Short-Term Performance Effects of Weight Training With Multiple Sets Not to Failure vs. a Single Set to Failure in Women

SANBORN, KIMBERLY; BOROS, RHONDA; HRUBY, JOE; Schilling, Brian K.; OʼBryant, Harold S.; Johnson, Robert L.; HOKE, TOMMY; STONE, MEG; Stone, Michael H.

doi:10.1519/00124278-200008000-00014

Cited by 23 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Exercise studies comparing single-and multiple-set protocols differ not only with respect to training volume but also with respect to the equipment used for the measurements (9,25,31,41), exercise intensity (6,30,31,34), exercise mode (i.e., velocity [30,39,41]), periodization strategy (28,30,41), work until failure or not (22), and muscle groups (32,38). Also, the training experiences of the subjects investigated in these studies were very heterogeneous, ranging from untrained subjects to top-division footballers (25).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Single- vs. Multiple-Set Resistance Training on Maximum Strength and Body Composition in Trained Postmenopausal Women

Kemmler¹,

Lauber²,

Engelke³

et al. 2004

J Strength Cond Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Kemmler, W.K., D. Lauber, K. Engelke, and J. Weineck. Effects of single-vs. multiple-set resistance training on maximum strength and body composition in trained postmenopausal women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(4):000-000. 2004.-The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a single-vs. a multiple-set resistance training protocol in well-trained early postmenopausal women. Subjects (N ϭ 71) were randomly assigned to begin either with 12 weeks of the single-set or 12 weeks of the multiple-set protocol. After another 5 weeks of regenerational resistance training, the subgroup performing the single-set protocol during the first 12 weeks crossed over to the 12-week multiple-set protocol and vice versa. Neither exercise type nor exercise intensity, degree of fatigue, rest periods, speed of movement, training sessions per week, compliance and attendance, or periodization strategy differed between exercise protocols. Body mass, body composition, and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) values for leg press, bench press, rowing, and leg adduction were measured at baseline and after each period. Multipleset training resulted in significant increases (3.5-5.5%) for all 4 strength measurements, whereas single-set training resulted in significant decreases (Ϫ1.1 to Ϫ2.0%). Body mass and body composition did not change during the study. The results show that, in pretrained subjects, multiple-set protocols are superior to single-set protocols in increasing maximum strength.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Single- vs. Multiple-Set Resistance Training on Maximum Strength and Body Composition in Trained Postmenopausal Women

Kemmler¹,

Lauber²,

Engelke³

et al. 2004

J Strength Cond Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have investigated the effect of volume of resistance exercise on strength gains (Berger 1962;reviewed by Carpinellli and Otto 1998;DeHoyos et al 1998;Gotshalk et al 1997;Hass et al 2000;Kraemer et al 1995Kraemer et al ,1997Marx 1998;Sanborn et al 2000;Schulumberger et al 2001;Starkey et al 1996;Stowers et al 1983;Wescott et al 1989). The predominant recommendation has been to perform multiple sets (MS), three sets or more of a resistance exercise, rather than one single set (SS), to effectively increase one's training adaptations (Berger 1962;Gotshalk et al 1997;Kraemer et al 1995Kraemer et al , 1997Marx 1998;Sanborn et al 2000;Schulumberger et al 2001). These adaptations include increases in muscular hypertrophy, muscular strength and muscular endurance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study by Starkey et al (1996) also concluded one set to failure to be as effective as three sets in increasing muscle thickness and knee extension and knee flexion isometric torque. Although almost any type of resistance training can increase strength in untrained persons, MS have been shown to produce superior strength gains over one SS to failure over a longer period of time (Berger 1962;Gotshalk et al 1997;Kraemer et al 1995Kraemer et al , 1997Sanborn et al 2000;Schulumberger et al 2001). Kraemer et al (1997) compared the effectiveness of SS versus MS on one-repetition maximum (1RM) back squat.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of resistance exercise volume and complexity on EMG, strength, and regional body composition

McBride

Blaak

Triplett-McBride

2003

European Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to examine the effects of a 12-week resistance training program using single versus multiple sets of a complex versus simple exercise on EMG, strength and regional body composition. Twenty-eight untrained men ( n=15) and women ( n=13) performed resistance training twice per week. Group 1 (S-1, n=9) performed one set of a leg press (LP) and bicep curl (BC) exercise, group 2 (M-6, n=9) performed six sets of a LP and BC exercise, and group 3 (C, n=10) was the control group. One-repetition maximums (1RMs) and EMG were measured in the LP and BC during pre-, mid-, and post-training. Lean body mass of the legs and arms were measured pre- and post-training by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results of the study indicated that both S-1 and M-6 groups significantly increased percentage strength pre- to post-training in both the LP and BC [S-1 pre-/post-LP=41.2 (23.7)%, BC=8.5 (6.71)%; M-6 pre-/post-LP=52.6 (12.6)%, BC=22.8 (15.6)%; mean (SD)]. However, compared to S-1, M-6 showed a significantly greater increase in percentage strength in the BC ( P

show abstract

“…This method eliminates the need for a direct 1RM test, but it is not without drawbacks either. Using exhaustive efforts is common practice in strength training, but increasing evidence (Davies, Orr, Halaki, & Hackett, 2016;Izquierdo et al, 2006;ParejaBlanco et al, 2016;Sampson & Groeller, 2016;Sanborn et al, 2000) shows that training to repetition failure does not necessarily produce better strength gains and that may even be counterproductive by inducing excessive fatigue, mechanical, metabolic and hormonal stress Pareja-Blanco et al, 2016;Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011). In fact, fatigue associated with training to failure not only significantly reduces the force that a muscle can generate, but also the nervous system's ability to voluntarily activate the muscles (Häkkinen, 1993).…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement velocity vs. strength training

