Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2002, 16(4), 525529

q 2002 National Strength & Conditioning Association

Three Sets of Weight Training Superior to 1 Set

With Equal Intensity for Eliciting Strength
MATTHEW R. RHEA, BRENT A. ALVAR, STEPHEN D. BALL,
LEE N. BURKETT

AND

Exercise and Wellness Research Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education,
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85212.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare single and multiple sets of weight training for strength gains in recreationally trained individuals. Sixteen men (age 5 21 6 2.0) were
randomly assigned to 1 set (S-1; n 5 8) or 3 set (S-3; n 5 8)
groups and trained 3 days per week for 12 weeks. One repetition maximum (1RM) was recorded for bench press and
leg press at pre-, mid-, and posttest. Subjects trained according to daily undulating periodization (DUP), involving the
bench press and leg press exercises between 4RM and 8RM.
Training intensity was equated for both groups. Analysis of
variance with repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences favoring S-3 in the leg press (p , 0.05,
effect size [ES] 5 6.5) and differences approaching significance in the bench press (p 5 0.07, ES 5 2.3). The results
demonstrate that for recreationally trained individuals using
DUP training, 3 sets of training are superior to 1 set for
eliciting maximal strength gains.

Key Words: volume, resistance training, daily undulating periodization, nonlinear periodization, multiple
sets
Reference Data: Rhea, M.R., B.A. Alvar, S.D. Ball, and
L.N. Burkett. Three sets of weight training superior to
1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 16(4):525529. 2002.

Introduction

esearch (2, 3, 8, 9, 13) has demonstrated that multiple sets elicit greater strength gains than single
set training. But some researchers (16, 22) have suggested that single set protocols produce equal results
and that additional sets are unnecessary. The need to
determine the dose-response relationship between volume and strength gains is logical and important for
strength professionals. If 3 sets fail to elicit greater
gains in strength than a single set, then weight trainers
can save significant amounts of time and effort by performing only 1 set. But questions on the efficacy of
single set training in eliciting maximal strength gains

still remain. Does single set training actually result in

similar amounts of strength gains as multiple set training?
Extensive research has been conducted comparing
single and triple sets of training, with contradictory
results. After an analysis of studies comparing single
set and triple set training, several possible confounding variables should be considered. First, pretest
strength measures were not always taken on multiple
occasions to establish the reliability of baseline data
(24, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22). Without establishing the
reliability of the baseline measure, the changes measured after training may not represent true strength
increases.
Second, some studies (2, 11, 17, 19, 21) make no
mention of the amount of rest given to the multiple
set subjects between sets, whereas in other studies (4,
6, 8, 10) up to 30 minutes rest between sets was allowed. The use of multiple circuit training may not be
comparable with multiple set training because of rest
intervals between sets. Allowing too much rest between sets may limit the added stress of a multiple set
training program by allowing the muscle fibers recruited and exhausted in the previous set to recover
and be recruited again rather than making use of new
fibers. This may limit the added adaptations to multiple set training.
It has also been common for single vs. multiple set
studies (4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21) to fail to
equate training intensity between the training groups.
If the goal is to examine the effect of different volumes
on strength increases, then all other training variables
must be held constant to attribute any differences in
strength increase to the difference in volume.
Each of these issues could affect the degree of
strength increases elicited by the training programs
and therefore must be controlled to avoid a confounding influence. This study attempted to address each of
these issues during a comparison of single and triple
set training programs for increasing strength. We hy525

526 Rhea, Alvar, Ball, and Burkett

Table 1. Subject characteristics: means (SD).
Group

Age (y)

Height (cm)

S-1, n 5 8
S-3, n 5 8

22 (1)
20 (1)

180.9 (2.4)
181.5 (2.8)

pothesized that maintaining more stringent methodological control and limiting rest periods for multiple
subjects would result in greater gains in strength in
those subjects training with greater volume.

Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The current study was conducted to compare single
and multiple sets (3) of training for strength after ensuring reliability of baseline strength measures and
limiting the multiple set training group to only 12
minutes rest between sets. Training intensity was
equated, and physical activity outside the training program as well as the use of ergogenic aids among subjects was controlled.
Subjects
Eighteen men were recruited from college weighttraining classes to participate in the 12-week training
program, and they ranged in age from 19 to 23 years.
Subjects were apparently healthy and reported no condition that would contraindicate participation in a
weight-training program. All subjects were classified
as recreationally experienced weight trainers, with a
minimum of 2 years training experience (at least 2
days per week) immediately before commencement of
the study. Their descriptive characteristics are presented in Table 1.
All subjects volunteered to participate in this study,
which was evaluated and approved by an Institutional
Review Board. Each subject completed a written informed consent before commencement of the study.
Subjects were informed that missing more than 3
training sessions or failing to strictly comply with the
training program would result in disqualification from
the study. Two subjects reported the use of creatine
monohydrate and were excluded from the study. Thus,
16 subjects were determined to be eligible to participate in this study.
Testing and Procedures
The subjects completed a questionnaire and interview
regarding habitual activity and the use of ergogenic
aids. This was done to ensure that all subjects were
participating in similar amounts and types of activities
apart from the training program and to ensure that
subjects using ergogenic aids were excluded from the
study. Habitual physical activity patterns were similar
among all subjects mainly characterized by moderate

Weight (kg)
83.0 (6.4)
97.0 (12.0)

Body fat (%)

Lean body (%)

19.7 (3.7)
19.5 (2.9)

80.4 (3.7)
78.6 (4.1)

amounts (3045 minutes per session; 23 sessions per

week) of aerobic-type activities, such as jogging, cycling, or recreational sports participation.
The subjects received 6 instructional sessions before the first testing session during which they were
instructed in proper lifting technique and testing procedures. They were also able to become familiar with
the equipment and procedures. Subjects then participated in 3 testing sessions. Three trials were completed for each exercise on separate days, each separated
by at least 48 hours. Strength testing consisted of 1
repetition maximum (1RM) testing on both the barbell
bench press (free weights) and leg press (Cybex incline
leg press machine). Testing was carried out according
to the National Strength and Conditioning Association
guidelines for strength testing (15). All 1RM testing
was overseen by the same trained investigator and
conducted on the same equipment with identical subject/equipment positioning. Subjects were required to
warm up and perform light stretching before performing approximately 10 repetitions with a relatively light
resistance. The resistance was then increased to an
amount estimated to be less than the subjects 1RM.
The resistance was progressively increased in incremental loads after each successful attempt until failure.
All 1RM values were determined in 35 attempts.
Strength testing was repeated in week 6 and after
week 12.
The 3 trials were analyzed for reliability to ensure
a proper baseline measure. Trials 2 and 3 were highly
correlated (R 5 0.99), but trial 1 was found to be significantly different from trials 2 and 3 (p . 0.05).
Therefore, the highest amount from trials 2 and 3 was
selected as the baseline measure.
Before 1 of the 3 testing sessions, body composition
was measured by whole-body plethysmography (Bod
Pod, Life-Measurement Instruments, Concord, CA)
and converted into percent fat values using the Siri
equation (12). The initial measured thoracic volume
was entered for the posttest to ensure reliability. Subjects were required to wear a lycra swim cap and tight
fitting lycra/spandex bike shorts, or swimming briefs,
for each trial. Bod Pod testing was performed by 1
trained technician.
Repeated circumference measures were taken using a Gulick tape measure. Standardized procedures
for circumference measures were taken at the chest
and at midthigh (1). Body composition and circumference measures were repeated after week 12.

Multiple Sets Superior for Strength 527

Table 2. Results: means (SD).

Mid

Post

% Change
pre-mid

% Change
mid-post

% Change
pre-post

Leg Press (kg)

S-1
269.04 (16.8)
S-3
225.85 (25.0)

319.0 (64.8)
294.3 (82.8)

337.2 (69.0)
343.5 (89.9)

19 (4)*
32 (5)*

6 (2)*
18 (4)*

26 (5)*
56 (8)*

Bench press (kg)

S-1
64.21 (8.9)
S-3
66.76 (7.3)

74.7 (27.9)
75.3 (21.9)

76.7 (28.0)
85.5 (20.8)

18 (3)
13 (2)

3 (2)*
16 (5)*

20 (3)
33 (8)

Strength

Pre

Body composition
(Bod Pod)

Pre

Post

Change

19.7 (3.7)
19.5 (2.9)

19.0 (3.3)
18.1 (3.1)

20.63 (0.8)%
21.38 (4.1)%

Lean body mass(%)

S-1
S-3

80.5 (3.7)
78.7 (4.1)

81.35 (3.5)
79.98 (4.3)

0.9 (0.7)%
1.3 (0.6)%

Chest circumference (cm)

S-1
S-3

123.8 (3.8)
127.1 (4.5)

125.7 (3.8)
129.9 (4.1)

1.9 (0.7)
2.8 (0.7)

Thigh circumference (cm)

S-1
S-3

51.0 (3.2)
53.9 (1.1)

50.6 (2.6)
54.6 (2.0)

20.5 (1.4)
0.7 (1.2)

Body fat (%)

S-1
S-3

* Signifies significant differences between groups (p , 0.05).

