|
2007/01/02, 10:00 PM
Michael. You are the man.
Just found the complete archive. http://www.jssm.org/back.php
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
|
|
2007/01/02, 10:04 PM
Full paper here, courtesy of rev8ball's help...
http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Single%20vs%20Multiple%20Sets.pdf
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2007/01/02, 09:14 PM
Nice read. Since you don't get the NSCA's The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research at the university (losers...lol), try going to their website (nsca-lift.org) and looking the research papers up. They have on line almost 20 years of journals. I do that alot for the papers that were published before I started receiving the journals myself.
--------------
Michael
Those who think they know everything, annoy those of us who really do.
|
|
2007/01/02, 09:04 PM
Here's the review I found the other night that triggered my last post...
Someone had mentioned to me that there health teacher had told them that there is no evidence showing that doing multiple sets was any better than doing a single set of an exercise.
What the review shows is that for individuals with a training background, multiple sets are vastly superior to single set training. However, what I found interesting was that untrained individuals progressed as well with single set as they did doing multiple sets.
I don't like that they don't post the numbers in this abstract, and unfortunately my college doesn't subscribe to the NSCA journal.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2007/01/02, 08:56 PM
Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training.
Wolfe BL, LeMura LM, Cole PJ.
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania 17815, USA.
The purpose of this study was to examine the existing research on single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs. Using the meta-analytic approach, we included studies that met the following criteria in our analysis: (a) at least 6 subjects per group; (b) subject groups consisting of single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs; (c) pretest and posttest strength measures; (d) training programs of 6 weeks or more; (e) apparently "healthy" individuals free from orthopedic limitations; and (f) published studies in English-language journals only. Sixteen studies generated 103 effect sizes (ESs) based on a total of 621 subjects, ranging in age from 15-71 years. Across all designs, intervention strategies, and categories, the pretest to posttest ES in muscular strength was (chi = 1.4 +/- 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.8; p < 0.001). The results of 2 x 2 analysis of variance revealed simple main effects for age, training status (trained vs. untrained), and research design (p < 0.001). No significant main effects were found for sex, program duration, and set end point. Significant interactions were found for training status and program duration (6-16 weeks vs. 17-40 weeks) and number of sets performed (single vs. multiple). The data indicated that trained individuals performing multiple sets generated significantly greater increases in strength (p < 0.001). For programs with an extended duration, multiple sets were superior to single sets (p < 0.05). This quantitative review indicates that single-set programs for an initial short training period in untrained individuals result in similar strength gains as multiple-set programs. However, as progression occurs and higher gains are desired, multiple-set programs are more effective.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
