BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 04-21-2017, 01:14 PM
fpena911 fpena911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 47
Default

I have one of his books where he talks about the one-set principle. The thing you have to remember is that it wasn't really "one set" like we would think it is.

He actually outlined the need for several warm-up sets that build up to your one set. So in many ways he was talking about pyramiding where you start with a % of your max and build up to the one set maximum.

So yeah this could work if you go balls out on the last set and make sure your warm up sets are not too light for you.
  #12  
Unread 04-21-2017, 05:29 PM
nsteel nsteel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 52
Default

Brian Haycock, conceiver of HST supports 1 working set per exercise and is able to cite credible evidence.

Let me pose the following question.

Which of the following individuals would have the biggest legs:

Individual A who squats 1 set of 5 reps with 500 lbs.

Individual B who squats 4 sets of 10 reps with 80 lbs.
  #13  
Unread 04-21-2017, 07:35 PM
squat squat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsteel View Post
Brian Haycock, conceiver of HST supports 1 working set per exercise and is able to cite credible evidence.

Let me pose the following question.

Which of the following individuals would have the biggest legs:

Individual A who squats 1 set of 5 reps with 500 lbs.

Individual B who squats 4 sets of 10 reps with 80 lbs.
Is that your evidence?
  #14  
Unread 04-22-2017, 03:20 AM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsteel View Post
Brian Haycock, conceiver of HST supports 1 working set per exercise and is able to cite credible evidence.

Let me pose the following question.

Which of the following individuals would have the biggest legs:

Individual A who squats 1 set of 5 reps with 500 lbs.

Individual B who squats 4 sets of 10 reps with 80 lbs.
But this is working simply on the basic principle that the best routine is the one that allows you to progress.

Of course, if a "one work set" routine enabled you to reach 5 reps at 300lbs, whereas your conventional routine had you stuck permanently at a number of higher rep sets at 150lbs, you're going to have achieved greater hypertrophy on the former.

But this is a big "if", and sadly, more often than not, people seem to be doing a good job of spinning their wheels on both types of routine.

The idea that somebody is going to rapidly reverse their fortunes by switching up is a fallacy of the highest proportions. And yet, such arguments have been the essence of T-Nation (etc) articles for years.

Honestly speaking, if somebody is able to make immense gains on a one work set routine, then that same person would almost certainly have done just fine (and no worse) on a conventional 5 set routine.

And conversely, if somebody can't progress on a 5 set routine, fat chance he's going to go anywhere with Haycock's HST.

Realism. The first rule in bodybuilding.
  #15  
Unread 04-22-2017, 03:24 AM
FistOfFury FistOfFury is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78
Default

Bryan hasn't supported 1 set (accept beginners) for since at least 10-15 years. Check the HST faq and his FLEX online articles.

Mentzer did 6-8 sets to failure @ 2 times a week during his competitive days. His routine from this time is easy to find online. (google mentzer's most productive routine). His training was MUCH closer to Lyle's GBR than any Heavy Duty HIT routine.
  #16  
Unread 04-22-2017, 04:13 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

You're not looking for an answer, just validation. Go nuts with 1 set a day/week/fortnight/leap year. No one cares.
  #17  
Unread 04-22-2017, 04:14 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
Add enough drugs and the training stops mattering. And hell, Mentzer got beaten by Arnold who did 20 sets per bodypart. Ergo, volume>HIT

Mentzer was attempting ot use 'logic' to define training. He started from Randian 'There must be a single valid way' which is negated by the fact that too many different approahces work and then logiced that only by going to 100% could you ENSURE you had stimulated growth. Which is doubly nonsense. And even Jone's original HIT was more like 9 sets/week.

By the end Mentzer was recommending one set every 2 weeks.

Lemme know how that works for you.
Mentzer was a junkie pseudophilosopher, kinda like Kai Greene + copious amounts of cocaine.
  #18  
Unread 04-22-2017, 07:46 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsteel View Post
Brian Haycock, conceiver of HST supports 1 working set per exercise and is able to cite credible evidence.

Let me pose the following question.

Which of the following individuals would have the biggest legs:

Individual A who squats 1 set of 5 reps with 500 lbs.

Individual B who squats 4 sets of 10 reps with 80 lbs.
Your comparison is as moronic as the people who compare a 315 overhead press to a 35 lb lateral raise. It's a stupid I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post.I need to read the rules post. strawman

And Haycock might allow for 1 work set PER workout. But multiple workouts per week. And multiple exercises per bodypart I suspect.

Hint; that's more than one set every 2 weeks like Mentzer was advocating at the end there.

But clearly you have already made up your mind. Go be happy, my son. And do NOT ask questions when you don't give a damn what anybody has to say about it.
  #19  
Unread 04-22-2017, 07:47 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by w1cked View Post
You're not looking for an answer, just validation. Go nuts with 1 set a day/week/fortnight/leap year. No one cares.
The OP must just remember that his lack of results are due to 'genetics' and not 'stupid training'.
  #20  
Unread 04-22-2017, 11:08 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 800
Default

Mentzer is wrong

/end

J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1150-9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d436.
Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis.
Krieger JW1.
Author information
Abstract

Previous meta-analyses have compared the effects of single to multiple sets on strength, but analyses on muscle hypertrophy are lacking. The purpose of this study was to use multilevel meta-regression to compare the effects of single and multiple sets per exercise on muscle hypertrophy. The analysis comprised 55 effect sizes (ESs), nested within 19 treatment groups and 8 studies. Multiple sets were associated with a larger ES than a single set (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.04; confidence interval [CI]: 0.02, 0.19; p = 0.016). In a dose-response model, there was a trend for 2-3 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.09 +/- 0.05; CI: -0.02, 0.20; p = 0.09), and a trend for 4-6 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.20 +/- 0.11; CI: -0.04, 0.43; p = 0.096). Both of these trends were significant when considering permutation test p values (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between 2-3 sets per exercise and 4-6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.10; CI: -0.09, 0.30; p = 0.29). There was a tendency for increasing ESs for an increasing number of sets (0.24 for 1 set, 0.34 for 2-3 sets, and 0.44 for 4-6 sets). Sensitivity analysis revealed no highly influential studies that affected the magnitude of the observed differences, but one study did slightly influence the level of significance and CI width. No evidence of publication bias was observed.

In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.