[Jennifer 3FC]

This may already be here somewhere...but has anybody read this? The ACSM has revised their recommendation for weight training to one single set of 8-12. I couldn't find it on their website, but here is a link to CNN.

[Meg]

Jennifer, I looked this morning too and couldn't find it. All I found were standard recommendations for 1 - 3 sets.

I'd be surprised if ACSM came out with a blanket recommendation like that. The optimal number of sets and reps depends on the lifter's goals: power, strength, hypertrophy, muscle maintenance etc. A program designed for a 25-year old male bodybuilder is going to look a lot different than a program designed for a 60-year old woman with osteoporosis. In other words, there isn't any 'one size fits all' recommendation for the right number of sets, just like there isn't for intensity, number of reps, tempo, rest time between sets, % of one rep max and so on.

I'm always very cautious about believing what's reported in the media about studies and recommendations from expert sources. So often it turns out to be inaccurate. I'm not saying that the CNN article is wrong about ACSM, but honestly, I'd be surprised. But I've been surprised before!

When I have more time, I'll poke around ACSM some more.

[Meg]

I searched through ACSM's library of Position Stands and all I could find that's relevant to the number of sets is a paper from 1998, The Recommended Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Fitness, and Flexibility in Healthy Adults. It recommends 1 set of 8 - 12 reps of 8 - 10 exercises done two to three days per week as the minimum necessary for good health.

I haven't found anything more recent, though the CNN article implies there's been a recent revision. But I'll keep looking! Still, I'm not sure how relevant it is to those of us looking to build muscle to help with weight loss. We're kind of a different group!

[Depalma]

I believe this is another case of a magazine/website cashing in on advertising dollars by getting hits by spurting out articles giving people an easier way out. Sorry...you want results you have to work at it. Take one piece of a study, take some guidelines out of context and bam! scientific proof that you can get results without working out!

I think they are taking what Meg has found and twisted it to suit their purpose. These are minimum guidelines. I also believe (I can't remember for sure if this is correct, so take this with a grain of salt) I had an ACSM certified trainer tell me once that they were instructed to start BEGINNERS off with a 2-3 day total body routine of 1 set of 12 reps of 8-10 different exercises which coincides with the minimums quoted by Meg.

Also, like Meg said, it doesn't take into account different goals. By the articles own statements, they are only purporting that the strength gains are similar (which I still would like to read and evaluate the actual study before believing this claim) but they are saying nothing about hypertrophy or muscle endurance. First of all, since 3 sets of 8-12 is the most recommended range for hypertrophy, I think most people this article is targeting would like to know what affect doing a single set would have on hypertrophy.

As far as those training for strength, they are probably more often doing something like 8x3 than they are doing 3x8-12 so what does this article tell them?

Let's see maybe I can send them an article selling the fact that all those people lifting heavy weight for 8 sets of 3 reps sets can save time in the gym by doing 1 set of 15 reps. I'm sure I can find a study showing that 1 set of 15 reps is better for muscle endurance than doing 8x3. As for the fact that those doing 8x3 probably could care less about muscle endurance, Irrelevant! Single set routines sell advertising! Never underestimate the ability to sell the public an easy workout.

[End of rant]

[sportmom]

I believe that fitness model in the CNN link is from even before 1998 - say, circa 1988. That's about the last time I remember seeing thongs worn in the gym with leotards! Blech. So I give it about that much credibility. Getty images doesn't have anything more recent?? Bad memories! I can't believe Dr. Sanjay Gupta would put his label on this, still! But it could be an editorial/exec. override like Depalma said.

[Meg]

I searched through the ACSM site again today and still couldn't find any recently revised guidelines, so I went to their journal, Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise. The most recent article dealing with the recommended number of sets that I found is:

Resistance Training for Strength: Effect of Number of Sets and Contraction Speed.

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 37(9):1622-1626, September 2005.
MUNN, JOANNE 1; HERBERT, ROBERT D. 1; HANCOCK, MARK J. 1; GANDEVIA, SIMON C. 2

Conclusions: Three sets of exercise produce twice the strength increase of one set in the early phase of resistance training. Training fast produces greater strength increases than training slow; however, there does not appear to be any additional benefit of training with both three sets and fast contractions.

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/...d=1&nav=search

It seems to endorse three sets over one. So I'm still puzzled by CNN's statement.

[Mel]

There was a study done at the University of Maryland about two years ago on previously sedentary seniors- over 70 years old- which showed that the one set group had equivalent strength gains over the three set group. I don't have references, sorry. But the study was done on a previously sedentary population, only done over the course of three months, and recent studies have shown that people over 65-70 metabolize protein and carbs at a different ratio in building muscle. Who knows what these people were eating?

Why bother talking about minimums? Those don't meet any of our goals here!

I do four sets unless I'm training for endurance.

Mel

[Jennifer 3FC]

Thanks for the opinions...I guess it's a case of recycled misinformation!