These are the responses of Matt Brzycki to questions posed in “High Intensity Training 1 Set vs 3 Sets: The Experts Debate – No Holds Barred!” [a roundtable moderated by R. B. Kreider that appeared in the August 2000 issue of Muscular Development).

Editors Note: High Intensity Training (better known as H.I.T.) is the basis of the training philosophy at Premiere Personal Fitness.

HIT ROUNDTABLE

MD: Over the last number of years there has been considerable debate regarding the validity and effectiveness of HIT training. Do you recommend HIT training?

Brzycki: I’ve advocated HIT since 1980. Considering the ever-growing popularity of HIT and the legions of strength and fitness professionals who have found it to be an extremely productive method of training their athletes “in the trenches,” it’s incredible that there’s even a debate.

MD: HIT training has evolved over the years. What do you consider to be the most effective type of HIT training?

Brzycki: While HIT may have evolved since first becoming popular in the early 1970s, the fundamental principles have remained the same. That said, HIT is not and has never been “one set of 8-12 reps on a Nautilus machine.” There are countless interpretations, variations and applications of HIT, with many strength and fitness professionals incorporating their own personal twists and perspectives. Any type of weight training -– including HIT -– will be effective provided that it encourages progressive overload of the muscles and provides for adequate recovery.

MD: When you develop training programs, do you exclusively use HIT training methods, some combination of single and multiple set training, or exclusively multiple set/periodized training?

Brzycki: One of the many misconceptions about HIT is that it is “one set and only one set.” While most versions of HIT involve one set of each exercise, there are multiple-set applications (although the multiple sets are of much lower volume than found in traditional programming). Since 1982, I’ve had the opportunity to oversee the training of thousands of Division I collegiate athletes who competed in almost every sport imaginable from football and basketball to lacrosse and squash. Without exception, the programs that I prescribed for all of them involved HIT methods.

MD: Do you follow the HIT principles in your general conditioning of athletes (i.e., one sprint rather than repetitive sprinting/drills)?

Brzycki: The training variables used in conditioning aren’t necessarily identical to those used in strength training. My approach to conditioning -- both aerobic and anaerobic –- does employ basic concepts and applications similar to that of HIT. However, attempting to compare or equate one set of an exercise to one repetition of a sprint/drill as suggested by this question is ridiculous. In order to produce improvement, it is essential that any type of physical training -– whether it is for strength, conditioning, skill or flexibility –- incorporate the Overload Principle. Similar to HIT, the conditioning workouts that I advocate are relatively brief –- in the case of conditioning, usually 20 – 30 minutes per workout -- and involve highly aggressive, all-out efforts for a designated duration or distance.

MD: Please indicate how effective you feel that HIT training is for the following individuals on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 represents no effectiveness and 10 represents the most effective?

Untrained Beginner:

To Maintain/Improve Fitness:

Moderately Trained:

Highly Trained Body Builder:

Strength/Power Athletes:

Endurance Athletes:

Brzycki: Rather than be handcuffed by the restrictions of a subjective rating scale, let me state unequivocally that HIT can be effective for anyone -- regardless of lifting experience or aspiration -- as long as it encourages progressive overload and allows sufficient recovery. As an example, I trained a powerlifter in the mid 1980s using HIT methods and he set the New Jersey State Teenage Record in the bench press. In terms of highly trained bodybuilders, the names Casey Viator, Sergio Oliva, Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates quickly come to mind as individuals who have used HIT effectively. The past three decades have provided literally tens of thousands of examples of individuals -– both male and female with various levels of experience ranging from “untrained” beginners to “highly trained” athletes –- as proof that HIT can be extremely efficacious.

MD: In your view, what is the greatest advantage of HIT training?

Brzycki: The greatest advantage of HIT is that it represents a practical approach to strength training in that it can produce excellent results in a relatively brief amount of time without being unnecessarily burdened by the undue complexity, relative inflexibility and pseudo-scientific terminology that are characteristic of periodized training.

MD: In your view, what is the greatest weakness of HIT training?

Brzycki: The greatest weakness of HIT is the unfortunate and inaccurate perception and portrayal of it along with the unjustified and unending criticism that it has received from certain individuals who have clearly placed their own personal agendas ahead of the strength and fitness profession.

