Post by John A. Casler on Dec 29, 2009 9:04:07 GMT -8
This is a response from another forum which I think is important
Hi Nick,
That is "often" the claim. There is an enormous amount of confusion and contradiction regarding the SSTF claims.
It is often claimed that a SSTF performed "properly" is the optimal or maximal stimulus and "ANY" work beyond that point will result in overtraining.
If you have found that you do well with "multiple sets" for the same muscles and do not over train, then you contradict this claim, as do most who train.
While you "do not" count the warm-up set or sets, others make the claim that NO warm-up set(s) are needed and would actually detract from the exercise performance by draining valuable energy reserves.
The TRUE claim that CAN be made about a Single Set to Failure is that it terminates in a failed rep.
If it is performed as a Rep Maximum effort, it could also be claimed that it was a Maximum Effort.
It should also be realized that the classical SSTF is performed with "controlled" (purposely slowed) reps initially which are underloaded (low intensity) to a significant degree, and terminates with a failed rep due to fatigue accumulation.
This is drastically different than a "higher effort" (intensity) to all the reps which leads to a RM performance.
This means that even in the SSTF model there can be differences in intensity, performance, and stimulus. This is particularly important to understand relative to stimulus when programming to reach certain goals.
Nick1971 wrote:
I can understand single set to an exercise (not counting warmup sets, to be clear). But per muscle group? A lot of people do just fine working multiple exercises per bodypart. Heck I did really good doing 5 different exercises for my legs, all on my leg day, but only one working set per exercise. I didn't overtrain, either. Quite the contrary my legs benefitted from that HIT split routine.
I would hope nobody would claim that multiple exercises per bodypart is automatically overtraining. I could see for some people it could be overtraining under certain conditions for them, or in a unique situation, but it should be the exception not the rule, in my opinion.
I can understand single set to an exercise (not counting warmup sets, to be clear). But per muscle group? A lot of people do just fine working multiple exercises per bodypart. Heck I did really good doing 5 different exercises for my legs, all on my leg day, but only one working set per exercise. I didn't overtrain, either. Quite the contrary my legs benefitted from that HIT split routine.
I would hope nobody would claim that multiple exercises per bodypart is automatically overtraining. I could see for some people it could be overtraining under certain conditions for them, or in a unique situation, but it should be the exception not the rule, in my opinion.
Hi Nick,
That is "often" the claim. There is an enormous amount of confusion and contradiction regarding the SSTF claims.
It is often claimed that a SSTF performed "properly" is the optimal or maximal stimulus and "ANY" work beyond that point will result in overtraining.
If you have found that you do well with "multiple sets" for the same muscles and do not over train, then you contradict this claim, as do most who train.
While you "do not" count the warm-up set or sets, others make the claim that NO warm-up set(s) are needed and would actually detract from the exercise performance by draining valuable energy reserves.
The TRUE claim that CAN be made about a Single Set to Failure is that it terminates in a failed rep.
If it is performed as a Rep Maximum effort, it could also be claimed that it was a Maximum Effort.
It should also be realized that the classical SSTF is performed with "controlled" (purposely slowed) reps initially which are underloaded (low intensity) to a significant degree, and terminates with a failed rep due to fatigue accumulation.
This is drastically different than a "higher effort" (intensity) to all the reps which leads to a RM performance.
This means that even in the SSTF model there can be differences in intensity, performance, and stimulus. This is particularly important to understand relative to stimulus when programming to reach certain goals.