Food As Fuel: 6 Things You Need To Eat To Maximize Your Performance

http://ift.tt/1wIfB7s
http://ift.tt/1BW4In5

You put in the hours in the gym and on the mat honing your skills and developing your body into a well-oiled machine, but are you giving it the high octane gas it deserves?  Most likely not.  I don’t say that to piss anyone off, but rather it is what I have observed over the last 20 years I have been working with athletes.  The focus is always on the exercise and vary rarely on the nutritional components of their program.

Lucky for you I am going to give you the “cheat sheet” on performance nutrition so you can reap the benefits that a proper diet can yield. Grab a notebook and start writing these down (Or just copy and paste like a normal person.)

1. Fruit – I’m not talking about guzzling down a giant container of “Grape Drink”, but rather try grabbing a piece of ACTUAL fruit. You know, that stuff that grows on trees and bushes?  Berries, bananas, apples, pears, pomegranates (Good luck getting those little red things out in less than an hour), grapes and oranges all count.  If it comes in the natural state it existed in out in nature, you’re probably doing a good job when it comes to picking out your fruit to eat.  Fruit has so many of the things you need for your body to perform at its best like natural sugars, vitamins, minerals, fiber and water all in a handy-dandy carrying case.  Thanks Mother Nature, you rock!

1. Eggs – Don’t let me catch you messing up Nature’s perfect food by disposing of the yolk and eating only the whites. Eat the whole damn egg, not just the whites.  Egg whites by themselves suck for many reasons including:
   1. They taste like cooked white crap
   2. They are boring as all get out
   3. They don’t have any of the kick-ass fats and proteins found in the yolk
   4. Did I mention they are boring?

Whole eggs give you the protein needed to repair all of the damage you’ve caused to your poor body with those killer workouts. Work hard, eat well, get results.  See the pattern?

3. Colorful Veggies – Grab you some deep green swiss chard, some bring red beets, a couple neon orange carrots and a few slices of yellow squash and you have a nutritional neutron bomb ready to blow your gains out of the water. Those different colors and variations between different kinds of veggies, means they each have a unique combination of micro nutrients, minerals, vitamins and macro nutrients.  Mixing up the types of veggies you eat helps ensure you don’t have any nutritional holes in your menu plan.  Plus it looks cool as heck when you serve it up.  Aren’t you just a fancy pants!

3. Avocados – Repeat after me: Fat is good! Incorporating natural fats in your diet helps keep your nervous system running smoothly and all of your hormones doing what they are supposed to.  Did you know Testosterone is a derivative of cholesterol?  Yeah, we might want to make sure there is enough dietary fat to ensure that stuff doesn’t get too low! (That’s boys and girls you know, so don’t think you can get out of eating fat ladies!)

3. Quinoa – This is a tough one…to pronounce anyway. KEEN-WAH.  There, better?  So, quinoa is what is known as a “psuedocereal” and oddly enough it is related to beetroots and spinach.  Go figure. So how nutritious is this stuff?

Here is the nutrient breakdown for 1 cup of cooked quinoa, or 185 grams:

• Protein:8 grams.
• Fiber:5 grams.
• Manganese:58% of the RDA.
• Magnesium:30% of the RDA.
• Phosphorus:28% of the RDA.
• Folate:19% of the RDA.
• Copper:18% of the RDA.
• Iron:15% of the RDA.
• Zinc:13% of the RDA.
• Potassium:9% of the RDA.
• Over 10% of the RDA for Vitamins B1, B2 and B6.
• Small amounts of Calcium, B3 (Niacin) and Vitamin E.

Got it?  Go buy some of this stuff today.  No, really, get going.  I can wait.

