This months Journal of strength and conditioning / MD

**dehydromethandrotren** · 06-25-2010, 08:01 PM

An interesting article regarding Mentzers theory about single sets vs multiple sets for growth.

"A meta analysis was performed to examine the sum of all the literature on single versus mutliple sets for muscle growth. Researchers wanted to examine if single sets were as effective as multiple sets for muscle growth. Examining previous studies published when all the studies were calculated there was a forty percent greater gain in muscle mass with multiple sets compared to single sets.
The study suggests that 4-6 sets per body part was the maximum stimulus needed and that more sets did not necessarily yield greater results. Interestingly there was similar results involving a previous meta analysis on strength where 4-6 sets per exercise marked a plateau."

Thoughts?

**Older lifter** · 06-25-2010, 08:22 PM

^^^ well thats not a sexy Avi............
I always wonder on studies like this if they take into account the need to change and shock the muscle groups after prolonged use of one method, I have always found that i get gains from one method up to a point, then when your training method changes so too does the grouth (however, how long the stimulus from each of the training methods lasts does depend on what method it is)....... Overall i do, do sets, but will use HIT or others when i level out..

**cherrydrpepper** · 06-25-2010, 08:30 PM

Seems valid for small muscles. Seems not valid for compound groups. Real world implications mean more sets are necessary because of crossovers. JMO

i.e.

I do 5 or 6 sets of trap exercises.. they are nuked. GTG.

I do 5 or 6 sets of bicep exercises on a back day.. they are nuked. GTG.

I only do 3 sets squats and 3 sets leg press and try to walk out of the gym.. NOT COOL. NOT GTG.

I'm more interested in what I read in a Lee Priest interview today:

Which intensity techniques did you use?

I liked forced reps. I've always had a training partner and that person would help me with the last one or two reps, just enough to keep the weight moving. I did supersets or giant sets occasionally, just when I got a silly idea to try something different. I often did them when I didn't feel like going heavy, but I usually ended up going heavy anyway. It seems I just can't escape going heavy, damn it. That's the only way I know how to train.

Did you push most sets to failure?

Yep, every set. If I don't get to failure when I get to eight reps, then I don't count that set. I'll increase the weight and do the set again.

How did you settle on six to eight reps?

I tried more, but I never really liked it. I'd rather increase the weight than the reps. Say I was doing dumbbell presses and I was using 140-pounders and I got to 10 pretty easily, I'd think it was a wasted set and I should've grabbed the 150- or 160-pound dumbbells. I just prefer to use the heavier weights all the way through.

Me cherrydrpeppers opinion on what Lee said:

Makes sense as long as

- you are comfortable with the exercise
- you have no lagging injuries
- you have a spotter when necessary
- you don't break form and english the lift towards the end of failure when it doesn't make sense to (imo there are reasons to english it and reasons to not that are very exercise and person specific)