MD: What refereed scientific research studies do you feel provides the strongest support for HIT training?

Brzycki: The strongest support for HIT is provided by an exhaustive literature review performed by Drs. Carpinelli and Otto of Adelphi University. Their comprehensive review of all relevant research that examined different numbers of sets -– 35 studies dating back to 1956 -– showed that there were no significant differences between single- and multiple-set training in all but two studies: Berger (1962) and Kramer and others (1997). In a later review, Carpinelli (1999) noted two additional studies that found no significant differences between single- and multiple-set training. In my opinion, this is the most significant paper that has been published in the field of exercise science during the last 25 years or more. Incidentally, it is important to note that the Berger and Kramer studies were contaminated with numerous design flaws that renders their results to be questionable at best and meaningless at worst. As an example, the Kramer study did not equate the experimental groups for strength before training began. In addition, the varied multiple-set group in the study did sets of 5 repetitions or less for more than 70% of the training period (while the single-set group never did less than 8). This design flaw certainly favored the varied multiple-set group when it came to tests of the 1-RM squat. In the same study, some data were calculated from training logs kept by the subjects –- an unbelievable design flaw that polluted the scientific purity of the study.

MD: What is your opinion regarding the quality of research done on HIT training?

Brzycki: I am especially impressed by the research that has been done by the late Dr. Michael Pollock and his colleagues at the University of Florida. Their studies have been exceptionally well designed and meticulously administered. In all fairness, the quality of research that does not seem to support HIT should also be discussed. The studies that have been cited as evidence for multiple-set training and/or periodization contain design flaws and researcher bias that are so blatant and widespread that they would be amusing if they weren’t so alarming. For instance, in the study by Kramer and his colleagues (1997), the researchers set the target weights for the multiple-set groups and “adjusted [the weights] throughout the study.” This selective favoritism undoubtedly put the single-set group at a severe disadvantage. Two other studies frequently heralded by HIT naysayers have a puzzling lack of supportive data. One study –- which has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal in any form other than a one-paragraph abstract -- did not contain absolute values or percent changes in strength (Kraemer et al. 1995); besides being a mere seven weeks in length, another study did not include absolute values for test performances other than “net changes” (Stowers et al. 1983). In both studies, the incomplete –- or absent –- data make the results open to different interpretations. Finally, the “series” of five “experiments” by Kraemer (1997) were littered with design flaws and researcher bias, the most transparent of which was testing that included the hang clean –- an exercise that was included in the training program of the multiple-set group but not the single-set group. And in several instances, the researcher made conclusions that clearly contradicted his own data.

MD: Critics of HIT training often suggest that there is too little peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that HIT is as effective or more effective than traditional periodized, multiple set resistance training. If you are a proponent of HIT training, what is your view of this criticism and what research data do you cite to support your view?

Brzycki: First, legitimate scientific evidence should be peer-reviewed, not pal-reviewed. Indeed, some studies have design flaws that would not be worthy of a passing grade in a high school science project yet they somehow passed the supposed peer-review process of a scientific journal. Second, I don’t know of any HIT proponent who has said that HIT is “more effective” than traditional methods of training. Any study that has been conducted in a scientifically acceptable manner and is void of any researcher bias has shown that -- without exception -- there are no significant differences between single-set (or low-volume) training and multiple-set (or high-volume) training.

MD: A recent paper published by Hass et al. (Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise. 32: 235-242, 2000) evaluated the effects of single versus multiple set resistance training in a group of middle-aged recreationally trained adults. Results revealed that in a group of subjects who had previously trained with 1 set to failure, that increasing training volume to 3 sets did not promote greater gains in muscular strength, muscular endurance, and/or body composition. What is your general impression of the quality and significance of this study?

Brzycki: Like other studies done at the University of Florida, the quality of this research is exceptional. In terms of importance, this 13-week study –- using subjects who had been performing single-set training for at least 12 months -- shows that single-set training continues to be effective beyond one year. Further, increasing the training volume by 200% did not produce significantly greater results in experienced subjects after 13 weeks of training. In fact, the one-set group increased their muscular strength in the leg extension and 1-RM bench press more than the three-set group during the last six weeks of the study. It is also interesting to note that seven subjects did not complete the study –- all from the multiple-set group. This includes two subjects who experienced tendonitis –- an overuse injury –- in their shoulders and knees.