 

6. Beef – Yeah, that’s right. You know what is for dinner tonight baby.  Some good ol cow.  Beef has gotten a bad rap for far too long my friends and for no good reason.  Some idiots out there started this nasty rumor that fat is bad for you and because beef in all of its beauty can have a relatively high amount of fat content, it too went to the wayside on dinner plates across America.  Thank goodness that whole mess is over with and science has again shown us that beef = good.  Beef is super high in protein and if you buy meat from happy cows (grass fed) you’ll get happy fats that can actually improve your cholesterol levels and triglycerides.

One small tip for you here folks, don’t overcook the crap out of your beef.  If you want to have a steak, it shouldn’t be cooked until it resembles a shoe in consistency.  Sometimes less is more my friends.

 

You’ll notice Cheetos weren’t on my list.  Hey you, I can see the damn orange on your fingers, put those down!

Anyway, back to my point.  Cut out the processed crap, eat more whole foods and drink more water.  You’ll be shocked how much better you feel and perform in a very short period of time.  Our bodies are high performance machines start treating it like one by giving it the right fuel and you might be surprised how you feel next time you compete.

Originally posted 2014-12-17 00:49:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post Food As Fuel: 6 Things You Need To Eat To Maximize Your Performance appeared first on The Fight Mechanic - Jason Parsons.

by Jason Parsons via The Fight Mechanic – Jason Parsons

ANAEROBIC CAPACITY IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIGH-LEVEL BOXERS

http://ift.tt/1yt4TEw
http://ift.tt/1E0Pg95

Understanding the needs of combat athletes can be a difficult task. A recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research tested the acid-base balance, an important aspect of fatigue, for the first time in a group of elite boxers.

What the research says:

• World-champion boxers had the highest levels of acidosis and blood lactate concentration.
• Researchers suggested athletes train to increase anaerobic fitness and buffering capacity.

 

Study Design

Three teams of boxers, each team having one boxer in each weight category, competed on two different occasions. There were 28 boxers total. Team A competed against both Team B and Team C, separated by four months.

 

All the subjects were elite boxers from three national teams. They were chosen as the best from their respective countries. In fact, six of the 28 boxers had won world titles (either world championship or Olympic medals).

 

For teams A and C, the researchers collected data for five different factors:

 

• Mean blood lactate concentration
• Bicarbonate concentration
• Hemoglobin O2 saturation
• Partial pressure for CO2
• pH levels

 

These values represented work performed, the resulting acid byproducts from fatigue, and the buffering ability of the body. The researchers also took punch counts for the final rounds.

 

Results

The boxers achieved a moderate level of blood lactate and acidosis. This means there was a substantial contribution from anaerobic energy sources, which may be a limiting factor for performance. Blood lactate levels were highest in the middle-weight classes (average weight was about 140lb).

 

As the researchers noted, there was also a difference in the world-champion boxers:

 

It is of note that the three boxers who presented the greatest mean blood lactate concentration and acidosis in comparison to others were previous world champions, suggesting that the best world-class boxers are able to achieve a high physical intensity during the three rounds and support a high level of acidosis.

 

Interestingly, when team A competed against and defeated team C, there was a significant difference in the markers of acid and fatigue between the two groups. This difference may have been a contributing factor to the victory of team A. However, the researchers noted other factors as simple as a difference in mouth guards could have also contributed.

 

Considerations

In order to perform well in boxing, an athlete must have a broad range of physical attributes. This study underlined need for acid buffering capacity and tolerance of acidosis.

 

However, that’s not to say aerobic conditioning is unimportant for combat athletes. The researchers noted previous investigations have shown trained boxers to be in good aerobic shape. The researchers explained no one has performed a complete analysis of the aerobic needs of boxers because, quite simply, it isn’t possible. Anaerobic contribution to performance, on the other hand, is much easier to quantify and measure.

 

As demonstrated in this study, training that improves the ability to buffer acid can be beneficial for boxers. Buffering capactiy is particularly important toward the end of rounds when activity levels increase. But don’t skimp on the aerobic work, either.

