. Im 24, 6'1" 156lbs, 7% BF. My goal was originally to put on 20 lbs in two months, but I might hit
that before the two months. Yes, I did take tons of before
shots and I will post before an afters after the two months.
Wish me luck!

Frank

[Joe Black]

Excellent Frankrul look forward to seeing your b4 and afters

I think this might well be something I try when I dry up from the routine I am on now

[Paul Stagg]

IF you are capable of generating a lot of intensity, one set will work for you.

Most lifters (myself included to a certain extent) don't really work hard enough for one work set to be as effective as more sets for most movements (direct isolation stuff would be an exception)

The only way to see if it is effective is to try it out.

You might want to read some on the hardgainer site.

[cemm]

Yep, I tried this before! well As LP said, you must be able to generate high intensity wich I couldnt in one or two exercise. It's great if you do it on mondays and fridays! Have more time to rest though.!! Lazy boy...

What I do now is one body part for week doing 2 counpond exercises per body part!!

[Wizard]

I find more effective the system:10sets per exercise and only 2 exercises,working two bodyparts,ex. chest/back.It's the German volume training.It works good but may be boring for some.

[Life4ever]

I don't believe in that one set crap man..I use to follow HIT regiously, but I finally saw that light bro...HIT works for everyone in the beginnning...but after awhiel it stops...one of the biggest draw backs of HIT is it use the general engery stores, and never takes from the intra muscular reserves.

[Wizard]

However,i think that if you're bulking,it works good.It's not the ideal for anyone but it's not a crap at all.Using it,I went from 135lbs(8%bf)to 170lbs(11%bf)after six months,with a good diet of course.Btw I'm 5'8".Now that I'm cutting up I don't use it anyway.

[chris mason]

What the heck are you talking about Life? General stores? All strenuous exercise burns intramuscular stores of glucose first.

I have used a routine that was suggested by Arthur Jones (the first person to really promote such abbreviated routines in the modern era). It was 3 days a week with 10-12 total sets per workout. I did not find it to work very well for me. I seem to need to do at least 2 heavy sets for small bodyparts and 3-5 for larger ones. Believe me, I can generate plenty on intensity! So I do not feel that was the problem. One set may work if an individual was very near to his or her genetic limitation for developement. For most people, I think a few more sets are in order.

[Life4ever]

Im sorry, I mistated that, I meant sufficiently deplte intra muscular rerserves..Another big draw back of HIT is the lack of TUT.....for one set that being said..so dont jump on my case.

Also, when doing HIT type training, ie: one set per muscle. you mostly use general energy stores, before intra muscular reserves, so what the heck are you talking about?

[Edited by Life4ever on 01-16-2001 at 08:19 PM]

[chris mason]

Actually I know EXACTLY what I am talking about! As a person begins vigorous exercise your muscles 1st use intramuscularly stored ATP. This lasts for about 6 seconds. The next step is a supplementary system which combines ADP with creatine (stored in muscles)phosphate. This yields ATP and creatine and the body uses the ATP. This lasts for about 10-15 seconds. Then glycolysis steps in. This the breakdown of glucose to produce more ATP. This uses glycogen stored in the muscles first. These systems can support strenuous activity for about 1 minute. Most sets last 1 minute or less. So, if you want to try to correct me, make sure you know what the **** you are talking about.

The above info was garnered from, Human Anatomy and Physiology 2nd Edition by Elaine N. Marieb.

[Edited by chris mason on 01-16-2001 at 09:36 PM]

[kAto]

Originally posted by chris mason
Actually I know EXACTLY what I am talking about! As a person begins vigorous exercise your muscles 1st use intramuscularly stored ATP. This lasts for about 6 seconds. The next step is a supplementary system which combines ADP with creatine (stored in muscles)phosphate. This yields ATP and creatine and the body uses the ATP. This lasts for about 10-15 seconds. Then glycolysis steps in. This the breakdown of glucose to produce more ATP. This uses glycogen stored in the muscles first. These systems can support strenuous activity for about 1 minute. Most sets last 1 minute or less. So, if you want to try to correct me, make sure you know what the **** you are talking about.