Training Program
After testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either a 1 set (S-1, n 5 8) or 3 sets (S-3, n 5 8) group.
No significant differences existed (p . 0.05) in any
measure between groups at baseline. Groups trained
according to daily undulating periodization (DUP)
that entails daily changes in volume and intensity as
suggested by Rhea et al. (18). Subjects trained 3 days
per week, with each session lasting about 1 hour. The
first session of each week consisted of 810 RM, the
second session consisted of 68 RM, and the third session consisted of 46 RM. Subjects were required to
adjust the amount of weight used for each exercise to
ensure failure between the specified RM values. Each
session was separated by 48 hours. This cycle was repeated for 12 weeks, with 1 week of active rest (participation in physical activity with the exception of
weight training) between weeks 5 and 6.
Both groups trained according to similar training
procedures (differing only in the number of sets performed) for both the leg press and bench press. After
a 10-minute warm-up consisting of light jogging or
cycling and flexibility exercises, subjects performed a
warm-up set with a very light resistance for approximately 10 repetitions. Resistance was then increased
to an amount appropriate for the specified RM for the

day. The daily RM value was identical for both groups.

The S-3 group was limited to 12 minutes rest between
sets.
Because the S-1 group completed the prescribed exercises in less time than the S-3 group, they were assigned to perform 1 set (812 repetitions) of exercises
unrelated to the bench press and leg press. These exercises included biceps curl, lat pull-down, abdominal
crunches, back extensions, and seated rows. Any remaining time was used for flexibility exercises. Time
permitting, the S-3 group also performed these same
exercises for only 1 set. Subjects were instructed to
continue their normal habitual physical activities, but
weight training not prescribed by the training program was not allowed.
Statistical Analyses
These data were analyzed using an analysis of variance with repeated measures, and, where appropriate,
Tukeys post hoc tests were used to determine differences among groups and across time. The level of significance in this study was set at p # 0.05.

Results
Table 2 shows changes in measures at pre-, mid-, and
posttraining. Significant increases in strength were

528 Rhea, Alvar, Ball, and Burkett

measured for both groups pre-post (p , 0.05) in both

the bench press and leg press. Strength increases for
the leg press pre-post were measured and calculated
to be 26 and 56% for S-1 and S-3, respectively. For the
bench press this increase was 20 and 33%, respectively.
Differences in percent increases for the leg press were
found to be statistically greater (p , 0.05), favoring S3. Bench press percentages were not found to significant at 0.05; however, the difference closely approached this level (p 5 0.07).
Effect sizes (ES), using means and pooled standard
deviations (SDs) with S-1 as the control group, were
calculated to be 2.3 for the bench press and 6.5 for the
leg press. These were found to be significantly different from zero (p , 0.001). Statistical power was estimated to be 0.99.
Neither group significantly changed (p . 0.05) any
of the body composition nor circumference measures
after the training program.

Discussion
Both S-1 and S-3 groups significantly improved
strength after the training program. But the results of
this study demonstrate that performing 3 sets of
weight-training exercises elicits more strength gains
than training with 1 set (30 and 13% greater gains in
the leg press and bench press, respectively). The differences in ES demonstrate that the magnitude of the
effect of 3 sets of training on strength increases is
about 2 SDs higher for the bench press and about 6
SDs higher in the leg press and were found to reject
the null hypothesis. The ability to identify these differences may have been a result of control of variables
that might influence strength gains. In this study, the
only difference between S-1 and S-3 groups was the
training volume.
The current study is the first to compare single and
multiple sets of training in recreationally experienced
male weight trainers using DUP training. Kraemer et
al. (9) compared a multiset, DUP-type program with
a nonperiodized, single set program in female collegiate tennis players (apparently untrained in weight
training). The multiset, DUP program resulted in significantly greater gains in strength across a 9-month
program; however, the changes in that study are not
directly comparable with the current study because of
different subject populations and the length and type
of training programs used.
Several theories may explain why multiple sets of
weight training elicit greater strength gains than single
set programs. Selyes general adaptation syndrome
(GAS) (20) asserts that a bodily system will adapt with
increased function when faced with a stress to which
it is not accustomed. Selye describes 3 stages that the
system may experience in such a process. First, the
alarm phase in which the system is introduced a new