 

This article was previously seen on breakingmuscle.com

Originally posted 2015-02-17 07:24:10. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post ANAEROBIC CAPACITY IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIGH-LEVEL BOXERS appeared first on The Fight Mechanic - Jason Parsons.

by Jason Parsons via The Fight Mechanic – Jason Parsons

Instant Gratification and Your Fitness Goals

http://ift.tt/1SC9fBd
http://ift.tt/1ooSqPs

Why is it that on a regular basis I get emails from people asking me to give them a last minute, crash diet/workout so they can look good at their wedding, trip to Cancun, photo shoot, etc.? Even more frustrating are the fitness clients who have hired me to develop a holistic and healthy approach to losing fat/gaining muscle that want the “quick fix” trick to get ripped in two days. I don’t claim to be the best trainer in the world, but I do like to believe that over the past 20 years of my fitness career, I have gleaned a modicum of knowledge and experience that proves true time and time again the old adage, “All good things come to those that wait.”

Muscle doesn’t magically jump onto your body because you did the most recent workout from Muscle and Fiction magazine. Fat doesn’t just ::POOF:: disappear overnight because you ate asparagus and swallowed a bottle of XYZ supplement.

There is a reason that I have the Japanese kanji for “Patience” tattooed on my left forearm. It helps me to remind myself (and hopefully my clients) that getting results comes by way of accumulating little changes, day-in and day-out, over time. Perhaps instead of trying to manipulate your carbohydrates or sodium, you should put in the consistent work needed to drop your body fat down to the level that is required of your physique goals. Perhaps instead of changing resistance training plans haphazardly every week, stick to a science founded program that is periodized to maximize long term results. Maybe I am just using too much wishful thinking, but it sure would be nice if people tried a little harder to live a healthy/fitness based LIFESTYLE instead of going at it with the “weekend warrior” approach.

I’ll end with a question I ask of all of my clients, “How do you eat an elephant?” The answer is of course, one bite at a time…

Originally posted 2014-11-23 05:40:53. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post Instant Gratification and Your Fitness Goals appeared first on The Fight Mechanic - Jason Parsons.

by Jason Parsons via The Fight Mechanic – Jason Parsons

Not All MMA Conditioning Coaches Are The Same

http://ift.tt/1ALy6bD
http://ift.tt/1Akujnw

Living in Las Vegas, Nevada affords me many great opportunities, not the least of which is being smack dab in the middle of MMA’s epicenter.  Being a rabid fan of MMA, partaking in MMA training (Specifically Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu) and having the honor of working with many of the incredible MMA athletes (amateur as well as professional) gives me a multi-dimensional viewpoint when it comes to what works and doesn’t work with MMA conditioning training.  I am humble in my approach as I feel I am forever a student of the body and I would like to believe that is what helps me to achieve great success with my clients.  I don’t pretend to know it all, but rather I voraciously pursue furthering my knowledge base by means of reading cutting edge scientific journals, attending as many relevant certifications as possible and just flat out keeping an open mind.

Something I see happen all too often, is a random trainer calling himself a “MMA conditioning specialist” with little to no practical knowledge or experience in the field.  Training Mrs. Smith to lose 10 pounds of fat is ever so slightly different from training an elite athlete to perform at his/her peak in competition.

(Did my sarcasm show through just now?)

While a lot of these trainers might have good intentions, they are sadly setting themselves and their clients up for failure by applying antiquated belief systems and training paradigms to what might be considered the single most challenging athletic endeavor out there: MMA.  These athletes need a flowing, balanced blend of speed, strength, skill, flexibility and endurance that is tailored to their own unique physiology in such a manner that the outcome is a harmonious dynamic of purposeful movement that does the “Art” portion of the moniker justice.

A true professional MMA conditioning coach approaches their athlete with a goal of improving their structural and movement based efficiency, facilitating effective improvement in the goal based aspects of the program and all the while minimizing opportunities for injury and/or overtraining.  This requires a thorough grasp of exercise science and the ability to apply it in an individualized manner that is both progressive and periodized as needed to accommodate the athlete’s goals. The balancing of speed, strength, skill, flexibility and endurance is of paramount importance to the MMA athlete’s success.

