Single set per muscle workout

Is there any meat to this? Seems like hokey BS to me.
However, I saw an interview with Dorian Yates and he said it was the way to go and “glad the science has caught up to what I was saying 30-40 years ago.”
Huh? He did one set per muscle workouts? I thought his reputation was “out work” everyone to win.
I get that bodybuilders aren’t to be compared to normal people.

So, if one were to try this would you do upper body one day, lower the next, day off?
I’m very confused, and highly doubtful, but part of the fun of lifting is to keep trying new things.
Thoughts?

 

I hadn't heard of this until now but, like you, it sounds wrong. A quick search and I see discussion that 1 set is better than 0 sets so it is probably good advice for those just starting out. For hypertrophy it appears about 12 total sets per week with moderate loads is optimal for gains. With that information, maybe he was implying that you should do 1 set for each muscle group during each daily workout and likely on top of your focus area for the day. There is a little research in that area reaching similar conclusions, you get gains by working a muscle frequently. Note that they aren't saying high performance lifters get more gains, they appear to be talking about regular people.

SO, I am sticking with BS on this one.

 

Yeah. I’m thinking it falls into the camp of “Sounds too good to be true.”
I’d love to hear Maximus’ take on it too.

 

As with most ‘ ideas’ and ‘concepts’ in the fitness industry, very few have a valid scientific reasoning behind it…..
HOWEVER, Dorian’s words have often been misunderstood.
When he was talking about “ 1 set” he is referring to 1 set to absolute and complete failure.
His warm up sets were often more brutal then most sets to failure of most trainees.
Yes he wasn’t big on volume training, as we’re seeing with most trainers and the research seems t back it up, but he did work his ass off.

Another minor, but oh not so minor detail, is that he is a genetic wonder. 99.999999% of everyone else going to the gym isn’t.
He would grow an amazing physique no matter what his training style would be.

 

For a decade plus, I have been hitting each muscle group 1X per week in a push/pull/legs format. It kept me fresh and injury free, but the gains were stubborn. I happened upon a Huberman podcast featuring Dr. Andy Galpin and turns out the “science” is decisive. For max gains, each body part must be hit 2X per week with 15-20 “working sets”. I started this 3 weeks ago, and I am already cruising through previous plateaus in every movement. I’m alternating a “strength (or heavy)” session with a “volume (or light)” session. Best of all, I am avoiding injury, as I have backed way off my usual intensity and am now leaving 1-2 in the pocket on every set.

Here’s an example of plateaus being crushed. For my third exercise on my light push day, I did flat bench press with a football bar (Swiss bar) for 3 sets of 12/12/10. I ran out of gas on the last set. The next time a cycled through 9 days later, I was targeting 13/13/13 for a progressive overload. I did 13/13 and then decided to use up all my in pocket reps on the 3rd, set and ended up hitting 28 reps. It was astonishing. I’m a mature lifter, in my 50’s, with a couple decades of training, and I have never seen anything like that before.

Another tweak I made based on that podcast series is I am lifting fasted at 5:00am. Turns out, there’s no downside to fasted lifting in the AM. I don’t even do coffee. I just wake up and roll. It’s so much more efficient to get lifting out of the way for the day. It takes 50-65 minutes for me depending on my workout.

It’s a 6 part series and it’s about 25 hours of total deep dive into everything fitness related.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kqQixRSTOupaGLB22Ey7c?si=IzYNrxKvROewVU-XOOq6PQ

 

Although I’m no Huberman……… But he’s also NOT an experienced weight lifter/exercise expert!
Having said that, what Huberman does, is quite good as he condenses a lot of research into several very good general pointers.
However, these are general recommendations; especially aimed at weekend warriors and beginners. Once you become advanced, you need to change things a bit and get more specific.
I would absolutely suggest listening to Layne Norton and Dr Mike Israetel, whom are both doctors as well, but in the nutrition and exercise field specific; bot hhave actually been quoted and interviewed by Huberman!
Especially Dr Mike can explain very, very candid the science behind periodization (ramping up volume and leaving reps in the tank).

The science is indeed clear these days that training more frequent yields ‘ better’ results when training once a week. Especially for athletes that don’t use performance enhancing drugs (PEDS).
Your body simply get’s a more frequent stimulus.

Things get a bit more person specific on what that growth stimulus is per workout. Some need as little as 2 sets (as that’s what some research suggests) and some need up to 10 sets to get a growth stimulus. You need to figure that out yourself.
The 15-20 sets per muscle group is a bit over reach for various muscle groups like biceps, triceps, shoulders.
2x a week 15-20 sets is simply torture.