stimulus. Second, the resistance phase is characterized

by adaptations occurring in the system to meet the
demands of the stimulus. Third, if the stimulus is too
strong or presented too long, the exhaustion phase is
reached where adaptations plateau.
Weight training serves as a stressor to the neuromuscular system. Selyes theory suggests that when an
individual begins a weight-training program, an unaccustomed stress is presented to the neuromuscular
system and the alarm phase begins. Once the system
has been overloaded, it then adapts (resistance phase)
to meet the stress, and if the stress is left unchanged
for an extended time or is too strong, adaptation will
cease (exhaustion phase) once the demands can be
met.
An important variable for eliciting an overload effect in multiple set training programs is the amount
of rest allowed between sets. Zatsiorsky (23) proposed
the Corridor Theory of strength training, which states
that motor units both recruited and exhausted are the
only motor units that will experience physiological
change. These motor units will show maximal increases in strength over time but only if they are both recruited and exhausted. If too much time is allowed
between sets, the exhausted motor units may recover
and be used in the next set, thus training the same set
of motor units over and over. If time between sets is
not sufficient for the units to recover from exhaustion,
then different sets of motor units will be recruited and
overloaded for the next set. This scenario may overload multiple sets of motor units and elicit greater adaptations than the 1 set protocol. The current study
held rest to no more than 2 minutes between sets. This
may have resulted in a greater number of muscle fibers
being overloaded and may have been the factor that
elicited greater strength improvements in the multiple
sets group.
These theories may apply to the issue of volume
and strength increases, in that differences in training
volume represent different degrees of stress presented
to the neuromuscular system. Because of the increases
in strength that have been measured with both single
and multiple set training, it is apparent that they both
represent a stress sufficient to elicit neuromuscular adaptations. The issue then becomes, which represents
the optimal amount of stress (volume) to elicit maximal strength adaptations? This can be determined by
analyzing the dose-response relationship between volume and strength gains.
In this study, multiple sets of training yielded 30
and 13% greater gains in strength for the leg press and
bench press, respectively. Mean percent increases were
calculated from the research comparing single and triple sets of training, including the current study (2, 4,
610, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22). Strength increases do occur
with the first set of training (mean increase of 14%);
however, multiple sets do result in greater gains (mean

Multiple Sets Superior for Strength 529

increase of 18%). Strength increases appear to follow

the principle of diminishing returns (5). With increase
in training volume, the magnitude of adaptations may
slow or diminish. The extra gains take more effort and
volume to achieve but do exist.
Because multiple sets elicits greater strength gains,
it is apparent that multiple sets do put a greater stress
on the neuromuscular system and that the system is
able to adapt to that stress. If single set training represented the optimal amount of stress and multiple
sets represented a stress that was too strong, Selyes
GAS would suggest that strength gains would plateau
after the first set. This, however, does not appear to be
the case. The optimal amount of stress continues to
remain speculative. Without more research comparing
single set training with 2, 3, 4, and more sets, it is
difficult to identify exactly where that plateau occurs.
At this point it is sufficient to state that multiple sets
are required to elicit maximal strength gains.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Practical Applications
Both 1 set (to failure) and 3 sets of weight training can
result in statistically significant gains in muscular
strength. But 3 sets have demonstrated greater gains
in strength than a single set in recreationally trained
men. Therefore, strength coaches, trainers, and weighttraining professionals should be aware of the differences between the 2 programs and be able to prescribe
proper amounts of volume based on training goals.
Some individuals may not need maximal strength increases to meet their needs or goals. In these cases, 1
set to failure may be sufficient. But in populations
where maximal strength gains are desired, 3 sets of
weight training is superior to 1 set of weight training.