There are three main steps to this process:

1. Assess the athlete for goal orientation as well as physical needs/capabilities
2. Design the program based around the information provided by the assessments
3. Instruct the athlete utilizing the well-designed program

If you or someone you know is thinking about working with a MMA conditioning coach, make sure that coach can answer the following questions:

• What muscles groups should be trained? Why?
• What basic energy sources (e.g. anaerobic, aerobic) should be trained? Why?
• What are the types of muscle action(s) (e.g. isometric, eccentric) should be trained? Why?
• What are the primary sites of injury for the particular sport or activity, and what is the prior injury history of the individual?
• What are the specific needs for muscle strength, hypertrophy, endurance, power, speed, agility, flexibility, body composition, balance and coordination?

A true professional will be able to answer all these and more.

Originally posted 2014-12-18 18:40:59. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post Not All MMA Conditioning Coaches Are The Same appeared first on The Fight Mechanic - Jason Parsons.

by Jason Parsons via The Fight Mechanic – Jason Parsons

Overtraining Will Kill Your Results

http://ift.tt/1ALy7w1
http://ift.tt/1AkulvM

I personally love the Bell curve and all that it represents. Take for example the people in America. On one end of the Bell curve we have the standard American: overweight and underactive. On the other side we have an athletic American: in shape and most likely overactive. What do I mean by overactive you are probably thinking? Let’s start by talking a little about how your body works.

The human body is an amazing work of art. Every day for hundreds of years, all over the planet, thousands of the world’s smartest people (doctors and research scientists) have been TRYING to figure it out. One of the most impressive things they have discovered is that the harder you work the body (within reason of course) the better it becomes! Try doing that with your car and see what happens. There is a certain amount of your physiology that is based in your parents genetic contribution to who you are, but the vast majority of who and what you are today, is nurture, not nature. What this means is that you are the end product of every single interaction with the world and the subsequent remodeling your body went through to accommodate to those interactions.

Think about it for just a second. Remember when you cut your big toe on a sprinkler while walking barefoot through the park back in 5th grade? Take a look at that same toe right now and gently run your finger over that scar that you’ve carried with you all these years. Let me ask you this: why do you know that 5×5=25? It is because while sitting in Miss Larson’s class, you had to write your multiplication tables over and over and over again until the cells in your brain created and reinforced a connection that has stuck with you to this very day. You are the product of all of your life’s interactions. Interesting isn’t it?

So what does this have to do with being overactive? While our bodies are always looking to find a state of homeostasis, the truth is, our environment is ever changing so that homeostasis is a moving target. Take for example doing a push-up. The first time you attempt to do one, it is a foreign movement and you struggle to not only keep your body straight but also to push yourself up against gravity’s pull. After the challenge is over, the adaptations begin! The body recognizes that it was just faced with a new challenge and it will now seek a way to make it easier should you have to attempt it again in the future. Your brain has to establish new pathways to control the muscles more efficiently, the muscle cells use some of the freely available amino acids floating in your blood stream to build themselves a little stronger and even your blood vessels adapt to allow for greater blood flow to carry oxygen in and carbon dioxide out. This happens every day with everything you encounter as the body seeks the path of least resistance.

Not too much, not too little

The problem arises when we purposefully attempt to force our bodies to be what want. Whether this be a cosmetic change of fat loss/muscle gain or a performance goal like running a marathon. While the goals seem innocuous in their healthy appearance, they can in fact become detrimental if not worked towards in a logical, science founded manner. Work just hard enough to elicit the desired compensatory response and then rest adequately for the body to be 100% ready to go again. Sadly while the sedentary Americans err on the side of undertraining, our overzealous athletic Americans are rampantly overtraining and not allowing for enough rest time before starting again. In this case, as is with most, more is not better! I love to tell my clients to remember the age old story of Goldilocks and the three bears. If you are in doubt when it comes to “how much” as it pertains to your food or exercise, go with Goldilocks’ thought process: Not too much, not too little, just right.

