I didn't say we don't know HOW a muscle gets stronger, I said we don't really know the "why" of it all. What is the trigger in other words...it is very complex and I think it often overlooked. It is the elephant in the room for all these people who want to claim they are being scientific and relying on studies, etc. - not only do we not really understand what triggers these increases, we aren't really making much progress toward that end either.
My definition of intensity is the % of momentary muscular failure. So, yeah - if you know you have a 5 rep max and you do 4 reps, you could say that is 80%. However, how do you know that you could get 5 reps with it before you try? Last week you maybe got 5 reps and failed, but if you're constantly improving...maybe you can get 6 reps, or 7 reps and you stop at 4 now, as if you haven't made any progress.
I'm not arguing that you HAVE to be at 100% intensity. Plenty of power lifters, bodybuilders, athletes, etc. "leave a rep in the tank" so to speak....these also tend to be the lifters who can train 2X/week with higher volumes. And that is fine...I'm not saying it can't work.
And like I said, not trying to get you to tell me right/wrong....just trying to debate intelligently with someone else who has created their own beliefs that seem to work for them and others, so that I may learn and change my beliefs to better suit my goals. Yeah, giving up a belief system entirely is unlikely, but...I feel it would be better to understand two systems that can work than just one.
As far as research, here is my experience. I don't train anyone professionally. When I was in HS, I had lots of friends who started lifting and got nowhere following volume approaches. They would start working out with me and suddenly get stronger/bigger in a short time. They trained less, but trained harder with me. So, I believe intensity/effort is of high importance.
I know there have been a few studies comparing 1 set to 3 or 5 sets. These studies are all somewhat flawed, because they don't make any accommodation for intensity, and the programs are limited. i.e. - if all I have someone doing is leg extensions 2X per week then ...yeah, 3 sets each workout is probably going to not be too taxing and they will recover and be fine...so 3 sets provides more stimulus and would be more reliable than just 1. But if I have someone training an entire body routine ...either all in one workout or in a split...at high intensity....then we are no longer talking about just 3 sets vs. 1 set. We are now talking 6 or 7 sets vs. 18 or 21 sets (6-7 bodyparts). And, of course, I don't really abide by just 1 set. I typically do about 3-6 sets/body part over 3 exercises. So, it all adds up and things become much worse.
Of course, this gets back to goals too. If you're a baseball player, you aren't going to be hitting the deadlifts and squats quite as vigorously as you would if you were Ronnie Coleman. If you are, then you're going to risk injury and take effort away from the skills training you might be doing elsewhere. In this case, lower intensity, higher volume, and decreased recovery times are far superior to pure strength/size gains....
My friend, not to cherry pick, but you can't provide your own definitions of terms in conversations with S&C specialists.
The actual definitions were aforementioned.
Hypertrophy is a combination of tension and metabolite buildup. Tension is manipulated in various ways, eccentric, concentric, isometric, speed etc
That is why you test periodically and run through an organized, methodological, and conjugated system.
Training to failure each and every session especially multiple sets should be done with caution:
Granted I am not saying its wrong, because clearly lots of people do with good results (branch warren) but again caution is warranted.
Few studies and reports in the body of literature have directly addressed the issue of whether resistance exercise sets should be performed to failure. Research has clearly demonstrated the superiority of performing multiple sets vs. single sets for increases in maximal strength. However, there is little direct evidence to decide conclusively whether or not multiple sets should be performed to failure. Therefore, the purpose of this research note was to discuss what is currently known concerning the application of training to failure and to stimulate further research on this topic. Although not essential for increases in muscular characteristics such as strength and hypertrophy,
training to failure might allow advanced lifters to break through training plateaus when incorporated
periodically into short-term microcycles. Because muscular hypertrophy is a key contributor to long-term increases in maximal strength, advanced lifters should consider training to failure occasionally. The potential mechanisms by which training to failure might provide an advantage are through greater activation of motor units and secretion of growth-promoting hormones. However, training to failure is not an effective stimulus without lifting at a sufficient intensity (percentage of 1 repetition maximum). Furthermore, training to failure should not be performed repeatedly over long periods, due to the
high potential for overtraining and overuse injuries. Therefore, the training status and the g
oals of the lifter should guide the decision-making process on this issue.
I get that your not into training for athletic purposes but the last paragraph couldn't be any further from the truth. The back squat is generally considered king of exercises for athletic purposes. Any sport requiring a ground propulsion phase and SSC benefits from a strong BS, especially for starting acceleration. If anything bodybuilders overuse the squat, where all you have to do is look strong (hypertrophy). Now obviously the BS is an excellent exercise for overall leg development but if hypertrophy is the only goal it is far from necessary especially considering stress on the lower back and potential for FAI (anterior tilt with lots of hip flexion). I really am not going to get into sport specific training esp for overhead sports because of the complexity and uniqueness of the methodology I have developed.
As far as multiple sets this is what is out there:
There has been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training (dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to certain populations. It seems that training status influences the requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response. Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength development beyond that of general health, an increase
in resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct, quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate unique dose-response relationships per population. For
untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For a
thlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. These meta-analyses demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training programs
For hypertrophy:
There is a trend for more sets > greater hypertrophy
Previous meta-analyses have compared the effects of single to multiple sets on strength, but analyses on muscle hypertrophy are lacking. The purpose of this study was to use multilevel meta-regression to compare the effects of single and multiple sets per exercise on muscle hypertrophy. The analysis comprised 55 effect sizes (ESs), nested within 19 treatment groups and 8 studies. Multiple sets were associated with a larger ES than a single set (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.04; confidence interval [CI]: 0.02, 0.19; p = 0.016). In a dose-response model, there was a t
rend for 2-3 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.09 +/- 0.05; CI: -0.02, 0.20; p = 0.09), and a trend f
or 4-6 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.20 +/- 0.11; CI: -0.04, 0.43; p = 0.096). Both of these trends were significant when considering permutation test p values (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between 2-3 sets per exercise and 4-6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.10; CI: -0.09, 0.30; p = 0.29). T
here was a tendency for increasing ESs for an increasing number of sets (0.24 for 1 set, 0.34 for 2-3 sets, and 0.44 for 4-6 sets). Sensitivity analysis revealed no highly influential studies that affected the magnitude of the observed differences, but one study did slightly influence the level of significance and CI width. No evidence of publication bias was observed. In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with
40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.