Many of these studies have been published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, and I strongly encourage you to subscribe. The website address for the NSCA is: http://www.nsca-lift.org/menu.htm Erik: I'd like you to slog through the following Carpinelli review and let me know what you think. I call it Carpinelli Untamed , because he's scalding towards the NSCA and multiple set protocols, yet seems to have read the literature. Here it is, feedback welcome: MORE IS BETTER: A QUESTIONABLE CONCEPT Ralph N. Carpinelli, Ed.D. (from Master Trainer, June 1999)* The mindless muscle magazines and newsletters abound with different philosophies of training that claim to optimally increase muscular size, strength and endurance. Most of the misinformation is _base_d on different writers' opinions and is not supported by any scientific evidence. An unsubstantiated opinion is not science; it is pseudoscience (false science), which is any assertion or concept that is _base_d on assumption rather than evidence. Assertions in the scientific literature must be supported by evidence from peer-reviewed journals, and the scientific community should not accept any assertion without sufficient evidence. One very common unsubstantiated assertion is that a greater volume of strength training will produce superior results-the more-is-better philosophy. In a recent article on resistance training published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (10), the Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [ACSM] , Feigenbaum and Pollock predicate training principles that are not substantiated by any scientific evidence and are contradictory to their other recommendations in the article. The authors claim (page 40): the total training volume (sets x repetitions x resistance) is more important for the development of muscular endurance and muscle mass. They cite four references in an attempt to support their assertion. The first reference is a book by Fleck and Kraemer (11), which contains no scientific evidence to support the claim that a greater volume of exercise will produce superior results (for a detailed review refer to The Absence of Evidence in Master Trainer 8(3): 8-11, 1998). The next two references cited by Feigenbaum and Pollock are strength-training studies (14, 18) that report changes in strength, not muscular endurance or hypertrophy. Messier and Dill (14) stated (page 350): In general, the isokinetic strength values elicited by the Nautilus circuit weight training group in this study compared favorably to those generated by the Free Weight group. Silvester and colleagues (18) reported (page 32): one set to failure was just as effective in developing strength as was performing three sets of six repetitions, regardless of the equipment used. This finding is contrary to the accepted belief that three sets of six repetitions is the optimum program. The last reference is Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General (21). In the eight pages of the Report that are specifically cited by Feigenbaum and Pollock, there is no evidence to support their claim for the superiority of a greater volume of resistance exercise. In fact, there is nothing in the entire 278 page Report to suggest that greater sets, reps, and resistance are more important for the development of muscular endurance and muscle mass. The Report simply cites the recommendations of the ACSM (1995), American Heart Association (1995), and American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (1995), each recommending one set of 8-10 or 10-15 repetitions performed 2-3 times a week. There are no strength-training studies referenced. Feigenbaum and Pollock also published a similar article in The Physician and Sportsmedicine (9) where they made another unsubstantiated claim (page 46): lower-intensity programs emphasizing the completion of a greater number of repetitions per set and greater number of sets is more important for the development of muscle endurance and mass. They cite three references in an attempt to support their claim. Two of the references were the aforementioned studies by Messier and Dill (14) and Silvester and colleagues (18). The third reference was a study by Stowers and colleagues (20) that reported increases in strength after seven weeks of training, with no significant difference in strength between the one-set and three-set groups at the end of the study. There was no report of muscular endurance or hypertrophy. These three studies are accurately reported in a review by Carpinelli and Otto (4), which showed no significant difference in muscular strength or hypertrophy (when it was assessed) in 33 out of 35 studies as a result of training with single or multiple sets. There is a lack of scientific evidence to support the assertion that a greater number of sets or reps will produce superior increases in muscular strength, endurance or hypertrophy. Although Dr. Pollock had expressed in personal