Simple enough, wouldn’t you agree?

Originally posted 2014-12-18 18:45:55. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post Overtraining Will Kill Your Results appeared first on The Fight Mechanic - Jason Parsons.

by Jason Parsons via The Fight Mechanic – Jason Parsons

HOW TO PICK THE PERFECT BJJ S&C PROGRAM FOR YOU

http://ift.tt/1E0PhKf
http://ift.tt/1CCZ7jA

When you head to the gym for strength and conditioning, do you have a plan to follow? Even better do you have a plan to follow that is specific for you?

 

In the past, solely training Brazilian jiu jitsu was enough to prepare for a tournament. That is not the case anymore. Competitors at the local and national level are taking their training seriously. But unless you have the ability to pay for a strength coach or are lucky enough to have a sponsor that will pay for a coach, you will have to create or find your own programming.

 

The problem is few programs are written specifically for Brazilian jiu jitsu athletes. So some people turn to programs written for other sports and try to adjust them for BJJ. There are many good training programs out there that can work. But who do they work for?There are very specific things to look for and adjust to make a training program work for you.

 

 

Assessment

The first step in choosing a strength and conditioning program is to assess your needs.Take some time and think of specific areas you need to improve.

 

For example, I recently did an assessment on a Brazilian jiu jitsu competitor who had great endurance, but lacked strength. This athlete needed to focus on building strength. Maybe you have no problem with strength, but you can’t roll for more than one round without getting tired. Then you need a program that focuses on increasing endurance. Now I’m not suggesting to completely abandon strength and only focus on endurance. What I want people to understand is that their program should work to bring up weak areas while maintaining areas of strength.

 

Let’s look at an athlete who needs to improve her mobility. The athlete may spend twenty minutes before or after every session doing mobility work, in addition to adding corrective exercises to her routine. Take the time to think about what your weaknesses are. Too often the focus is on what you are already good at.

 

Frequency

BJJ is physically and mentally demanding. The frequency of your strength and conditioning program should be determined by the weekly number of BJJ sessions you train. Not the other way around. Strength and conditioning should not replace your BJJ sessions. It should compliment them.

 

Find a strength and conditioning program designed for the number of days you wish to work out. Do not try to take a program designed to be done over three days and do it in two. There is a reason the coach programmed it for three days.

 

 

Variety of Movements

It is best to think about exercise selection in terms of movements. In the sport of BJJ, you have to be strong everywhere. Look for a program that contains the following:

 

• A squat-based movement
• Lower body pulling
• Upper body pulling
• A horizontal upper body push
• A vertical upper body push

 

As long as your program contains exercises from each of these categories you have everything covered.

 

Intensity

Strength and conditioning programs should vary in intensity depending on your BJJ training volume and goals. For example, if you are participating in two to three competition-level BJJ classes a week, you do not need another two days of intense conditioning. The only exception would be when you are close to a tournament and you need the extra conditioning work.

 

But I do not recommend this approach year round. The rest of the year, focus on building strength. As you get closer to your tournament, back off the strength training and add in some conditioning.

 

 

Conclusion

Strength and conditioning programming can be overwhelming. The best program is one that you can follow, done with the right frequency and intensity for your goals, and that incorporates exercises from various planes of movement. Choosing the right program and being consistent will pay off in the long run.