References
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

American College of Sports Medicine. ACSMs Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed.). Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins, 2000.
BERGER, R. Effect of varied weight training programs on
strength. Res. Q. 33:168181. 1962.
BORST, S.E., D.V. DE HOYOS, L. GARZARELLA, K. VINCENT, B.H.
POLLOCK, D.T. LOWENTHAL, AND M.L. POLLOCK. Effects of resistance training on insulin-like growth factor-I and IGF binding proteins. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 33:648653. 2001.
CAPEN, E.K. Study of four programs of heavy resistance exercise for development of muscular strength. Res. Q. 27:132142.
1956.
CORBIN, C.B., R. LINDSEY, AND G. WELK. Concepts of Fitness and
Wellness (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
HASS, C.J., L. GARZELLA, D. DEHOYOS, AND M.L. POLLOCK. Single versus multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters.
Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 32:235242. 2000.
JACOBSON, B.H. A comparison of 2 progressive weight training

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

23.

techniques on knee extensor strength. Athl. Train. 21:315318,

390. 1986.
KRAEMER, W.J. A series of studies: The physiological basis for
strength training in American football: Facto over philosophy.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:131142. 1997.
KRAEMER, W.J., N. RATAMESS, A.C. FRY, T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE,
L.P. KOZIRIS, J.A. BAUER, J.M. LYNCH, AND S.J. FLECK. Influence
of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis
players. Am. J. Sports Med. 28:626633. 2000.
KRAMER, J.B., M.H. STONE, H.S. OBRYANT, M.S. CONLEY, R.L.
JOHNSON, D.C. NIEMAN, D.R. HONEYCUTT, AND T.P. HOKE. Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of
volume, intensity, and variation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:143
147. 1997.
LEIGHTON, J.R., D. HOLMES, AND J. BENSON. A study on the
effectiveness of ten different methods of progressive resistance
exercise on the development of strength, flexibility, girth, and
bodyweight. J. Assoc. Phys. Mental Rehabil. 21:7881. 1967.
LOHMAN, T.G., A.F. ROCHE, AND R. MARTORELL. Anthropometric
Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1988.
MARX, J.O., N.A. RATAMESS, B.C. NINDL, L.A. GOTSHALK, J.S.
VOLEK, K. DOHI, J.A. BUSH, A.L. GOMEZ, S.A. MAZZETTI, S.J.
FLECK, K. HAKKINEN, R.U. NEWTON, AND W.J. KRAEMER. Lowvolume circuit versus high-volume periodized resistance training in women. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 33:635643. 2001.
MESSIER, S.P., AND M.E. DILL. Alterations in strength and maximal oxygen uptake consequent to nautilus circuit weight training. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 56:345351. 1985.
National Strength and Conditioning Association. Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning (2nd ed.). T.R. Bachle, and
R.A. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. p. 292.
POLLOCK, M., J.E. GRAVES, M.M. BAMMAN, S.H. LEGGET, D.M.
CARPENTER, C. CARR, J. CIRULLI, J. MATOKOVICH, AND M. FULTON. Frequency and volume of resistance training: Effect on
cervical extension. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 74:10801086. 1993.
REID, C.M., R.A. YEATER, AND I.H. ULLRICH. Weight training
and strength, cardiorespiratory functioning and body composition of men. Br. J. Sports Med. 21:4044. 1987.
RHEA, M.R., S.B. BALL, W.T. PHILLIPS, AND L.N. BURKETT. A
comparison of linear and daily undulating periodization with
equated volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength Cond. Res.
16:250255. 2002.
SANDBORN, K., R. BOROS, J. HRUBY. B. SCHILLING, H.S.
OBRYANT, R.L. JOHNSON, T. HOKE, M.E. STONE, AND M.H.
STONE. Short-term performance effects of weight training with
multiple sets not to failure vs. a single set to failure in women.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 14:328331. 2000.
SELYE, H. Stress Without Distress. New York: J.B. Lippincott
Company, 1974.
SILVESTER, L.J., C. STIGGINS, C. MCKNOWN. AND G.R. BRYCE.
The effect of variable resistance and free-weight training programs on strength and vertical jump. NSCA J. 3(6):3033. 1982.
STARKEY, D.B., M.L. POLLOCK, Y. ISHIDA, M.A. WELSCH, W.F.
BRECHUE, J.E. GRAVES, AND M.S. FEIGENBAUM. Effect of resistance training volume on strength and muscle thickness. Med.
Sci. Sport Exerc. 28:13111320. 1996.
ZATSIORSKY, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

Address correspondence to Matthew Rhea, matthew.

[email protected].