Strength training set organisation and its relationship to the development of muscular strength have yet to be clearly defined. Current meta-analytical research suggests that different population groups have distinctive muscular adaptations, primarily due to the prescription of the strength training set dose.
We conducted a meta-analysis with restrictive inclusion criteria and examined the potential effects of low (LWS), medium (MWS) or high weekly set (HWS) strength training on muscular strength per exercise. Secondly, we examined strength gain variations when performing multi-joint or isolation exercises, and probed for a potential relationship between weekly set number and stage of subjects’ training (trained versus untrained).
Computerised searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, SWETSWISE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus™ using the terms ‘strength training’, ‘resistance training’, ‘single sets’, ‘multiple sets’ and ‘volume’. As of September 2016, 6962 potentially relevant studies were identified. After review, nine studies were deemed eligible per pre-set inclusion criteria. Primary data were pooled using a random-effect model. Outcomes for strength gain, strength gain with multi-joint and isolation exercise were analysed for main effects. Sensitivity analyses were calculated for several subgroups by separating the data set and by calculation of separate analyses for each subgroup. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q and I 2 statistics.
Pre- versus post-training strength analysis comprised 61 treatment groups from nine studies. For combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, pre- versus post- training strength gains were greater with HWS compared with LWS [mean effect size (ES) 0.18; 95% CI 0.06–0.30; p = 0.003]. The mean ES for LWS was 0.82 (95% CI 0.47–1.17). The mean ES for HWS was 1.01 (95% CI 0.70–1.32). Separate analysis of the effects of pre- versus post-training strength for LWS or MWS observed marginally greater strength gains with MWS compared with LWS (ES 0.15; 95% CI 0.01–0.30; p = 0.04). The mean ES for LWS was 0.83 (95% CI 0.53–1.13). The mean ES for MWS was 0.98 (95% CI 0.62–1.34). For multi-joint exercises, greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.18; 95% CI 0.01–0.34; p = 0.04). The mean ES for LWS was 0.81 (95% CI 0.65–0.97). The mean ES for HWS was 1.00 (95% CI 0.77–1.23). For isolation exercises, greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.23; 95% CI 0.06–0.40; p = 0.008). The mean ES for LWS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.30–1.60). The mean ES for HWS was 1.10 (95% CI 0.26–1.94). For multi-joint and isolation exercise-specific one repetition maximum (1 RM), marginally greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.14; 95% CI −0.01 to 0.29; p = 0.06). The mean ES for LWS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.47–1.13). The mean ES for HWS was 0.97 (95% CI 0.68–1.26).
This meta-analysis presents additional evidence regarding a graded dose–response relationship between weekly sets performed and strength gain. The use of MWS and HWS was more effective than LWS, with LWS producing the smallest pre- to post-training strength difference. For novice and intermediate male trainees, the findings suggest that LWSs do not lead to strength gains compared with MWS or HWS training. For those trainees in the middle ground, not a novice and not advanced, the existing data provide a relationship between weekly sets and strength gain as set configurations produced different pre- to post-training strength increases. For well trained individuals, the use of either MWS or HWS may be an appropriate dose to produce strength gains.
Humburg H, Baars H, Schroder J, et al. 1 set vs. 3 set resistance training: a crossover study. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(2):578–82. PubMed
Kelly SB, Brown LE, Coburn JW, et al. The effect of single versus multiple sets on strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1003–6. PubMed
Wolfe BL, Lemura LM, Cole PJ. Quantitative analysis of single vs. multiple set programs in resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(1):35–47. PubMed
Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose–response relationship. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):377–82. PubMed
Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, et al. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–59. PubMedCrossRef
Otto RM, Carpinelli RN. The critical analysis of the single versus multiple set debate. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2006;9(1):32–57.
Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, et al. Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(4):525–9. PubMed
Carpinelli RN. Critical review of a meta-analysis for the effect of single and multiple sets of resistance training on strength gains. Med Sport. 2012;16(3):122–30. CrossRef
Cochran W. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10(1):101–29. CrossRef
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Ostrowski KJ, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R, et al. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:148–54.
Paulsen G, Myklestad D, Raastad T. The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):115–20. PubMed
Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, et al. Dose–response of 1, 3 and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular endurance and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;29(5):1349–58. CrossRef
Bottaro M, Veloso J, de Salle BF, et al. Early phase adaptations of single vs. multiple sets of strength training on upper and lower body strength gains. Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2009;17:207–12.
American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687–708. CrossRef
Fisher J. Beware the meta-analysis: is multiple set training really better than single set training for muscle hypertrophy? J Exerc Physiol. 2012;15(6):23–30.
Sale DG. Neuromuscular function. In: Tarnopolsky MA, editor. Gender differences in metabolism. New York: CRC Press; 1999. p. 61–85.
Chorney K, Bourgeois J. Gender differences in skeletal muscle histology and ultrastructure. In: Tarnopolsky MA, editor. Gender differences in metabolism. New York: CRC Press; 1999. p. 37–59.
Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, et al. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(6):964–72. PubMed
Baechle TR, Earle RW, Wathen D. Resistance training. In: Baechle TR, Earle RW, editors. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.; 2008. p. 414–56.
- The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis
Grant W. Ralston
Frank B. Wyatt
Julien S. Baker
- Springer International Publishing
Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Mail Icon II