The biggest reason why you are experiencing these amazing gains is that you have radically altered your training style and volume.
This is no magic system or hack.
Sorry.
Your body will adapt quickly in the next few weeks.

I do wish you a life time/long time of these gains, but they will go away as quickly as they appeared.

Does this make your new system ‘ better’ then your previous one?
Perhaps not; it’s simply different.

One clear lesson you have learned is that you should switch styles perhaps more often.
How often is up to you, once you see diminished returns/enjoyment, simply switch.
This is also supposed to be a hobby (which you should enjoy a bit).

Leaving 1-2 sets in the tank also seems to become a more and more viable strategy for training long term. One I wished I did adapt many decades ago……
Training balls to the wall was what it was back in the day and so we did. It broke many a lifter….

It’s good to see that we have a lot of training myths debunked these days by actual scientists.
There however still remains a large majority of training wisdoms that neither proven nor debunked.
You need to figure those out for yourself as it’s your specific body.

Training fasted has fortunately been debunked as being “ better for fat loss” . It’s not.
Training for fatloss fasted or after a meal yielded the exact same results.

Now many and most experts will fight you on your quote that training fasted will yield similar results.
We have many hormones that will react and respond to your current state.
GLUT4 releases during a workout that will accelerate to push protein into muscles.
Carbohydrates will illicit an insulin response which dampen the rise in cortisol.
MTOR rises after a sufficient protein meal; which is a powerful anabolic signaler.
Etc, etc.
But hey, if YOU feel best when training fasted, simply do it.
Try training before or after a meal and feel what works best.

I genuingely happy for you that at your age, you can still enjoy newbie gains and experience a new found love of lifting!
You won

 

Nice post @Maximus1973, thank you. So many things to comment on.

I probably have another set in the tank most of the time but I generally push to 90%. Good or bad it is kind of how I am wired. Deload times it is hard to restrain myself.

I don't like to eat before lifting, it makes my stomach squeezy. I try to eat well during the day so I have gas in the tank, I lift around 17:00 each day. But I don't eat within probably 2 hours before lifting. I do eat soon after lifting.

Agreed that changing up the routine makes for gains. We try to mix it up regularly, some options for people are: new forms, new/different machines, drop sets (different form, same muscle), pyramid up or down (same form), volume, 5-3-1-1-1 to push the max, different sequences, partial reps, pause reps, pumps during reps, etc. There are 1000 things someone can do to mix it up and all produce gains because the muscles don't become accustomed to the same old routine (we adapt quickly).

I am glad for this thread and those that contribute. It is fun to see others pushing for gains and having fun.

 

Eating 2 hours before a workout is for most actually best.
When we eat right before a workout, our intestines have to process that food. Causing blood flow and energy not directed to our working muscles.
This causes inefficient food processing and workout.

But as with everything, the take away is do work feels best for you.

 

Appreciate the response and thanks for the feedback. I should probably offer a couple key clarifications.

First, Huberman is a neuroscientist who works out. Smart dude, but I doubt he knows more about training than you do. In fairness, he never offers himself up as expert at anything other than Neuroscience and Ophthalmology. He was interviewing Dr. Andy Galpin who is a published academic and someone who trains Olympic, MLB, NFL, etc athletes. Galpin was the one who detailed the latest settled science on frequency, sets, and reps. He’s triple sharp and has an encyclopedic understanding of literally everything exercise science related. I listened to the 25 hour podcast series and was blown away. He debunked dozens of tired myths.

Second, the 15-20 “working sets” is total per WEEK, not total per WORKOUT. My oversight for not making that point clear. Also, Galpin mentioned that you can back off arms and shoulders as those groups get tons of secondary work. For the last decade, I was only getting in 9-12 “working sets” per week. Killing my muscle with massive intensity, going to failure on nearly every set. Now, I doubling my frequency and doubling my “working sets” weekly while pulling back the intensity slightly. Those changes have unlocked the new adaptations. That said, I will likely miss my “old school” approach, but this new approach is better solution for he 50+ lifter.

Third, I don’t lift fasted for any reason other than it’s more efficient for my lifestyle, especially now that I am doubling the amount times I lift per week. I could care less about any relationship to fat loss. In truth, about the only way to create conditions for fat loss is through a persistent caloric deficit. Dr. Galpin described in detail the metabolic events that occur lifting while fasted, and he said that for his highly trained athletes, they don’t see any performance downsides. Not being able to throw the same weight was my primary concern about lifting fasted. Galpin said it was perfectly fine. I tried it. I performed as expected. I became a convert to the fasted life. Wake up. Lift immediately for 60 minutes. Get it out of the way for the entire day. That said, if I was training for a powerlifting competition, I would likely settle in on a different program schedule.