 

This article was previously seen on breakingmuscle.com

Originally posted 2015-02-17 07:18:29. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post HOW TO PICK THE PERFECT BJJ S&C PROGRAM FOR YOU appeared first on The Fight Mechanic - Jason Parsons.

by Jason Parsons via The Fight Mechanic – Jason Parsons

Let’s settle this once and for all: Single set vs multiple sets

http://ift.tt/22YgZ5i
http://ift.tt/1TgGsV2

I have been working in the fitness industry for over 20 years and have always worked hard to seek out the best science founded information with which to develop both my clients’ and my own workouts.  One of the confusing topics I have waded through many times over is the ongoing debate in the strength training and bodybuilding communities as to whether a single set of an exercise is superior for building size and strength than training with multiple sets.  I have always worked out using multiple sets and gotten great results from that type of training.  I am, however, not so short sighted as to assume that because I got great results that it was “causation” instead of merely “correlation.”

I hear it all of the time:

Client:  “Jason, I started doing crunches and I lost 3 inches off my midsection!”

Me:      “Did you also change your food intake and your cardio training?”

Client:  “Well, yes, but it was the crunches that made me lose the inches!”

The inherent demand for logic and reason that my brain imposes on me precludes me from formulating a steadfast opinion without having done my due diligence in research first. So I offer you a look at the some of the information I have used to formulate my opinion on this much talked about debate.

The idea that a single set of an exercise might be more effective than traditional multiple set training was first popularized in the 1970s by Arthur Jones, inventor of Nautilus strength training equipment. It was Jones’ belief that a single set per exercise taken to the point of failure was the most effective type of training for improving both strength and size. This type of training is often called HIT or High Intensity Training and was made famous by the late Mike Mentzer (He called it Heavy Duty Training) and 6 time MR Olympia Dorian Yates. In a series of published articles circulated throughout the strength and bodybuilding communities, Arthur Jones wrote about what he believed to be the superiority of single set training.  This subsequently sparked heated debate on the issue that continues to this day.

The debate drew the attention of exercise physiologists around the world, resulting in a growing body of research data examining the issue. However, despite an abundance of research studies physiologists were not able to resolve the issue. The main problem was that the research was equivocal; some studies supported the idea that a single set was more effective than multiple sets, other studies found multiple sets produced greater increases in strength and size, but most studies found no statistical difference in results between the two training methods. In short, there was no consensus in the research.

In general most research indicates that multiple sets tend to produce somewhat larger increases in strength and size. However, the issue is that the difference in results between the two has not been large enough to definitively say that multiple sets are superior. On average multiple sets produce a few percentage points greater increase in strength and size, usually in the range of 2-10%, but this difference has not been large enough to be statistically significant (statistical significance is important to show that the results are not just a matter of chance).

With research unable to declare a clear winner the debate continued unabated. Despite the lack of consensus the physiological community generally accepted multiple sets to be superior to a single set, which drew some very vocal and deserved criticism from a few scientists.

In response to these critics a number of “meta-analyses” have been conducted by researchers in recent years to see if the conflict could be resolved. A meta-analysis is essentially a study of studies. It is a way of analyzing the results of multiple studies on the same research hypothesis to see what can be learned by looking at the entire body of research data as a whole versus the examining the results from individual studies. A meta-analysis can often more powerfully estimate the “effect size”, the true difference in results, in comparison to the smaller “effect size” of a single study. Measuring “statistical significance” is different than measuring “effect size”. The advantage of measuring effect size via a meta-analysis is that it may reveal actual differences that were missed by examining the statistical significance of the results of the individual studies comprising the meta-analysis.

Let’s have a look at these meta-analyses and see if they have finally put to rest the whole single set versus multiple set debate.

Strength Studies

The first meta-analysis was conducted by Rhea et al (4) in 2002. Examining 16 studies Rhea reported that 3-set training produced superior results to 1-set training. In 2003 Rhea et al (5) conducted another meta-analysis, this time of 140 published studies, and concluded that 4-sets produced maximum strength gains in both trained and untrained subjects. Both of these studies received some criticism due to the criteria Rhea used for study inclusion and also for his statistical analysis methods.

