What the hell? Sets don’t matter?

Just saw this paper.

Journal of Applied Physiology

Seems to indicate that similar gains in strength as measured by increases in 1 rep max were acheieved with 2 groups, one of which did a single set at 80% 1RM to failure and a group that did 3 sets to failure.  I need to spend more time reading the paper, but I wanted to share it with others to see if others wanted to read it as well.

Here’s the money plot:

Screen Shot 2016-11-14 at 3.02.30 PM.png

4 thoughts on “What the hell? Sets don’t matter?

    • gregsmith01748 says:

      That made me laugh out loud. Here’s the text that goes along with the figure.

      471 Figure 3. Knee extension Strength. (A) The maximal load which could be lifted prior to training and
      472 after 10 weeks of training. *Significantly greater than prior to training (P<0.05). † Significantly greater
      473 than the 3-set at 30% of 1RM condition. (B) Single leg isometric knee extension torque before and after
      474 10 weeks of training. *Significantly greater then prior to training (P<0.05). N=12 legs in each
      475 condition.


  1. stelph82 says:

    Interesting outcome, I think it makes sense that reps to failure results in the same amount of gain for max output irrespective of 1 set or 3 sets, however its a shame that the study didnt look into time/number of reps to failure compared to 1 set/3 sets – I would imagine that doing 3 sets would improve the time to failure and so would help build the muscle endurance that would also be useful as well as max output

    Although still stand with my position that weight lifting is relatively small part of rowing fast compared to other parts of training 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s