Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacques_chester | Hacker News Reader

> More immediately, Dr. Davis speculates, re-energized brain cells could behave like mitochondrial-drenched muscle cells, becoming more resistant to fatigue and, since bodily fatigue is partly mediated by signals from the brain, allowing you to withstand more exercise.

This corresponds with the experience of sports scientists and coaches: more highly adapted athletes can withstand more training; and indeed more training is required to disrupt homeostasis in order to create further adaptation.

But it's a diminishing process. A beginning trainee can get strong with 3 sessions, 45 minutes a week, and get linear gains in every single session. An elite-level weightlifter can find themselves spending 6 months on a complicated program to add 5kg to their maximum singles.

View on HN

I've heard of a study that showed that the first set of a strength-building exercise (like bench-pressing) gives one something like 85% of the benefit possible for the session. The 2nd set gets the lifter up into the mid 90s. A 3rd set has almost no affect on overall fitness. More sets risk negative returns. I took that knowledge and started doing one-set per lift (actually one warm-up set with about 50% of the weight I intended to lift followed by the real set). I had positive results while spending much less time and effort.

It's ... more complicated than that.

For example: a beginning trainee can use almost any scheme and make progress.

An advanced trainee: not so much. Their program will need to manipulate intensity, repetitions, volume, density, frequency and exercise mix to continue making gains.

For intermediate to advanced lifters, a good reference is Prilepin's Table, which gives set/rep/totals based on intensity (% of your 1-rep maximum for that exercise).

For example, when I do 95%+ singles, I aim for 6 or 7 singles.

For 90-95% doubles, I aim to do 4-6 sets.

This is pretty unrelated, but since you bring up rep ranges, I figured what the hell.

As I've gotten older (I'm only 22 now, but I started lifting weights when I was 12 so it semi-counts) I've found that I get way more benefit from a bodybuilder style workout. Specifically, rather than work my way up from 5's to triples to singles, I'll do 2-4 sets of 8-15 reps per exercise. I've found that it allows me to target the muscle and avoid strain on my joints.

The reason I bring that up is because I wonder how that compares neurologically to low volume high intensity workouts such as the ones you're doing.

Training for strength has a number of components, but the two ones that matter are, in order:

1. Central nervous system adaptation; developing the ability to recruit the largest muscle fibres, to recruit them more completely and to recruit them faster.

2. Myofibrillar hypertrophy; causing the myofibrils, the structures that generate force, to grow larger. (It's possible to provoke sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which causes fluid build up in muscles -- it grows larger but not stronger).

I am unfamiliar with the physiology of exactly how the CNS produces its adaptations, but I would be surprised if there wasn't measurable effects on the brain, if only the parts related to motor function.

Bodybuilding-style training -- high reps, isolation movements -- is generally easier on the CNS, but has only limited strength development potential.

(For an enlightening read, get a copy of Zatsiorsky & Kramer's Science and Practice of Strength Training 2nd ed).

Resistance training (colloquially "weight lifting") is the most efficient tool for body transformation, regardless of gender, age and goals. Whether you want to gain muscle or lose fat, it gets you there in the shortest amount of time (both time in the gym, and calendar time).

Once you reach your goals, feel free to switch to a more diverse regimen for maintenance.

EDIT: 15-rep sets is not "bodybuilder's workout". It's a waste of time. Either lift heavy, or go outside and do cardio. That in-between never-never land should be avoided.

EDIT2: Let me restate this. Above a certain set length, weight lifting ceases to train strength - which is its main external goal. The opinions differ, but in general the limit is estimated around 10 ... 12: if your set is that long, the weight you're using is too easy. Use heavier loads, so that you cannot do such long sets. In practice, the longest sets that are profitable are 8 reps.

If you're worried about strain and injuries, do warm-ups with 67% the working load - a short set of a few reps at 67%, maybe repeated once if things are really sketchy with your joints, should be enough. Then lift with a powerful, but fluid and controlled motion. Never jerk the weight.

If you are not worried about strain and injuries you are not doing this for very long.

With respect to bodybuilders, high-rep sets provoke sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The muscle doesn't become stronger, but it does become larger. That suits their goals.

A serious bodybuilder doesn't give up heavy work though.

I'm not comfortable with that conclusion.

To make progress, you need to stimulate muscles deeply. One set typically cannot recruit all fibers in the muscle. That's why you do more sets, to fatigue some of them, then recruit the rest in subsequent sets.

To gain strength, you need to lift around 70% ... 90% of your 1RM (one-rep-max - the maximum load that allows the complete execution of exactly one repetition). On the lower end of that spectrum, that means 8 rep sets. On the higher end, that means 3 rep sets.

I'd be fine with doing one set of 8 reps at 70% 1RM. But it just doesn't sound right to only do one set of 3 reps, even if it's 90% 1RM. There's no way you're stimulating the whole muscle. Lots of fibers will remain unrecruited, and will not be pushed to improve.

Perhaps you're stimulating the same muscle with several different exercises during the same session, but then you're not really doing "one set".

All this boils down to: you need around 24 ... 25 reps per exercise to really dig into all fibers. Shorter sets = more sets = higher load. Longer sets = fewer sets = lower load.

For whole body training, this strategy leads to 40 ... 60 minutes required per session to stimulate all major muscles. Given 3 sessions per week, that means 2 ... 3 hours per week of weight lifting. That's not excessive by any means.

Basically, I consider all of the above as the gold standard of whole-body strength training for amateurs. Using these principles (and others) I transformed myself from a pencil-neck into the guy who bench presses 100 kg (220 lb).