MD: In your view, can the results of this study be generalized to serious weightlifters, body builders, or well-trained athletes?

Brzycki: Having trained individuals ranging from neophyte to elite, I am not convinced that there are any physiological reasons why the aforementioned populations would not experience results similar to those produced in the study by Hass and his colleagues (2000). The fundamental concept of progressive overload applies to everyone.

MD: Do you feel that serious weightlifters, bodybuilders, or well-trained athletes can optimize strength, muscle mass, and/or performance to a greater degree using HIT training than traditional multiple set/periodized training?

Brzycki: As I’ve said earlier, HIT is at least as effective as any other method of resistance training in terms of increasing muscular size and strength. There is no reason to believe that “serious” athletes would require different stimuli than others in order to produce optimal physiological adaptations. While on the subject, categorizing lifters with terms such as “serious” or “recreational” can be deceiving. For example, I consider myself to be a recreational lifter since I am no longer training for any type of competition. Nevertheless, as a long-time lifter -- and former competitive powerlifter and bodybuilder -- I also characterize myself as serious, experienced and highly trained.

MD: HIT and multiple set/periodized training proponents suggest that each of their methods of training is superior to the other. In light of this, how do you interpret the results of this study?

Brzycki: The line of questioning in this roundtable is unmistakably prejudiced against HIT. To the best of my knowledge, no proponent of HIT side has stated that HIT is superior to any other type of training. At any rate, the results of this study affirm what HIT proponents have known for decades: that single-set (or low-volume) training is at least as productive as other types of resistance training.

MD: The American Heart Association recently published a science advisory entitled “Resistance-exercise in individuals with and without cardiovascular disease – benefits, rationale, safety, and prescription” (Pollock et al., Circulation. 101: 828-833, 2000). The article mainly discussed the potential value of resistance training in special populations like heart patients. However, the article stated:

“Programs that include a single set of 8 to 10 different exercises (eg, chest press, shoulder press, triceps extension, biceps curl, pull-down [upper back], lower back-extension, abdominal crunch/curl-up, quadriceps extension or leg press, leg curls [hamstrings], and calf raise) that train the major muscle groups, performed 2 to 3 days per week, will elicit favorable adaptation and improvement (or maintenance thereof). Although greater frequencies of training and more sets may be used, the additional gains among those in adult fitness programs are programs are usually small.”

The advisory continued to recommend the following prescription for patients without cardiovascular disease:

Because “lack of time” is a major reason for not exercising or dropping out of an exercise regimen, planning a time efficient program is imperative. Approximately 75% of the improvement that occurs with a 3-days-per-week resistance-training program can be attained with a 2-days-per-week regimen. Furthermore, a single set of exercises to volitional fatigue with weight loads corresponding to ≈50±10% of 1 RM, has been found to be as effective as multiple-set programs that are prescribed in adult fitness settings.”

These statements are referenced with the following citations:

American College of Sports Medicine position stand: the recommended quantity and quality of exercise for development and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness and flexibility in healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise. 30: 975-991, 1998.

Feigenbaum MS, Pollock, ML. Strength training: rationale for current guidelines for adult fitness programs. Physician and Sports Medicine. 25:44-64, 1997.

Dishman RK (ed). Exercise Adherence: Its Impact on Public Health. 2^nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994.

MD: Do you agree with these guidelines?

Brzycki: I have not read the paper but I generally agree that these guidelines -- as presented here –- can be effective in stimulating increases in muscular size and strength. The only training variables that appear to be missing are mention of repetition ranges and the need for a systematic means of progression. I would, however, dispute the position that two weekly workouts can produce approximately 75% of the improvements made from three weekly workouts. It’s actually been found to be a little greater. Research by Braith and others (1989) demonstrated that a group who trained two times per week experienced 80% of the gains of a group who trained three times per week after 18 weeks. By the way, most of the aforesaid guidelines have been confirmed repeatedly by both scientific and anecdotal evidence.

MD: Please indicate how applicable you feel that these guidelines are to the following individuals on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 represents no effectiveness and 10 represents the most effective?