communications that there was no evidence to support higher volume strength training, he justified the statements in his articles by noting: In some cases this has been forced upon us by the weight lifting community. If there is no evidence (peer-reviewed strength-training studies), there is no obligation to acquiesce, or concede to anyone. Both of the articles by Feigenbaum and Pollock (9, 10) refer to the 1990 ACSM Position Stand (1) in another attempt to justify their claim that additional sets or repetitions elicit larger strength gains, although they do state that the magnitude of difference is usually small. Three of the six references cited by the ACSM are books, not peer-reviewed studies. Citing someone else's opinion is not science. Another reference is an excellent review by Sale (16) on motor unit activation during exercise. However, it contains no information regarding the volume of exercise, either greater sets or repetitions, influencing gains in muscular strength, endurance or hypertrophy. There is one report (22) that Feigenbaum and Pollock cite as an ACSM reference, but is actually not cited in the ACSM Position Stand (1). Zinovieff (22) simply reported the use of the Oxford technique , which is a decrease (about one pound each set) rather than an increase in resistance for 10 sets of 10 repetitions. He made no comparisons to any other training protocols. Zinovieff stated (page 130): This series [55 out-patient cases with wasted and weak quadriceps muscles] was not considered to be large enough for detailed case analysis. Only the 1962 strength-training study by Berger (refer to details in the review by Carpinelli and Otto, reference 4) reported a 3% greater increase in bench press strength in groups who performed three sets compared with those who trained with one set. The other reference cited by the ACSM was published in 1945 by DeLorme (6), who was a U.S. Army medical doctor. DeLorme reported the clinical observations of 300 cases of therapeutic restoration of function to muscles that were weakened and atrophied as a result of injury and disease. His protocol consisted of 7 to 10 sets of 10 to 12 repetitions (70 to 100 repetitions a session) once a day on five consecutive days each week for an unspecified duration. The workout began with considerably less weight than the subject's 10 repetition maximum (10RM) and progressed throughout each session, culminating with a 10RM. This was not a training study. There was no assignment to different groups, no comparison among the patients, no pre- or post-training data reported, nor was the duration of the clinical observations reported. DeLorme stated (page 651): We are presenting only the clinical observations made on 300 cases in which these exercises have been employed. There is no evidence by DeLorme to support the vacuous claim by the ACSM that more is better. In 1948 DeLorme and Watkins (7), referring to the aforementioned DeLorme protocol, stated (page 264): Further experience has shown this figure to be too high , and they modified the program (less exercise, fewer sets) to what is now commonly called the DeLorme technique. They recommended three sets of ten repetitions beginning with 50% of the 10RM, then 75% 10RM, and culminating with 100% 10RM-one maximal set. DeLorme and Watkins were also concerned with the problems of muscular rehabilitation from poliomyelitis. They proposed that two warm-up sets using 50% and 75% 10RM before performing one set of 100% 10RM were applicable for their population of patients. In their book en_title_d Progressive Resistance Exercise (8), they lucidly stated (pages 27-28): By advocating three sets of exercise of 10 repetitions per set, the likelihood that other combinations might be just as effective is not overlooked. Three sets of exercise in which the resistance is increased after each set offers the advantage of warming up the muscle but probably does not contribute toward increasing the muscle strength. By doing 10 repetitions only with the 10RM, strength increases would be approximately the same as when three sets are performed. The validity is also attested to by the fact that many of the strongest athletes never perform more than 10 repetitions for any one exercise. Incredible as it may seem, many athletes have developed great power and yet have never employed more than five repetitions in a single exercise. Do DeLorme and Watkins sound like they advocate a more-is-better philosophy? Does anyone ever read these studies? Do the editors of the ACSM publications ever read the studies that are cited in their journal? Does everyone just drink the ACSM Kool-Aid without question? Barney and Bangerter (3) reported the effects of three different thrice-weekly training programs on knee-extension strength and thigh circumference. Eighty young males were assigned to either Program 1: THE DELORME AND WATKINS TECHNIQUE (1 set of 10 reps using 50% 10RM, 1 set of 10 reps using
... read more »
Favoured: 0
