Is One Set Enough?

 Many people think that “progressive weight training” is simply using more weight — rather than considering all the variables. Number one is considering range of motion. The early bodybuilders were very adamant that one had to begin their movement from the greatest stretch possible — and then move into the fullest contraction possible, and alternate that change of muscular state as “one repetition.” But when one thinks that all that matters is how much weight one loads the bar/machine up to and then proceeds to move only a few inches by adjusting the leverage rather than by muscle change — and not going anywhere close to the fullest relaxation and fullest contraction — that manner of performance explains why they don’t achieve favorable benefits from all their “exercise.” They can exercise in that manner until the cows come home, and won’t obtain the benefits of properly executed exercise. Ultimately, that is what they are hoping to exercise and become proficient at — changing muscular states.

Then once that is established as what one is trying to achieve — then the number of repetitions becomes the second consideration of importance. Most people will achieve muscle failure at 50 repetitions — without prolonged resting — performed in this full range manner, whatever weight they are using. So if they are smart, they will select the lightest weight that makes 50 repetitions possible. Once they have obtained momentary muscle failure — nothing more is necessary — or possible. But rather than resting as long as possible to make further effort possible, the more productive strategy is to move onto the next exercise on one’s agenda, and then the next, until one has completed their entire workout with as little rest as possible — and one is completely exhausted. That manner of exercising would make it “aerobic” or “cardio” because an effort sustained for so long, has to be done with attention to breathing — while six repetitions can be done without proper attention to breathing, which makes it ‘anaerobic.” Thus, one has to rest overly long to recover from that deficit.

In fact, properly performed movement actually rides the breathing contraction and will then act as a pre-exhaustion for the subsequent exercise because there is no cardiovascular failure prohibiting further efforts. But unlike using too heavy weights, a light weight becomes heavy — until finally, one cannot even lift their arms without any weight or resistance. That is true muscle failure. That is the state one hopes to obtain in working out — that signals to the body that it must become stronger and more enduring. If it spends 90+% of its time resting, then there is no imperative to become stronger and more able. One simply quits whenever it is convenient to and adapts to the resting state — and so those “results” are not immediately apparent, as it is for those who have learned to make that transformation instantaneously. That is what the physique competitors become good at — making that impressive transformation.

Many are impressive coming in off the streets, but what distinguishes the champion bodybuilders from all the others, is this ability to transform to even greater levels than their fellow competitors can — which was the scientific flaw of Arthur Jones and his Nautilus principles. Rather than selecting a random population sample to “prove” his ideas, he found the two people who were the greatest genetic freaks in making those transformations — and nobody else came close. What makes something “scientific” is that it can be proven on random population samples — and not self-selected individuals with that predisposition for exhibiting those qualities one hopes to exhibit.

That is to say that what works for Casey Viator or Sergio Oliva, is not necessarily going to work for anybody else — but what works for a broad population of 70 year olds, probably has merit. By then, that population sample has already entered into those years in which muscle atrophy is the distinguishing characteristic of that population — and anything that defies and defeats it, is extraordinarily significant. By that measure, traditional and conventional exercise does not work — or it would have been demonstrated conclusively a long time ago. Just simply more of that is not going to work — no matter how strident the belief.

But that doesn’t mean that nothing can work — only that what we thought might work, hasn’t worked before — and so maybe we need to rethink it entirely to match the realities, rather than persisting in the belief that if we wish it hard enough, it will become reality. That is the paradigm of contemporary exercise — and why it doesn’t work, or only works among the young — and then fails utterly as people age, and need it most to work. It doesn’t make sense and is only our desire to impose our will over that reality.

Of course most people would like to believe that they can get into better shape by not doing anything — or just doing whatever they want to do — regardless of the consequences or the results. But life doesn’t work that way. Or merely doing the opposite of whatever life is telling us. That creates a lot of extra work and jobs, and for many, busyness itself is its own virtue and reward. Thus, many still think that proper exercise is simply a matter of burning the most calories — rather than actually getting “results,” and especially, with as little expenditure of time, energy and other resources. The object of a car is not simply to burn as energy as possible but to actually get somewhere — preferably as economically and efficiently as possible.

But one has to measure the output (results) and not simply the inputs (efforts and good intentions) — that can be unlimited with no commensurate results. So when we ask is one set sufficient to optimize gains, the better question is in what manner of training, is nothing more possible? That would obviously be doing 50 repetitions of one exercise immediately followed by the next exercise for 50 repetitions, etc until the body is fully exhausted. There is no place for multiple sets — which means resting for more than one is actually exercising. That is the reason most people fail to make gains — they’re resting most of the time — claiming they are doing “multiple sets” — to failure even. They don’t have the slightest idea what that is.

If they do only one set to failure (or 50 repetitions), that will produce the extreme muscle soreness that will take about a week to recover from — if they do nothing else. But the quickest way to recover from that extreme muscle soreness is just to exercise alternating the contraction and relaxation of those muscles because that action is the circulatory effect that removes the inflammation and promotes healing. Such daily exercises until the next gym workout is for the recovery and consolidation of those gains.

That’s how one set of each exercise is more than enough, and one gym workout a week, is more than enough — to sustain gains at any age, because what one is doing then, is working on their recovery ability — and that is the problem of aging and disease. Then, even the exceptional, run out of recovery ability — and go into irreversible decline. But that is not necessarily inherent in aging. Some activities are more productive than others — and that is what the true scientists are trying to isolate — and not just doing anything, and wondering why it doesn’t work.