Final point, I totally agree that everyone is unique and will respond differently to different stimulus.

 

What's not to love about Huberman. One of the few scientist that's able to make hardcore science applealing and understandable to most people. I frequenstly listen to his clips and interviews. I have to admit I didn't listen to this particular podcast with Dr Andy. So my comments were a bit rough about just Huberman and not Dr Andy.

The p;oints mentioned by both Huberman and Dr Andy are indeed based on the latest, but still very limited reseatch. It's still mind blowiong there is so little actuall good research on waht "the best" training methodology is. In fact we might never get that specific information whcih is why Dr Andy and Huberman talk about the "general training and volume guidelines". Those are good enough for the vast majority of people going to the gym.

On this forum we also don't discuss "regular" cars. So my forte also isn't general training methods yet those would be enough for the general public. I'd like to go a bit deeper into the subject and optimize things a bit more. Which is also why probably the majority of the readers/posters flock here.

On the volume subject, I also think the vast readers/posters here, vast majority of 'older' lifters basically stuck with what "we have been always told" about training frequency and intensity.
"Simply go in and try to destroy your msucles as best as you can. Get massive muscle pains the days after and simply wait a few more days to starting destroying that muslce again. We didn't know any better as that was the "way to go".

I was no different to you, Skidkid or most working out. Too much volume and intensity per session and not enough weekly volume.I would say that's one of the biggest, sadly also one of the few, real training research breakthroughs of the last few years.
It's not only a style better suited for us 'older' lifters, but probably for the vast majority that isn't blessed with Mr Olympia type genetics.

That also applies to "you have to eat every 2-3 hours to keep your protein elevated and metabolism going". It made sense at the time, yet has absolutely been debunked.

Training fasted or doing any kind of temp eating window (intermitted fasting) has yielded no better or worse results with people trying to loose weight. The caloric deficit is what mattered in the end.
However, as with any activity or diet. You simply have to find out what works and feels best for you.
Don't feel like eating before your training, then don't. If it works best for you, then that's the best way to go by it.
I'm the opposite in that I can't eat up to one hour after my workouts.

There is always "good, better, best" in terms of strict scientific principles. So eating before a workout is on paper the best way to go about it.
Yet if that, in real life where it really matters, you don't feel good. That scientific sound principle don't stick.

That's the true take away here from this discussion.
Find what works best for you within certian broad parameters.
Don't follow blindly someone's advice. Simply test it out and see if it makes you feel better or worse.
That applies to training and nutrition.
This is a great discussion thread!

 

Ok guys, I have a really dumb question I’ve been afraid to ask.
What does it really mean to hit a muscle 2X/week?
If I do chest on a Monday as part of a 4 on 1 off routine I’ll hit chest again on Saturday. So that muscle group is being hit twice within 7 days, even though my second cycle extends beyond a week.
Or does it mean that you do 2 full routine cycles within one week? Like 3 on 1 off, and repeat?

 

You are correct.
Muscle growth is ‘better’ when you train a muscle twice (or more per week).
You do have to adjust your volume per session so that you are recovered from session 1 to session 2.

 

Ideal would be Push/Pull/Legs (PPL) twice with 1 day off. To get 15-20 full quality “working sets” per muscle group per week into 6 workouts is not easy if you are 1). trying to be economical with your time, 2). trying to fully recover between workouts. On my “heavy day” (lower reps) I tend to take 2-3 min between sets, and on my “light day” (higher reps) I tend to take 60 seconds between sets. I am trying to get in and out in 60 minutes or less with a high quality warm-up that takes around 10-12 minutes to complete. I can make it all work because I don’t target shoulders (except rear delts) and I don’t go crazy with arm work. I feel like both those muscle groups get tons of secondary work from the primary upper body movements. Plus, I want to take some risk of injury/tendinitis off the table.

For me, the extra volume has been revolutionary. Trading intensity (working to failure) for volume has been a game changer. Again, everyone responds differently to different inputs. For the first time in a decade, I feel like I might have a chance at chasing down some of the PR’s from my 20’s when I was 297 lbs and my entire life revolved around pushing metal.

 

There are no dumb questions. I assumed it was 2x in every 7 day period. Your routing is slightly less than that but not by much. You are 2x in any 10 day period so the results should still be good.

