Body of Evidence

Over the past 30 years, more than 40 studies have compared the strength-building efects of one set with those of two and three sets. Some research favored two or three sets, and some showed that one set was superior, but the vast majority of the studies reveales no significant differences between doin one set and doing multiple sets. They were all equally effective. If that were truly the case, then one setwins simply because it requires less time. But of course, for all the across-the-board comparisons to make sense, all the studies would have had to apply a similar repetition protocol ( which thye didn't ) and define failure identically ( which they didn't ). So let's look at the theoretical reason that one set should work just as well as multiple sets. Muscle-fiber recruitment. A muscle group is composed of thousands and thousands of individual fivers. These fivers work together, of course, but are also programmed to fatigue at different rates. That's why thery're classified as slow, intermediate ,or fast. During a set of an exercise, the slow-twitch (type 1I) fivers are activated first. They are joined by the fast twitch (type IIa ) fibers, which have much less endurance that that of type I. As the type IIa fast-twitch fivers fatigue, they are replaced by the type IIb fast-twitch fibers, which will have even less endurance. When the type IIb fibers tire, the muscle is no longer able to finish the repetition, and the set must be stopped. There's definitely an ordering to the recruitment of muscle bibers during a set. And the ordering is genetic and not subject to change. What happens if, after several minutes of rest, you perform a second set? Are different fivers involved? No. Teh same muscle fivers applied in the first set are again recruited in the same order duriing the second set. In other words, the stimulus is identical for one set, two sets, or even 10 sets. If you can stimulate maximu growth from one set-which you can- a second set merely uses up some of your valuable reovery ability. As a resul, muscular growth is limited. Animal examples. Need more proof you ask, thought you would say that. So the proof of value of being intense, brief exercise? The next time your at a large zoo, take a close look at the biggest male lion and the largest male gorilla. According to Arthur Jones, ( Expert on Gorillas ) an adult male lion can get overa 10 foot high fence with a 500 pound cow in his mouth. A mature 400-500 pound gorilla can perform a one-armed chinup so easily that he appears to weigh nothing. A wrist that measures more than 8 inches on a man is huge, yet a 400- pound gorilla wrists measures more thatn 13 inches. The gorilla's neck, which in my opinion was his most impressive body part, stretched the tape to 33 inches. Yet, according to animal experts, lions and gorillas, even in the wild, perform almost no hard physical activity. But when they do work, they go at it with 100 percent intensity. The activity is hard, brief, and infrequent. Here's how Jones the animal expert once put it : " I suspect that if you exercised a lion or a gorilla as much as many bodybuilders train you would probably kill them, and it is certainly obvious that they do not need that much exercise. Neither do you: and even if you can stand it, it does not follow that you need it. P.S This is something for you to think and decide whats best for you, this is just my unde