Tricky
04-06-2006, 12:22
Interesting post from the Supertraining newsgroup.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate about Single Set versus Multi-Set training is a moot point. It
goes hand in hand with the myth of SuperCompensation versus Direct
Compensation, or as Mel termed it Adaptive Reconstruction.
I will try to state this in the fewest words possible.
The Single Set proponents rely totally on the Theory (myth) of Super
Compensation. That is, that after a single set of a High Intensity, the
body will not only recover, but will "over" recover, by becoming stronger
than the stimulus.
While you can pull out reams of evidence and personal experience that
"prove" that this is so, . . . IT IS NOT!!!.
That is, it is not true in a mature, conditioned trainee.
The misinterpretation of several factors, leads many of us to think that our
body is getting stronger, and larger "beyond" the direct result of the
stimulant.
There are three basic elements contributing to this perception.
1) Genetic potential: from the time we are born, to somewhere in our late
teens or early twenties, we will gain multiples of strength and muscle even
if we do absolutely nothing except daily activity.
2) Motor learning: Most trainees will experience much improvement in
strength, from simply and first learning the action, and becoming more
efficient at performing the exercise and second increasing the actual motor
impulse, via repetitive action.
3) Direct Compensation: This is real progress based on the accumulated or
amplified stimulus of weight increases from #2, and exploration in the
genetic potential of #1.
Now many might argue that this displays SuperCompensation, but I would put
forth 2 arguments.
1) Re-read number 1. We will grow "WITHOUT" stimulus. What is that? Magic
Compensation? Of course not.
2) If we are mature trainees and cease training for a period of time, to
where we lose a high percentage of our size and strength, when we resume
training and the old (another myth) Muscle Memory kicks in and within a
short time we are again at our 100% best (or even better) do we call that
"recovery" SuperCompensation?
If we don't see "Muscle Memory" as Super Compensation then neither is normal
stimulated growth.
I trust you can fill in the blanks here, but no where in nature, will you
find a perpetual motion machine, or a body that will grow without a direct
input of raw materials, or anything that is not in a "Direct Relationship".
Does not happen, never will, never has. SuperCompensation, then is a myth,
and Direct Compensation is the only true stimulus response mechanism.
So how does this relate to Single Set Training?
Well it should be evident that, a single set can only provide "Direct
Compensation" to a maximum result of the single set stimulus + motor
learning + genetic potential of a single set stimulus. As long as one
performs the exercise with maximum effort, and progresses to the eventual
limit strength afforded by a single set stimulus, there will be no further
improvement.
I think I have seen in some of the recent discussions about my old friend
Mike Mentzer, that he stated that you will reach your full potential in some
short time. What was it less than a year? This is likely true on a single
set. All those who write volumes about continuous progress, year after year
are either disingenuous, or purposely stretching the time with lower
intensity sets and small load increases.
Now it has to be understood that a single set during this phase will produce
a "high percentage" result (and this is its true value to team sports like
football and basketball when training time is limited). That is, a second
set generally will not "double" the results. But it will "produce" a result
when the single set ceases to do so, due to Direct Compensation to the
stimulus.
There is much more to the elements of Direct Compensation, and the
relationship of the training loads and how they relate to each other, but I
don't have the time at the moment.
However, as the collective history of every type of weight training of a
progressive type has shown, adding sets, will then produce an additional
stimulus, beyond that of a single set, and as long as the stimulus is not so
great as to cause injury, or constant, chronic, overtraining, additional
results, beyond that of a single set, will be experienced.
That is called Direct Compensation. The result, is in Direct Response to
the added stimulus.
I would say that while I am virtually certain that this is correct, the
proof of such through studies would not be possible, due to the inability to
establish elements such as genetic growth and strength potential "with and
without" strength training.
While I have not read Mel's book, I have written about my thoughts on this
for years and Mel and I found much common ground in this area.
I remember a private e-mail he sent me some years back, because he not only
agreed with my premise, but he found the title I had chosen quite amusing.
I think it was something like "SupercalifagilisticexerCompensation" or some
derivative of that.
Please be easy on me, since I don't have much time to respond, but with a
little thought and remembrance, you will see that if any of you reached a
"higher level" of conditioning, that progress slowed to only that related to
"Direct Stimulus"
This is the very foundation of periodization schedules, to design creative
methods to advance the Direct Stimulus and Compensation.
This is also true for all conditioning including cardio. It is not just a
strength training issue.
I doubt the New Your Times will run a Headline declaring SuperCompensation
Dead, but as a tenet of the results to a physical stimulus, "it is".
So in closing, the above explains why there is a Division between SINGLE SET
and MULTI-SET factions. It also explains why a SINGLE SET of High Intensity
will achieve a high percentage result in the Novice and those who never go
beyond that threshold of strength and hypertrophy available from DIRECT
COMPENSATION.
That is why NO World Caliber Strength Athlete will train with SINGLE SET
Systems, only Team type sports with limited training time will receive the
results available from such limitations.
