Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(4), 1003–1006
䉷 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association
THE EFFECT OF SINGLE VERSUS MULTIPLE SETS
ON STRENGTH
STEPHEN B. KELLY, LEE E. BROWN, JARED W. COBURN, STEVEN M. ZINDER, LISA M. GARDNER,
AND DIAMOND NGUYEN
Department of Kinesiology, Human Performance Laboratory, California State University, Fullerton, California
92831.
ABSTRACT. Kelly, S.B., L.E. Brown, J.W. Coburn, S.M. Zinder,
L.M. Gardner, and D. Nguyen. The effect of single versus mul-
tiple sets on strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(4):1003–1006.
2007.—Research has previously been divided on whether per-
forming resistance training with a single set per training session
is as effective for increasing strength as training with multiple
sets. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of
single sets versus multiple sets on strength. Forty subjects were
randomly assigned into 1 of 3 groups: control (C; n ⫽ 8), single
set (SS; n ⫽ 14), or multiple sets (MS; n ⫽ 18) to perform 8
maximal knee extensions at 60⬚·s⫺1 on a Biodex System 3 iso-
kinetic dynamometer twice a week for 8 weeks. The SS group
performed 1 set while the MS group performed 3 sets. All groups
were pre-, mid- (4 weeks), and posttested at 60⬚·s⫺1. Strength
was expressed as peak torque (PT). A 3 ⫻ 3 ⫻ 2 (time ⫻ group
⫻ sex) mixed factor repeated measures analysis of variance (AN-
OVA) revealed no interaction involving sex, but there was an
interaction of group by time. The MS group exhibited a signifi-
cant ( p ⬍ 0.05) increase in PT (pre ⫽ 171.39 ⫾ 61.98 Nm; mid
⫽ 193.08 ⫾ 66.23 Nm) between the pretest and the midtest
while the SS (pre ⫽ 163.45 ⫾ 56.37 Nm; mid ⫽ 172.60 ⫾ 61.78
Nm) and C groups (pre ⫽ 135.997 ⫾ 54.31 Nm; mid ⫽ 127.66 ⫾
53.12 Nm) did not change. Strength did not change between the
midtest and the posttest for any group. It was concluded that
performing 3 sets of isokinetic knee extensions was more effec-
tive than performing a single set for increasing peak torque.
These results seem to indicate that for increasing strength of
the quadriceps, performing multiple sets is superior to perform-
ing a single set of resistance exercise.
KEY WORDS. isokinetic, velocity, peak torque, single set, multi-
ple sets
INTRODUCTION
he topic of the optimal amount of sets of resis-
T tance exercise one should perform when train-
ing in order to maximize strength gains has
been one of great debate (12). The research is
divergent; limited research demonstrates that performing
a single set of a resistance training exercise is as effective
(10, 14, 24) or even more effective (19) than performing
multiple sets for strength gains while the predominant
amount of research has demonstrated greater strength
gains as a result of increased sets (3, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20).
Further, there has been a plethora of literature ad-
vocating either single set training (6, 8, 18) or multiple
set training (2, 5, 21, 22) as the preferred method for in-
creasing strength through resistance training. The issue
has become a major point of contention among research-
ers. Reasons for the disparity in the literature have been
suggested in Rhea’s 2003 meta-analysis. It was speculat-
ed that small sample sizes in individual studies, which
result in low statistical power, may have contributed to
1003
lack of significance between single set and multiple set
protocols. Additionally, Rhea et al. questioned methodo-
logical control in some studies, stating that some neglect-
ed to control for variables such as periodization or train-
ing intensity. Thus, it can be difficult to accurately deci-
pher differences or trends in data when simply examining
the p values.
More research with various protocols is required to
more accurately describe the dose/response relationship
for resistance training. Previous literature examining the
effect of various volumes on strength has yielded conflict-
ing results (12). As the body of research continues to
grow, an answer to the question of increasing volume, or
sets of resistance exercise, for strength gain should be-
come clearer.
The purpose of the current study was to examine dif-
ferences between single sets and multiple sets in strength
developed over an 8-week training period on an isokinetic
dynamometer. There have been numerous strength train-
ing protocols employed in attempting to answer the single
versus multiple set question, however, none of the pre-
vious research has examined the issue with isokinetic
testing and training. The fact that the training was iso-
kinetic, theoretically allowed for maximal effort to be giv-
en on each repetition throughout the entire range of mo-
tion (25), creating a training environment in which each
repetition was as difficult to perform as the preceding and
subsequent repetitions. It was expected that both groups
participating in the training protocols would significantly
increase isokinetic strength from pretest to posttest when
compared to a control group. Furthermore, based on the
bulk of the literature (3, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20), it was hy-
pothesized that the group trained with multiple sets
would demonstrate a significantly greater strength in-
crease than the group trained with a single set.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The focus of the current study was the dose/response re-
lationship in resistance training. No attempt to equate
volume among groups was made. Each group was as-
signed a different volume of the same exercise over the
same period of time, and the strength data which resulted
were examined.
Subjects
Forty subjects (Table 1) voluntarily participated in the
study. All subjects were free of any knee pathology for
the past year. The majority of subjects were kinesiology
students; thus, it is expected that most participants had
1004 KELLY, BROWN, COBURN ET AL.

TABLE 1. Subject descriptives (mean ⫾ SD) by sex (M ⫽ male; F ⫽ female) and group (SS ⫽ single set; MS ⫽ multiple set).
Control M Control F SS M SS F MS M MS F
N 3 5 8 6 10 8
Age (yrs) 25.33 ⫾ 1.53 24.80 ⫾ 2.78 23.90 ⫾ 1.44 22.17 ⫾ 0.75 24.00 ⫾ 2.11 23.00 ⫾ 2.27
Height (cm) 175.83 ⫾ 10.15 161.7 ⫾ 7.89 173.69 ⫾ 7.30 160.00 ⫾ 5.79 176.65 ⫾ 6.23 166.25 ⫾ 3.05
Weight (kg) 78.97 ⫾ 14.98 57.02 ⫾ 6.67 84.03 ⫾ 18.26 58.78 ⫾ 9.96 91.12 ⫾ 20.37 75.01 ⫾ 20.81

some level of resistance training experience. Subjects

were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: control (C), sin-
gle set (SS), or multiple set (MS). It was asked that each
subject volunteering had not performed lower body resis-
tance exercises for the past 2 months, and that they con-
tinued to abstain from lower body extraneous strength
exercise throughout the course of the study. Each subject
was required to read and sign an informed consent form
approved by the University Human Subjects Institutional
Review Board.
Procedures
Prior to testing, each subject was weighed on a Health-
O-Meter digital scale (Shelton, CT) and performed a
5-minute warm-up on a Monark 868 cycle ergometer
(Varberg, Sweden) at a comfortable cadence and work-
load. Subjects were positioned on the isokinetic dyna-
mometer with straps placed over each shoulder, around
the waist, and over each thigh to ensure isolation of the
knee extensors. They were then verbally instructed to
perform a practice set of 4–6 submaximal repetitions. Af-
ter a 1-minute rest, the pretesting began, consisting of 1
set of 6 maximal effort concentric knee extensions at
60⬚·s⫺1) with the right leg.
Participants in the training groups were trained in
sets of 8 repetitions twice a week for 8 weeks for a total
of 15 training sessions (with midtesting replacing the sec-
ond training session of the fourth week) with the right
leg. The training protocol was identical to the testing pro-
tocol in terms of instructions given to the subject and sub-
jects’ position on the machine. Following their cycle FIGURE 1. Peak torque across time by group. * Significant (p
warm-up, subjects performed either 1 set (SS group) or 3 ⬍ 0.05) increase from pretest.
sets (MS group) of 8 repetitions at 60⬚·s⫺1 with 1 minute
rest between sets. Subjects were permitted to miss no
more than 2 nonconsecutive training days. More than 2 RESULTS
missed training days or 2 consecutive missed days re- The multiple set group significantly ( p ⬍ .05) increased
sulted in dismissal from the study. peak torque at 60⬚·s⫺1 (pre ⫽ 171.39 ⫾ 61.98 Nm; mid ⫽
Following the fourth (mid) and eighth (post) week of 201.40 ⫾ 77.67 Nm) (Figure 1) between the pretest and
training (3–5 days), subjects were retested. The midtest- midtest. There was no difference between the midtest and
ing and posttesting procedures were identical to those of posttest. The single set group and control group demon-
the pretest day. Isokinetic testing and training were done strated no improvements between any time of testing
on a Biodex System 3 isokinetic dynamometer, which has (Figure 1).
been shown to be highly reliable by Brown et al. (4). All
data from the Biodex were sampled at 2000 Hz by custom DISCUSSION
LabView (version 7.0) software, which collected torque, The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of
position, and velocity. Data were analyzed using SPSS single versus multiple sets on strength (demonstrated as
software (version 14.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). peak torque) of the quadriceps over 8 weeks of isokinetic
training. Our results demonstrated that performing 3
Statistical Analyses
sets of isokinetic knee extension exercises twice a week
There were no differences in demographic data of the sub- was superior to performing 1 set for increasing strength
jects by group (Table 1). A 3 ⫻ 3 ⫻ 2 (group ⫻ time ⫻ at the training velocity. The multiple set group demon-
sex) mixed factor repeated measures analysis of variance strated a significant increase in peak torque at the train-
(ANOVA) was used to analyze peak torque. There was no ing speed from pretest to midtest and from pretest to
interaction of sex and time so the groups were collapsed posttest while the control and single set groups did not.
for gender. A 2-way interaction was seen for time by This seems to be congruent with the bulk of the literature
group. This was followed up with 3 simple ANOVAs for on exercise volume, where performing more total work
time for each group. results in increased results (11, 15, 20, 22).

The fact that the single set group did not significantly
increase strength throughout the course of the study was
unexpected. This may serve as more evidence that, al-
though performing a single set of exercise is effective for
gaining strength (10, 14, 24), those gains are limited in
magnitude, especially when compared to results observed
in subjects performing multiple sets (11). The results of
this study seem to support previous studies such as Ber-
ger (3), Kraemer (11), Kramer et al. (13), Munn et al. (15),
Paulsen (17), and Rhea et al. (20), all of which found per-
forming multiple sets of resistance training exercises to
be more effective than performing single sets for strength
gain. These studies create the scientific foundation for ad-
vocating the use of multiple sets as a superior method of
resistance training for increasing muscular strength (5,
12, 21, 22). However, these studies are in conflict with
the findings of a small portion of the literature (10, 14,
19, 24), that found that performing a single set of exercise
was as effective as performing multiple sets for strength
gain. These few studies provide the support for literature
(6, 8, 18) which proposes using a single set of resistance
exercise for increasing strength.
Although the literature continues to support multiple
set training for strength increases, a select few choose to
continue the debate. When examining different protocols,
however, it is important to be clear about what one is
comparing. Some studies compare protocols in which
much different volumes of work are examined (10, 14, 15,
17, 20, 24), while some studies (1, 7, 16, 23) examine var-
ious protocols with equal volume. In the studies with dif-
ferent protocols with equal volume, the results showed
that performing an equal amount of work yielded equal
strength gains. The SS and MS participants in the cur-
rent study had very different training volumes, which
could have heavily influenced strength gains. It is impor-
tant to note, however, that the relationship between in-
creased volume and increased strength is not linear and
not definite (9).
Training status may also affect the response to single
versus multiple sets. Generally, studies demonstrating
equal strength gains in single and multiple sets use nov-
ice or untrained populations (14, 24, 26). Untrained in-
dividuals will experience adaptations to even a small
stimulus. Therefore, in the early stages of a resistance
training program, single sets and multiple sets alike will
increase strength. As the duration of the training pro-
gram increases, increased stimulus will be required to
continue increased strength (12).
The training and testing in this study were all per-
formed isokinetically. This is the first known study to em-
ploy strictly isokinetic methods. The advantage of isoki-
netic training is that each repetition is, in theory, maxi-
mal in nature. Unlike traditional resistance training,
which is necessarily easier in early repetitions and in-
creases in difficulty as the set progresses, isokinetic train-
ing makes it possible to perform each repetition at the
individual’s maximal effort. Thus, it is possible to make
every repetition as effective as possible.
There is a need for more research in the area of
strength gain through isokinetic training and, in partic-
ular, the dose response relationships of such training. Fu-
ture research may examine the effect of training more
times per week, training with different speeds, and cross-
training effects on the untrained leg. Additionally, in or-
der to determine the mechanism of the strength increas-
es, muscle hypertrophy, electromyography, and mechan-
omyography may be examined following training.
SINGLE VERSUS MULTIPLE SETS 1005
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study supports the bulk of the research, which sug-
gests that increasing the volume of work performed in a
resistance training program results in increased strength
gains (3, 5, 11–13, 15, 17, 20–22). Simply stated, doing
more work yields better results. Untrained individuals in-
terested in increasing strength may achieve this goal
through a minimal level of volume of work as seen in a
single set training program. However, those with more
resistance training experience may require greater vol-
ume to optimize strength gains. Furthermore, increasing
the volume of the program by increasing the number of
sets will increase the magnitude and shorten the time for
strength gains (13). Strength professionals should under-
stand this principle as well and take the dose/response
relationship into account when designing strength pro-
tocols.
REFERENCES
1. BAKER, D., G. WILSON, AND R. CARLYON. Periodization: The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J. Strength Cond. Res.
8:235–242. 1994.
2. BEHM, D.G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance
training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:264–274. 1995.
3. BERGER, R. Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Res.
Q. 33:168–181. 1962.
4. BROWN, L.E., M. WHITEHURST, J.R. BRYANT, AND D.N. BUCHALTER. Re-
liability of the Biodex System 2 Isokinetic Dynamometer Concentric
Mode. Isokinet. Exerc. Sci. 3(3):160–163. 1993.
5. BYRD, R. Strength training: Single versus multiple sets. Sports Med. 27:
409–416. 1999.
6. CARPINELLI, R.N., AND R.M. OTTO. Strength training. Single versus mul-
tiple sets. Sports Med. 26:73–84. 1998.
7. CHESTNUT, J.L., AND D. DOCHERTY. The effects of 4 and 10 repetition
maximum weight-training protocols on neuromuscular adaptations in
untrained men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:353–357. 1999.
8. FEIGENBAUM, M.S., AND M.L. POLLOCK. Prescription of resistance train-
ing for health and disease. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:38–45. 1999.
9. GONZALEZ-BADILLO, J.J., E.M. GOROSTIAGA, R. ARELLANO, AND M. IZ-
QUIERDO. Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable
strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training
cycle. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:689–697. 2005.
10. HASS, C.J., L. GARZARELLA, D. DE HOYOS, AND M.L. POLLOCK. Single
versus multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 32:235–242. 1999.
11. KRAEMER, W.J. A series of studies—The physiological basis for strength
training in American Football: Fact over philosophy. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 11:131–142. 1997.
12. KRAEMER, W.J., K. ADAMS, E. CAFARELLI, G.A. DUDLEY, C. DOOLY, M.S.
FEIGENBAUM, S.J. FLECK, B. FRANKLIN, A.C. FRY, J.R. HOFFMAN, R.U.
NEWTON, J. POTTEIGER, M.H. STONE, N.A. RATAMESS, AND T. TRIPLETT-
MCBRIDE. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34:364–380. 2002.
13. 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. Effects of single vs. mul-
tiple sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:143–147. 1997.
14. 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. HÄKKINEN,
R.U. NEWTON, AND W.J. KRAEMER. Low-volume circuit versus high-vol-
ume periodized resistance training in women. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33:
635–643. 2000.
15. MUNN, J., R.D. HERBERT, M.J. HANCOCK, AND S. GANDEVIA. Resistance
training for strength: Effect of number of sets and contraction speed.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 37:1622–1626. 2005.
16. OSTROWSKI, K.J., G.J. WILSON, R. WEATHERBY, P.W. MURPHY, AND A.D.
LYTTLE. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and
muscular size and function. J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:148–154. 1997.
17. PAULSEN, G., D. MYKLESTAD, AND T. RAASTAD. The influence of volume
of exercise on early adaptations to strength training. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 17:115–120. 2003.
18. POLLOCK, M.L., G.A. GAESSER, J.D. BUTCHER, J.P. DESPRES, R.K. DISH-
MAN, B.A. FRANKLIN, AND C.E. GARBER. The recommended quantity and
quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and
muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
30:975–991. 1998.
1006 KELLY, BROWN, COBURN ET AL.
19. 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. 21:40–44. 1987.
20. 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. 16:525–529. 2002.
21. RHEA, M.R., B.A. ALVAR, AND L.N. BURKETT. Single versus multiple sets
for strength: A meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res. Q. Exerc.
Sport 73:485–488. 2002.
22. RHEA, M.R., B.A. ALVAR, L.N. BURKETT, AND S.D. BALL. A meta-analysis
to determine the dose response for strength development. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 35:456–464. 2003.
23. SCHIOTZ, M.K., J.A. POTTEIGER, P.G. HUNTSINGER, AND D.C. DENMARK.
The short-term effects of periodization and constant-intensity training
on body composition, strength, and performance. J. Strength Cond. Res.
12:173–178. 1998.
24. 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. Sports Exerc. 28:1311–1320.
1996.
25. STONE, M.H. Point/Counterpoint: Isokinetic exercise and human perfor-
mance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 22:53–53. 2000.
26. STOWERS, T., J. MCMILLAN, D. SCALA, V. DAVIS, D. WILSON, AND M.
STONE. The short-term effects of three different strength-power training
methods. NSCA J. 5(3):24–27. 1983.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Brent Alvar and Dr. Joseph P. Weir
for their contributions to this study.
Address correspondence to Stephen B. Kelly, SKLF25@
aol.com.