Single Set System
Sources and review status
Review pending — this text hasn’t been signed off by a reviewer yet.
Historical reference: its only source is the original reference manual, and some of it may be out of date. Not used for AI answers until re-sourced.
See this lesson’s sources0% read · 3 min left
One of the oldest systems: a single set of each exercise. It still builds strength and is a legitimate time-efficient option, but multiple sets give a modest, consistent edge from early on.
Detail
One of the oldest resistance-training systems is the single set system, which requires the performance of each exercise for one set (Liederman, 1925).
It has been proven that a single-set system (one set of 10 repetitions) produced a significantly smaller strength gain than either a multiple-set system of 3 sets of 10 reps or a periodized program using 3 sets of 10, 5 and 3 reps respectively (with heavy resistances used) (Stowers et al., 1983).
A single-set system is not effective in promoting the cellular adaptations needed to support long-term gains in strength and power. The faster loss of strength, along with a small volume of resistance training, indicates this system is not the best choice for serious weight lifters. Within 4 weeks after the user stops using the system and quits training, the previously gained strength is lost quickly (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997).
The effectiveness of a single-set strength training program is supported by many studies in the short term (2–3 months). However, it becomes considerably less productive after 4 months, at which point multiple-set training may be the best approach for further progress. Despite its weaknesses, it is a viable program for an individual who has little time to dedicate to resistance training (see the basic strength fitness program).
Current research update (2026)
Meta-analytic evidence since (Krieger 2010 and later dose-response reviews) finds
multiple sets carry a modest but consistent hypertrophy/strength edge over single
sets essentially from the start — not specifically because single-set training
"works for 2-3 months, then breaks down at 4 months." The Stowers et al. (1983)
finding that single-set underperforms multiple-set, and the point about strength
fading quickly once training stops, both hold up; it's the fixed timeline framing
that's dated. Single-set remains a legitimate, time-efficient option — just
without an expiration date. See verification_note in this module's frontmatter.
Key facts
- One set per exercise (Liederman, 1925).
- One set of 10 reps gave significantly smaller strength gains than 3×10 multiple-set or a periodized 3×10/5/3 program (Stowers et al., 1983).
- Historical claim (original manual): effective for 2–3 months, then considerably less productive after 4 months. Not supported as a fixed timeline.
- Strength gained is lost quickly within 4 weeks of stopping.
- Current evidence (Krieger 2010 and later dose-response reviews): multiple sets give a modest, consistent edge over single sets from early on, not only after a 4-month cutoff.
Connections
- Multiple Set System — the more productive alternative for long-term progress.
- Number of Sets — the variable that defines this system.
- Principle of Progressive Overload — single-set struggles to sustain progressive overload long-term.
- Set / Repetition Maximum (RM) — the companion 2026 currency updates.
Sources
Corrections (1)
- 2026-10-24 — Summary and key facts aligned with the current research update (Phase 3 editorial).
Keep this lesson, or ask how it applies to you.
Educational content only — not medical advice. Always consult a qualified professional for individualized guidance, especially around injury, pregnancy, or medical conditions.