I trust that makes sense.
Regards,
John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate about Single Set versus Multi-Set training is a moot point. It
goes hand in hand with the myth of SuperCompensation versus Direct
Compensation, or as Mel termed it Adaptive Reconstruction.
I will try to state this in the fewest words possible.
The Single Set proponents rely totally on the Theory (myth) of Super
Compensation. That is, that after a single set of a High Intensity, the
body will not only recover, but will "over" recover, by becoming stronger
than the stimulus.
While you can pull out reams of evidence and personal experience that
"prove" that this is so, . . . IT IS NOT!!!.
That is, it is not true in a mature, conditioned trainee.
The misinterpretation of several factors, leads many of us to think that our
body is getting stronger, and larger "beyond" the direct result of the
stimulant.
There are three basic elements contributing to this perception.
1) Genetic potential: from the time we are born, to somewhere in our late
teens or early twenties, we will gain multiples of strength and muscle even
if we do absolutely nothing except daily activity.
2) Motor learning: Most trainees will experience much improvement in
strength, from simply and first learning the action, and becoming more
efficient at performing the exercise and second increasing the actual motor
impulse, via repetitive action.
3) Direct Compensation: This is real progress based on the accumulated or
amplified stimulus of weight increases from #2, and exploration in the
genetic potential of #1.
Now many might argue that this displays SuperCompensation, but I would put
forth 2 arguments.
1) Re-read number 1. We will grow "WITHOUT" stimulus. What is that? Magic
Compensation? Of course not.
2) If we are mature trainees and cease training for a period of time, to
where we lose a high percentage of our size and strength, when we resume
training and the old (another myth) Muscle Memory kicks in and within a
short time we are again at our 100% best (or even better) do we call that
"recovery" SuperCompensation?
If we don't see "Muscle Memory" as Super Compensation then neither is normal
stimulated growth.
I trust you can fill in the blanks here, but no where in nature, will you
find a perpetual motion machine, or a body that will grow without a direct
input of raw materials, or anything that is not in a "Direct Relationship".
Does not happen, never will, never has. SuperCompensation, then is a myth,
and Direct Compensation is the only true stimulus response mechanism.
So how does this relate to Single Set Training?
Well it should be evident that, a single set can only provide "Direct
Compensation" to a maximum result of the single set stimulus + motor
learning + genetic potential of a single set stimulus. As long as one
performs the exercise with maximum effort, and progresses to the eventual
limit strength afforded by a single set stimulus, there will be no further
improvement.
I think I have seen in some of the recent discussions about my old friend
Mike Mentzer, that he stated that you will reach your full potential in some
short time. What was it less than a year? This is likely true on a single
set. All those who write volumes about continuous progress, year after year
are either disingenuous, or purposely stretching the time with lower
intensity sets and small load increases.
Now it has to be understood that a single set during this phase will produce
a "high percentage" result (and this is its true value to team sports like
football and basketball when training time is limited). That is, a second
set generally will not "double" the results. But it will "produce" a result
when the single set ceases to do so, due to Direct Compensation to the
stimulus.
There is much more to the elements of Direct Compensation, and the
relationship of the training loads and how they relate to each other, but I
don't have the time at the moment.
However, as the collective history of every type of weight training of a
progressive type has shown, adding sets, will then produce an additional
stimulus, beyond that of a single set, and as long as the stimulus is not so
great as to cause injury, or constant, chronic, overtraining, additional
results, beyond that of a single set, will be experienced.
That is called Direct Compensation. The result, is in Direct Response to
the added stimulus.
I would say that while I am virtually certain that this is correct, the
proof of such through studies would not be possible, due to the inability to
establish elements such as genetic growth and strength potential "with and
without" strength training.
While I have not read Mel's book, I have written about my thoughts on this
for years and Mel and I found much common ground in this area.
I remember a private e-mail he sent me some years back, because he not only
agreed with my premise, but he found the title I had chosen quite amusing.
I think it was something like "SupercalifagilisticexerCompensation" or some
derivative of that.
Please be easy on me, since I don't have much time to respond, but with a
little thought and remembrance, you will see that if any of you reached a
"higher level" of conditioning, that progress slowed to only that related to
"Direct Stimulus"
This is the very foundation of periodization schedules, to design creative
methods to advance the Direct Stimulus and Compensation.
This is also true for all conditioning including cardio. It is not just a
strength training issue.
I doubt the New Your Times will run a Headline declaring SuperCompensation
Dead, but as a tenet of the results to a physical stimulus, "it is".
So in closing, the above explains why there is a Division between SINGLE SET
and MULTI-SET factions. It also explains why a SINGLE SET of High Intensity
will achieve a high percentage result in the Novice and those who never go
beyond that threshold of strength and hypertrophy available from DIRECT
COMPENSATION.
That is why NO World Caliber Strength Athlete will train with SINGLE SET
Systems, only Team type sports with limited training time will receive the
results available from such limitations.
I trust that makes sense.
Regards,
John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA