Beware the Meta-Analysis: Is Multiple Set Training Really Better than Single-Set Training for Muscle Hypertrophy?

While many individuals perform resistance training with the purpose of increasing the size of their muscles, reviews have not clarified a training prescription for optimizing hypertrophy. A 2010 meta-analysis concluded that multiple set training resulted in greater hypertrophic gains compared to single set training. However, while the use of meta-analysis in exercise physiology is well documented, there is sufficient reason to be cautious when applying a single statistic acquired by combining multiple studies and the relevant effect sizes (ES). This paper reviews the articles included within the 2010 meta-analysis. In particular, the differences in subject training experience, gender, and clinical condition, the training frequency, the intervention duration, the repetition duration used, and the method of measuring hypertrophy, as well as other variables that appear not to have been considered are discussed in this paper. The substantial limitations in comparing or grouping these articles suggest that the meta-analysis cannot be used to support the conclusion that multiple sets produce greater hypertrophic gains than single set training

The effects of load and effort-matched concentric and eccentric knee extension training in recreational females

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of load and intensity of effort-matched concentric and eccentric knee extension training on isometric strength. Methods. Unilateral isometric torque was measured using a MedX knee extension after which eleven recreationally trained females performed both concentric-only (CONC) and eccentric-only (ECC) unilateral knee extension exercise once per week for 8 weeks. Participants performed a single set of both CONC and ECC exercise load matched at 80% of maximum isometric torque for each condition. All participants exercised to repetition maximum in both CONC and ECC conditions at a pace of ~3 s duration for each muscle action. This ensured that participants exercised to the same intensity of effort for both CONC and ECC training interventions. Results. Analyses revealed significant increases in isometric torque for both CONC (14.8%) and ECC (13.0%) conditions (p 0.05). Effect sizes are reported as 0.60 (CONC) and 0.53 (ECC). In addition, analyses revealed significantly greater mean total training volume for ECC compared with CONC conditions (15903 vs. 8091, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusions. The present findings indicate that, when matched for intensity of effort, both CONC and ECC knee extension exercise can significantly improve strength to the same extent. This supports previous research that load and repetitions are not as important as intensity of effort in resistance exercise