The above info was garnered from, Human Anatomy and Physiology 2nd Edition by Elaine N. Marieb.

[Edited by chris mason on 01-16-2001 at 09:36 PM]

hahahaha, your knowledge never ceases to amaze me, hell i learn something i didnt evenknow reading your response; about the timing of each inter cellular bodily function release, good ****.

[Life4ever]

Listen, One of the major drawbacks to CONSTANT HIT is the lack of cellular depletion. In simpler terms, the lack of localized depletion of energy store.. does one set accomplish this ?? NO.. lets not get carried away man, lets put our opinons out instead of pulling eachothers heads off.

[Edited by Life4ever on 01-16-2001 at 11:00 PM]

[Time + Patience]

Hey Chris, your information is like an airplane flying 30,000 feet in the sky over my head, while I am still on the ground. I think I agree with Life on the last statement, it makes sense to me. But I don't have a Physics book to look to either.

[Paul Stagg]

Gentlemen, lets not get into a flame war over this.

Listen to Chris, he knows what he is talking about.

More sets further deplete muscle glycogen, this is true. But how is depleting your muscle glycogen related to strength gains? Do you have to fully deplete muscle glycogen to get bigger and stronger?

[kat]

I do it as a filler when I'm changing my routine. It shakes you up and makes you hurt if you are intense enough.

[chris mason]

Originally posted by Life4ever
Listen, One of the major drawbacks to CONSTANT HIT is the lack of cellular depletion. In simpler terms, the lack of localized depletion of energy store.. does one set accomplish this ?? NO.. lets not get carried away man, lets put our opinons out instead of pulling eachothers heads off.

[Edited by Life4ever on 01-16-2001 at 11:00 PM]

Ok, using your rationale then a marathon event which depletes everything would work great. I don't think so. Depletion of gycogen has no bearing on muscular growth. I was giving you the scientific rationale behind you error. If you prefer, I will just say you are WRONG! In addition, I only did that once you questioned me and tried to use "big" words yourself. I always hate it when the uniformed try to make themselves look good by using (actually abusing) scientific terms. If you want big muscles, then you must stimulate the muscles with weight training and then allow for repair and overcompensation. If you do too many sets, you are causing excessive damage which will negate growth because your body will use all of its limited resources just for repair. There will be nothing left over for growth. Reduced sets are best, but I do not find one set to be optimal.

[Life4ever]

LoL....Paul and Chris, so your saying this yourself...you cant train for size or strength? they just both come at the same time? Bull, look at powerlifters who weigh in the mid hundreds lifting unbeliveable poundage, they have strength, but wheres there size? It also depends what your goals are? some want to be get BIGGER, some want to stay strong like powerlifters, because thats the goal, STRENGTH..pick which one you are, a bodybuilder or a powerlifter and make your goals from there on the way you train.

Chris, that was my whole point, 1 set doesnt activate all the muscle fibers...since were on the subject, please explain to me the two muscle fibers and how they work from your experience or your going to look in your physics and anatomy book again??? LoL =)

[Edited by Life4ever on 01-17-2001 at 03:36 PM]

[Paul Stagg]

I'm sorry?

Where did I say that? Where did Chris say that?

Sounds to me like you are a little confused regarding the subject.

Here are some truths for you:

Energy depletion doesn't have an effect on muscular growth or strength increases, at least not that I've ever seen or heard.

One set can indeed deplete your muscle glycogen, but I agree it is far easier to deplete it using multiple sets.

I'm not sure why you bring up muscle fibers, they were not the subject of discussion.

And as far as strength vs size, yes, you can train for strength without training for size, but you do have to get stronger to get bigger. I'm not sure what that has to do with what you and Chris are talking about though.

[Life4ever]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
I'm sorry?

Where did I say that? Where did Chris say that?

Sounds to me like you are a little confused regarding the subject.

Here are some truths for you:

Energy depletion doesn't have an effect on muscular growth or strength increases, at least not that I've ever seen or heard.

One set can indeed deplete your muscle glycogen, but I agree it is far easier to deplete it using multiple sets.

I'm not sure why you bring up muscle fibers, they were not the subject of discussion.



And as far as strength vs size, yes, you can train for strength without training for size, but you do have to get stronger to get bigger. I'm not sure what that has to do with what you and Chris are talking about though.

Paul, one set can deplete muscle glycogen, but does it do it efficiently?

Lack of TUT has an effect on muscle growth, what if you do sets of 1-2 reps training for strength, your muscles mostly likely wont get bigger, but you will stronger. Look at Ed coan? hes not that big? look at fred hatefields legs? he squats 1000 pounds, but his legs dont look that great do to the way he trains.

The muscle fiber thing was just to give chris a hardtime LOL....

[Paul Stagg]

Paul, one set can deplete muscle glycogen, but does it do it efficiently?


** Huh? what does effieciency have to do with it? Theoretically, yes, less sets would be more efficient. But it is a moot point, as glycogen depletion isn't what we are going for.


Lack of TUT has an effect on muscle growth, what if you do sets of 1-2 reps training for strength, your muscles mostly likely wont get bigger, but you will stronger. Look at Ed coan? hes not that big? look at fred hatefields legs? he squats 1000 pounds, but his legs dont look that great do to the way he trains.

** Pretty interesting, but you missed one teensy little thing. PLers typically use LOTS of sets. What they don't normally do is train to failure (which would be an intensity variable.) Comparing what they do to one set to failure training is a mistake.

**I agree that TUT is a variable that will change the way you adapt, though, that is very true. One set of one to failure is going to have a different result than one set of 15 to failure, which may have a different result than 3 sets of 8. The more important determinant, IMHO, is your intensity.

The muscle fiber thing was just to give chris a hardtime LOL....

** I see.

[chris mason]

I know all about the different types of muscle fibers without having to refer to anything. Your points only place your ignorance on display for all to see! Within the individual, if your muscle gets stronger, it gets bigger. The only way to gain strength and not size (in the short term, because in the long term muscle growth will result) is to train the nervous system to act more efficiently. You can, of course, alter training techniques (grip etc.) in order to lift a heavier weight, but this has nothing to do with muscular strength. Nervous system efficiency, anatomical makeup (origin and insertion points of muscles), and numbers of fast and medium twitch muscle fibers can vary dramatically between individuals and are the factors which determine the amount of weight you can lift. That is why you cannot compare a light (in bodyweight) powerlifter to a bodybuilder. That powerlifter has the ability (neurologically) to excite a lot more muscle fibers at a given time than the bodybuilder and probably has a more favorable anatomical build (physics my friend, lever arms etc.) which allows him to demonstrate much more strength. You can only compare an individual to him/herself when discussing the efficacy of training techniques. Your genetics determine you size/strength ratio and ultimately how big and strong you can get. The reason Franco could lift more than Arnold in the curl is because he had shorter forearms and,most likely, a better nervous system than Arnold. Arnold had much greater biceps mass, but could not demonstrate greater strength because of nature. The bottom line is that within the indiviual, if your muscle gets stronger, it gets bigger (assuming the nervous system has already adapted to the exercise). The increase in size is due primarily to the increase of the contractile proteins. This increase means greater contractile power and therefore greater strength.

** sorry Chris, but I had to edit some of this out. I think I left the meaty stuff, though. Don't let folks egg you into flaming them... it's a waste of your energy **

[Edited by chris mason on 01-17-2001 at 05:56 PM]

[kat]

You guys make my head hurt.