Untrained Beginner:

To Maintain/Improve Fitness:

Moderately Trained:

Highly Trained Body Builder:

Strength/Power Athletes:

Endurance Athletes:

Brzycki: I do not see why these guidelines could not be effectively applied to any of the populations that are listed. There are no physiological reasons to think otherwise.

MD: Do you know of any peer-reviewed scientific research that supports these statements?

Brzycki: I refer to the literature reviews of Carpinelli and Otto (1998) and Carpinelli (1999) in providing unmistakable and compelling scientific evidence that there are no significant differences between single-set (or low-volume) training and multiple-set (or high-volume) training. I am unaware of any reasons why the aforementioned groups of individuals would need different stimuli.

MD: Are you aware of any peer-reviewed research that refutes these statements?

Brzycki: Any peer-reviewed research to suggest otherwise is laden with such horrific design flaws and selective favoritism toward multiple-set training that their results are scientifically unacceptable and, therefore, unreliable.

MD: Based on these recent research findings and guidelines, do you recommend that serious weightlifters, bodybuilders, and athletes use single set, HIT training 2 to 3 days per week to optimize gains in strength, muscle mass, and/or performance?

Brzycki: I am unsure of how many more ways you can rephrase the same question. Nor am I sure of how many more ways I can rephrase the same answer. Having worked in the strength and fitness profession with access to a wide range of individuals with an equally wide range of ages, experiences and aspirations and using the weight room as a laboratory for roughly two decades, I firmly believe that anyone can realize their physical potential using HIT.

MD: Which of the following statements best describes your view of the value/effectiveness of HIT training.

___ HIT is not the most effective way to train in comparison to periodized, multiple set training.

___ HIT may be an effective way to train for beginners and/or to maintain fitness levels in some individuals but it is not the best way to train serious weightlifters, body builders, or athletes.

___ HIT is the most effective way to train for most people including beginners, adult fitness, and serious weightlifters, body builders, or athletes.

___ HIT is a better way to train people at all training levels and is significantly better than multiple set training.

Brzycki: Being forced to choose from four pre-planned summary statements amounts to having words put in my mouth. What I will say in a one-sentence summation is that there is an abundance of highly persuasive evidence –- both scientific as well as empirical -- to indicate that HIT is at least as effective as any other method of training in producing improvements in muscular size and strength and in a much shorter amount of time.

MD: Other comments?

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss HIT in an open and public forum.

References for Matt Brzycki:

Berger, R. A. 1962. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Research Quarterly 33 (2): 168-181.

Braith, R. W., J. E. Graves, M. L. Pollock, S. H. Leggett, D. M. Carpenter and A. B. Colvin. 1989. Comparison of two versus three days per week of variable resistance training during 10 and 18 week programs. International Journal of Sports Medicine 10: 450-454.

Carpinelli, R. N. 1999. The multiple-set myth. In Maximize your training: insights from leading strength and fitness professionals, ed. M. Brzycki, 81-95. Lincolnwood, IL: Masters Press.

Carpinelli, R. N., and R. M. Otto. 1998. Strength training: single versus multiple sets. Sports Medicine 26 (2): 73-84.

Hass, C. J., L. Garzarella, D. De Hoyos and M. L. Pollock. 2000. Single versus multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 32: 235-242.

Kraemer, W. J. 1997. A series of studies -- the physiological basis for strength training in American football: fact over philosophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 11 (3): 131-142.

Kraemer, W. J., R. U. Newton, J. Bush, J. Volek, N. T. Triplett and L. P. Koziris. 1995. Varied multiple set resistance training programs produce greater gains then single set program. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 7 (5): S195.

Kramer, J. B., M. H. Stone, H. S. O'Bryant, M. S. Conley, R. L. Johnson, D. C. Nieman, D. R. Honeycutt and T. P. Hoke. 1997. Effects of single vs multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and variation. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 11 (3): 143-147.

Mannie, K. 1997. Unpublished letter to William Kraemer. (November 28).

Stowers, T., J. McMillan, D. Scala, V. Davis, D. Wilson and M. Stone. 1983. The short-term effects of three different strength power training methods. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal 5 (3): 24-27.