A better way to look at it is that 1 hard set gets one most of the benefit that is possible from the exercise. An athlete would definitely want to do 2 or 3 sets (or more depending on level of competition, etc.), but an average person just trying to get into shape or maintain shape doesn't. I went from pencil-neck to bench pressing 215 lbs using the one-hard-set method.

Oh, it will work, no doubt, just at less than the ideal speed. Such a minimalist program was espoused by Mike Mentzer, one of the great bodybuilders of past decades. But his views are not considered mainstream.

I agree that a full 24 ... 25 reps (3x8, 8x3, 5x5, etc.) program is not required for maintenance only.

To get into shape... well, I guess it depends on the temperament. I'm inclined to achieve the goal as quickly as possible, then focus on something else. Hence my previous reply.

Without wanting to sound rude, you were a beginner.

Training programs for beginners are notoriously effective. I could bring a beginner's squat max up by making them walk up hills.

One of the major problems with the scientific literature on weight training is that it tends to take untrained males of college-attending age and then do dippy stuff to them. And then, surprise! The weird training protocol works! The happy researcher concludes that their pet theory is proved.

But as I say, beginners can be trained with almost anything and improved. So one might as well get them used to what they will need to do as an intermediate or advanced trainee and teach them to squat, deadlift, bench, overhead press and (in my case) the snatch and C&J.

The fact that strength athletes do not follow this regime - powerlifters, Olympic-style weightlifters, strong-man and bodybuilders - should give you pause. What should give you further pause is that people who use strength training as a supplement to their main sport also don't follow this regime.

I was talking about getting into shape, not competing in the Olympics. If you could get into good shape doing one hard set per lift, wouldn't that make more sense than spending 2 to 3 times the effort in the gym? It's all about goals. I don't lift weights to get huge or compete in anything. I lift for functional strength and weight loss. Others may benefit from knowing that they don't have to spend an hour or more in the gym to get impressive results.

Then the points the others brought up become relevant. If you're not in shape and have done no prior strength training, any strength training you do will have results.

I think it makes perfect sense. Especially when you take into account, that anyone can do 6 months of strength training but doing it forever all your life without pause is quite hard at least for me.

Yes, that would make sense. Take into account though that for many people most of their gym time is overhead, especially if they don't have equipment at home. A large % of time is taken up by getting to and from the gym, getting changed, taking a shower, setting up the right weights on the bar and doing warm-ups, cool-downs & stretching. Because of this, adding an extra set doesn't mean that you'll take 2-3 times as long in total. Determining whether the faster gains you get from doing the additional sets are worth the marginal time depends on a number of factors. If you have plenty of time available for workouts, then do the 2-3 sets and reach your goals faster, if your time is extremely constrained, then the extra 20 minutes per workout might not be worth it

I've read relatively widely in the exercise, weightlifting, and strength training literature. It didn't take long for me to notice that these fields are plagued by fads and contradictory opinions and advice. It's almost as bad as nutritional advice or programming.

For any given action which is physically possible, you're likely to find someone shouting from the rooftops that it's the greatest or only way to train, and someone else reviling it as either worthless or even detrimental. Quite often both contradictory positions have huge numbers of fans.

Sports are great because they have built in metrics. Pay attention to the people who do well.

There's surprisingly little disagreement in the sports where strength is the key quality. There's argument about exercise selection and rotation, some dispute about programming and so forth. But everyone knows you need to frequently lift >85% of your 1RM, and everyone does.

However, the strength sports are different. Powerlifting requires training for maximum force production. Weightlifting requires training for rate of force production. Strongman requires training for strength endurance. These are three related but distinct physical qualities, and naturally, specialists in these sports train differently. To the amateur eye it can seem confusing and there's a temptation to declare that one of these is "best" and that other methods are dumb.

Otherwise, most of the fad arguments take place in bodybuilding, where the degree of physiological literacy is ... lower, on average.

Explosive power, sheer strength and endurance. It's important to remember they are not the same; thank you for bringing that up.

Bodybuilding is also the only one that I don't really consider a "sport." It's a beauty contest. I think the prevalence of fads is higher because there's no objective performance metric.

While I share your suspicion that anything requiring judges to give a score is probably not a sport, if there's one thing bodybuilders and "fitness" models are masters at, it's manipulating water retention. They've got it down to a dangerously scary fine art.

... on the not-so-glorious side of the ledger, they probably know more about steroids than anyone short of an ex-East German sports scientist.

Actually, I think wrestlers may be just as good at manipulating water weight. The biggest difference being that wrestler have to compete soon after, and if they didn't cut properly, they'll become exhausted during their match and get mauled.

Of course they don't. According to skittles claim, performance is still maximized with 3 sets. It is merely performance/effort which is maximized with one set.

A weekend warrior may wish to optimize performance/effort, but a serious athlete must optimize performance.

"Performance" is a variable metric. And not looking towards the best people in a field for guidance because you don't want to attain their level of achievement is, I think, misguided. If you don't do that, then you risk being taken in by charlatans.

This is broscience. A couple position papers from reputable sources (NSCA, NCSM) directly contradict this, the first based on a meta-analysis:

http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Single%20vs%20Mul...

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2009/03000/Progre...

Aside from the fact that the tradeoff with doing 1 set is actually much less performance improvement long-term, the main problem with this idea is that it just doesn't take all that much time to bust out 3 sets vs 1 set of something, at least for the more critical, whole body exercises (squat, deadlift, bench, chin, row, clean...)

Factoring in generalized warmup, cool-down, travel to the gym, getting changed in and out of exercise clothes, showering, etc - you're talking about a 10-15 extra minutes of training in order achieve substantially greater gains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com