A third meta-analysis conducted in 2004 by Wolfe et al (6) of 16 studies found multiple sets to be superior to a single set in trained subjects and in programs lasting 17 to 40 weeks. As in both Rhea’s meta-analyses, Wolfe’s study received some criticism for his statistical analysis methods.

Aware of the criticism of the previous three analyses, Kreiger (3) conducted a fourth meta-analysis in 2009 specifically designed to improve upon the limitations of the previous studies. He examined 14 studies with 92 effect sizes measured across 30 groups of subjects comparing 1-set, 2-3 sets, and 4-6 sets. He found that 2-3 sets produced 46% greater increases in strength than 1 set in both trained and untrained subjects. Interestingly, he also found no difference in results between 2-3 sets and 4-6 sets. Performing more than 3 sets did not produce a greater increase in strength. Kreiger’s study strengthens the findings of both of Rhea’s previous studies. There were some differences between Wolfe’s findings and Kreiger’s findings in terms of the effect of volume of training but Kreiger’s study also strengthened Wolfe’s finding that multiple sets produce superior results to a single set. Finally, a 2010 meta-analysis of 72 studies by Frohlich et al (1) found single set training to be the equal of multiple set training for short training periods but multi-set training to be superior over longer periods of training.

In summary, there is now a consensus in the research literature supporting the idea that multiple sets are superior to single set training for increasing muscular strength.

Size Analysis

All of the meta-analyses cited above examined differences in strength gains; none examined the issue as to whether single or multiple-set training elicited greater muscle size gains. Increases in strength are caused by both neural and hypertrophic changes and it is possible that the superiority of multiple sets for increasing strength might be due to a greater neural effect and not hypertrophy. It is possible that multiple sets might be superior for increasing strength but not size so this issue needed to be resolved also.

In 2010 Kreiger (2) addressed this topic with another meta-analysis designed to determine if multiple set training elicited greater muscle hypertrophy compared to single set training. Examining 55 effect sizes across 19 groups in 8 studies he found that multiple sets produced 40% higher increases in muscle hypertrophy regardless of the training status of the subjects or the length of the training program. Kreiger also concluded that the 46% greater increase in strength from multiple sets revealed in his earlier meta-analysis was largely due to greater hypertrophy and not neural factors.

Interestingly, while Kreiger found no significant difference in hypertrophy from 2-3 sets or 4-6 sets he did find a trend for greater hypertrophy with 4 or more sets. One weakness of his analysis was a limited number of studies that utilized 4 or more sets so he stated that no definitive conclusion could be reached as to whether 4 or more sets was superior to 2-3 sets for inducing muscle growth.

Summary

The debate as to the superiority of single versus multiple set training has been on-going for around 40 years. High intensity training (HIT), originally popularized by Arthur Jones in the 1970s, promotes the idea that single set training is superior to traditional multi-set training for improving both strength and size. Until now research on this topic has been equivocal and unable to resolve the dispute. However, six recent meta-analyses have confirmed that multiple set training produces greater increases in both strength and size than single set training in both trained and untrained subjects.

References:

1. Frohlich M, Emrich E, Shmidtbleicher D., Outcome effects of single-set versus multiple-set training- an advanced replication study. Res Sports Med. 2010 Jul;18(3): 157-75

2. Kreiger JW., Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr; 24(4): 1150-9

3. Kreiger JW., Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Sep; 23(6): 1890-901.

4. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, and Burkett, LN. Single versus multiple sets for strength: a meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res Q Exerc Sport 73: 485–488, 2002.

5. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Burkett, LN, and Ball, SD. A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 456–464, 2003.

6. Wolfe, BL, Lemura, LM, and Cole, PJ. Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple set programs in resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 18: 35–47, 2004.

7.  Trainingscience.net  Single set versus multiple sets – New research 2012

 

Originally posted 2014-11-23 05:43:19. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The post Let’s settle this once and for all: Single set vs multiple sets appeared first on The Fight Mechanic - Jason Parsons.

by Jason Parsons via The Fight Mechanic – Jason Parsons