Notice I assumed but didn't know. Your question was excellent clarification. Thanks

 

I currently am trying a new workout cycle Jay Cutler talked about, he says he now does this as he is hitting the 50+ year old workout issues. I have found that at age 58 the push-pull-leg was a) making joints hurt and b) not allowing enough recovery for me. I am convinced for my genetics I get more gains with allowing a little more rest time in between workouts. I push to failure on pretty much 90+% of my sets (by failure I mean I know I cannot get another rep). I’m also in this for the long game and trying to a) remain healthy and b) enjoying being in the gym into my 80’s. I have no specific short or medium-term goals.

DAY MUSCLE GROUP (sets)
1 Shoulder: anterior press, lateral (5 each = 10)
Triceps (6)
2 Back: pull down, rows, posterior delt, traps (4 each = 16)
3 Off
4 Chest: flat, slight incline, regular incline, fly (3, 3, 2, 2 = 10)
Biceps (6)
5 Legs: hack squat, press (5, 5 = 10)
Calves (6)
Abdominals
6 Off
Repeat (each muscle group then gets repeated on 7th day since last workout)

I’ll give this about 10 months or so before switching to something else.

 

But 2 full routines in a 7 day period means your body part is getting hit again in about 3 days, not 7. This is why I find the terminology confusing. Why would your pec care if your quad is getting exercised (apart from general metabolic load and hormone triggering)?
If you just did your pec every 5 days, and nothing else, wouldn’t your pec grow maximally? If doing it every 3rd day it would average almost 3x/week.

 

The pushing to failure 90% of the time is what causes the slow recovery. I was doing the same, except maybe even worse. I was doing forced reps, drop sets, rest/pause sets, and overloaded negatives. I was destroying my CNS with every workout. I moved away from all that intensity and traded it for a more sets (leaving a rep or two in the pocket). I replaced it with more frequency and volume. I am now hitting the same groups TWICE as often, but not nearly as hard. I am able to recover effectively. Here’s the part that doesn’t make any sense, I am adding muscle AND strength which is strange because I have done neither in the last decade. I am actually going to have to make further adjustments because I am back up to 270lbs which is more than I want to carry at my age. Last point, Jay Cutler is a total freak with unmatched genetics and high-level pharmacological assistance!

 

I am headed out of town for a couple of weeks but will post up a weeks workout schedule when I get a chance. We mix it up constantly, every workout, but it will give you an idea of what we are doing.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood the routine. I agree that any given muscle doesn't care if the other is worked. Keep us updated on how it is going.

There is a max imbalance in musculature that your body will sustain. If you just work the chest it will plateau and not grow until the rest can support the work. At least that is my experience. So yes, any given muscle doesn't care about the others but only to a certain degree. I am sure you have this experience already so I will shut up now.

 

With all due respect, and someone that knows Jay pretty good.
Don’t follow routine’s of someone that is a genetic anomoly. Jay can make results by just stairing at a dumbell.
There is inherently nothing wrong with push-pull-legs. In fact, there is nothing wrong with any other routine, it’s simply how you apply various volume and intensity principles.
You can easy train leggs, chest, whatever each and every day if you make volume and intensity adjustments.
Age and longevity have nothing to do with that.

As with most routine’s try to make weekly small adjustments. Be it volume, rest times, weight used, etc.
It keeps you ‘ fresh’ and you can actively decrease wear and tear.

 

Again, you can train each muscle every day if you made adjustments. 2x per week is sufficient for most non-professional athletes. But you could do more if you managed volume and intensity. You know best what you can handle and recover from.
7 days a week is a man made time interval. Your body follow’s it’s own path. Have a try with increasing training volume but lowering intensity.
The notion that legg training increases anabolic hormones is also very much so debunked.
Yes, you get a rise in testosterone and GH, however that spike it so short it does absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. Watch a sports match with your favorite team and the rise is more significant!

 

Absolutely. This was the way everyone trained. Push to failure and go beyond. No pain no gain.
This is on eof the gretest myths, that has now been debunked. You don’t need to train until you are crippled. It robs you of your recovery and thus compensation AND introduces wear and tear in years to come. Just watch Ronnie Coleman if you want an exreme example.
The better gains not only come from the radically adjusted program, but also because it seems you were taxing your CNS too much and are fnaly recovering. But perhaps even so because you are enyoing working out more and that exitement is what sparks even more results.

Yes, never compare yourself with geneticx freaks let alone when someone is on anabolic steroids. Once you do both, just discard all of the above advice and simply go nuts in the gym and get bigger as you wake up the next day!