Marques

2017

motricidade

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensity during strength training has been commonly identified with relative load (percentage of one-repetition maximum, 1RM) or with performing a given maximal number of repetitions in each set (XRM: 5RM, 10RM, 15 RM, etc.). Yet, none of these methods can be appropriate for precisely monitoring the real training effort in each training session.The first approach requires coaches to individually assess the 1RM value for each athlete. We may agree that expressing intensity as a percentage of the maximum repetition has the advantage that it can be used to program strength training for multiple athletes simultaneously, the loads being later transformed in absolute values (kg) for each individual. Further, another advantage is that this expression of the intensity can clearly reflect the dynamics of the evolution of the training load if we understand the percentage of 1RM as an effort, and not as a simple arithmetic calculus. Nevertheless, direct assessment of 1RM has some possible disadvantages worth noting. It may be associated with risk of injury when performed incorrectly or by novice athlete’s and it is time-consuming and impractical for large groups. Moreover, the actual RM can change quite rapidly after only a few training sessions and often the obtained value is not the subject’s true maximum.The classic way to prescribe loading intensity is to determine, through trial and error, the maximum number of repetitions that one can be performed with a given submaximal weight. For example, 5RM refers to a weight that can only be lifted five times. Some studies identified the relationship between selected percentages of 1RM and the number of repetitions to failure, establishing a repetition maximum continuum. It is believed that certain performance characteristics are best trained using specific RM load ranges. This method eliminates the need for a direct 1RM test, but it is not without drawbacks either. Using exhaustive efforts is common practice in strength training, but increasing evidence (Sanborn et al., 2000; Folland et al., 2002; Izquierdo et al., 2006; Drinkwater et al., 2007) shows that training to repetition failure does not necessarily produce better strength gains and that may even be counterproductive by inducing excessive fatigue, mechanical and metabolic strain (Fry, 2004). In fact, fatigue associated with training to failure not only significantly reduces the force that a muscle can generate, but also the nervous system’s ability to voluntarily activate the muscles (Häkkinen, 1993). Consequently, this approach, besides being very tiring and having shown no advantage over other lower effort types of training, it is unrealistic because it is practically impossible to know exactly how many repetitions can be done with a given absolute load without any initial reference. In addition, if in the first set the subject has completed the maximum number of repetitions, it will be very difficult or even impossible to perform properly the same number of reps in the following sets.Movement velocity is another variable which could be of great interest for monitoring exercise intensity, but surprisingly it has been vaguely mentioned in most studies to date. The importance that monitoring movement velocity for strength training programming have already been noticed in 1991 (González-Badillo, 1991). More recently, González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina (2010, 2011) studied this hypothesis and confirmed that movement velocity provides as a determinant of the level of effort during resistance training as well as an indicator of the degree of fatigue. Unfortunately, the lack of use of this variable is likely because until recently it was not possible to accurately measure velocity in isoinertial strength training exercises/movements. Indeed, most research that has addressed movement velocity in strength training was basically conducted using isokinetic apparatus which, unfortunately, is not an ideal or common training practice. The actual velocity performed in each repetition could be the best reference to determine accurately the real metabolic effort for each athlete. The higher the velocity achieved against a given (absolute) load, the greater the intensity with positive consequences for training effect (González Badillo and Ribas, 2002). Therefore, movement velocity should be the main “ingredient” of training intensity. With this approach, instead of a certain amount of weight to be lifted, coaches must be encouraging to prescribe strength training according to two important variables: 1) first repetition’s mean velocity, which is intrinsically related to loading intensity; and 2) a maximum percent velocity loss to be allowed in each set. When this percent loss limit is exceeding the set must be terminated. The limit of repetition velocity loss should be set beforehand depending on the primary training goal being pursued, the particular exercise to be performed as well as the training experience and performance level of each athlete.

show abstract

Short-Term Performance Effects of Weight Training With Multiple Sets Not to Failure vs. a Single Set to Failure in Women

Cited by 23 publications

References 19 publications

Effects of Single- vs. Multiple-Set Resistance Training on Maximum Strength and Body Composition in Trained Postmenopausal Women

Effects of Single- vs. Multiple-Set Resistance Training on Maximum Strength and Body Composition in Trained Postmenopausal Women

Effect of resistance exercise volume and complexity on EMG, strength, and regional body composition

Movement velocity vs. strength training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About