's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

weight training(7 posts)

weight trainingGall
Sep 23, 2001 2:40 PM
hello again

its weight training time and i am putting together my program and blu blu...

anyhow, i heard from a friend that you can get the same benefit from doing only 1 set as you would get doing 3 or 4 etc sets.

has anyone tried this? and if so what were the results? do you know where i could find some information on this one set way of weights.

i really dont like to lift weights so if i can get the same from only 1 set my winter is going to be a lot better!

re: weight trainingJon
Sep 23, 2001 5:18 PM
One set weight training was all the rage a few years ago. Subsequent research, however, has
challenged some of the initial results and claims. The idea behind doing one set with near
maximal loads is that fast twitch muscle fibres receive a maximum stimulus, especially neurologically,
that is in terms of recruitment of motor units. This has been shown to be a fairly effective way to
retain strength, once it's developed, but not to develop it or to build muscular endurance, which is
a cyclist's main priority.

For your needs better to check out Bompa, Friel, or Burke and get on a periodized, sport specific
weight trainingJohn Evans
Sep 24, 2001 5:46 AM
Ask These Folks!

But I'd say no. There are allot of ideas out there but most of them revolve around these 2 theories : The body building guys use lower weight, higher reps around 10-12, 3-4 sets.
The power guys use heavy weight, lower reps, more sets. I think that everyone?s body responds differently and everyone has different goals so just get in the gym, try different things and see what works. I?d suggest asking the folks at the link above they really know their stuff.
re: weight trainingthe_gormandizer
Sep 24, 2001 6:57 AM
What you are referring to falls under "high intensity" training -- the concept that one set, typically of 10-12 reps, is sufficient provided that the reps are done with appropriate intensity. As other posters note, it is a bit more complicated than that and may not be the optimum for everyone, depending on your goals, etc. However, it might arguably give you the best bang-for-the-buck in terms of results vs effort. A great web site for more info on this sort of training is

I can also recommend two books that are a must-have: "Beyond Brawn" and "The Insider's Tell-All Handbook on Weight-Training Technique" by Stuart McRobert. The first book will tell you all you need to know about setting up a weight-training program and how a non-genetically-gifted strength trainer can get results with minimal risk of injury -- and without taking steriods or supplements. The second book gives detailed instructions on specific exercises, including the squat. There are things in these books that the average fitness-club instructor is unlikely to know and would take you years to learn by bitter experience. I bought my copies on-line from McRobert's web site:
re: weight training- high intensity trainingpeloton
Sep 24, 2001 8:19 AM
The technique I believe that you are talking about is called HIT, or high intensity training. It can be effective when implemented properly, but probably isn't right for the vast majority of people. For HIT to be effective the lifter practicing it must have absolutely proper form, and great skills of internalization to maximize results. These are two things that come only with experience, and they are hard to do for most people. Failing to utilize these skills in practicing high intensity training is going to give you diminishing returns. For most everyone, it is safer and more effective to practice more sets with lower weights and higher repititions, especially for cycling. Lower weights and higher repitions are more sport specific to cycling, and that will help to maximize your gains for the sport you are practicing.
re: weight trainingKim
Sep 24, 2001 9:48 AM
The problem with many of these studies is that they are done on sedentary types. So, *anything* is going to make a difference.

I ride and lift. I need to do a few warm-up sets before I lift my training weight. With one all-out set, you risk injury on muscles, tendons & ligaments that have not been properly warmed up. Think about getting on your bike and immediately doing a killer uphill sprint. Same thing.

Additionally, cyclists are usually interested in endurance which is what you get with multi-set, higher rep (10-12) sets. You don't have to go to failure on your last rep, but it should be fairly difficult to complete. Be sure that you concentrate on the muscles you're using and keep your form very strict.
Why are you lifting?Wayne
Sep 24, 2001 9:50 AM
I assume it is to make your muscles (leg and trunk) stronger for cycling, or for overall health (upper body), since you state that you don't enjoy it to begin with. That being said, your goal should be to induce hypertrophy since it's known that a muscles strength is directly proportional to its cross-sectional area. So when you go into next season your bigger (and therefore stronger) muscles when recruited in the specific manner required for cycling will be capable of producing more force. When lifting weights you'll get stronger for two reasons, one you're muscles hypertrophy (usually takes at least 6 weeks for noticeable gains), and two you make neurological adaptations that allow you to produce more force for any given exercise. The latter are pretty much exercise specific and consequently won't transfer to your cycling at all. For the former, the 8-10, maybe 12 rep range is pretty ideal with the last reps being pretty hard and approaching failure. More weight, less reps, and adaptations tend to be more neurological and less hypertrophy (not that you won't get bigger), lighter weights and more reps, you're probably not going to induce much hypertrophy so why bother. As for the number of sets its probably a question of diminishing returns, one probably does the most for your gains, 2 may add a good bit more but not as much as 1, 3 is probably not even worth the effort since the potential gains are so little, and 4 even more so.