tim290280
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,955
- Points
- 38
The long running debate can now be drawn to a conclusion.
No longer will myth and fallacious logic enter into any discussion of 1 versus multi sets.
Of course the HIT Jedi's have known this day was coming. The day when they can proudly say that they "used to be" HIT followers.
There you have it. A meta-analysis of all the (english language) studies done to find the winner. The winner is multi-sets. But volume is not a winner
Update from the research world. Unsatisfied with proving HIT is inferior for strength, the good Doctor has done another meta-analysis on hypertrophy.
No longer will myth and fallacious logic enter into any discussion of 1 versus multi sets.
Of course the HIT Jedi's have known this day was coming. The day when they can proudly say that they "used to be" HIT followers.
Single Versus Multiple Sets of Resistance Exercise: A Meta-Regression.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 23(6):1890-1901, September 2009.
Krieger, James W
Abstract:
Krieger, JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res 23(6): 1890-1901, 2009-There has been considerable debate over the optimal number of sets per exercise to improve musculoskeletal strength during a resistance exercise program. The purpose of this study was to use hierarchical, random-effects meta-regression to compare the effects of single and multiple sets per exercise on dynamic strength. English-language studies comparing single with multiple sets per exercise, while controlling for other variables, were considered eligible for inclusion. The analysis comprised 92 effect sizes (ESs) nested within 30 treatment groups and 14 studies. Multiple sets were associated with a larger ES than a single set (difference = 0.26 +/- 0.05; confidence interval [CI]: 0.15, 0.37; p < 0.0001). In a dose-response model, 2 to 3 sets per exercise were associated with a significantly greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.25 +/- 0.06; CI: 0.14, 0.37; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between 1 set per exercise and 4 to 6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.35 +/- 0.25; CI: -0.05, 0.74; p = 0.17) or between 2 to 3 sets per exercise and 4 to 6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.09 +/- 0.20; CI: -0.31, 0.50; p = 0.64). There were no interactions between set volume and training program duration, subject training status, or whether the upper or lower body was trained. Sensitivity analysis revealed no highly influential studies, and no evidence of publication bias was observed. In conclusion, 2 to 3 sets per exercise are associated with 46% greater strength gains than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.
There you have it. A meta-analysis of all the (english language) studies done to find the winner. The winner is multi-sets. But volume is not a winner
Update from the research world. Unsatisfied with proving HIT is inferior for strength, the good Doctor has done another meta-analysis on hypertrophy.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research:
April 2010 - Volume 24 - Issue 4 - pp 1150-1159
Single vs. Multiple Sets of Resistance Exercise for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis
Krieger, James W
Abstract
Previous meta-analyses have compared the effects of single to multiple sets on strength, but analyses on muscle hypertrophy are lacking. The purpose of this study was to use multilevel meta-regression to compare the effects of single and multiple sets per exercise on muscle hypertrophy. The analysis comprised 55 effect sizes (ESs), nested within 19 treatment groups and 8 studies. Multiple sets were associated with a larger ES than a single set (difference = 0.10 ± 0.04; confidence interval [CI]: 0.02, 0.19; p = 0.016). In a dose-response model, there was a trend for 2-3 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.09 ± 0.05; CI: −0.02, 0.20; p = 0.09), and a trend for 4-6 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.20 ± 0.11; CI: −0.04, 0.43; p = 0.096). Both of these trends were significant when considering permutation test p values (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between 2-3 sets per exercise and 4-6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.10 ± 0.10; CI: −0.09, 0.30; p = 0.29). There was a tendency for increasing ESs for an increasing number of sets (0.24 for 1 set, 0.34 for 2-3 sets, and 0.44 for 4-6 sets). Sensitivity analysis revealed no highly influential studies that affected the magnitude of the observed differences, but one study did slightly influence the level of significance and CI width. No evidence of publication bias was observed. In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.