Source notes

Doing more than one set may matter when the goal is getting stronger. Researchers combined 14 studies comparing single and multiple sets while keeping other training variables constant within each study. Two to three sets per exercise were associated with greater improvement than one set. The reported advantage was about 46% when expressed as a ratio of standardized strength gains. That does not mean participants lifted 46% more weight. The outcome was improvement in a one-repetition maximum: the heaviest load a person could lift once through the tested movement.

Single-set programs still produced strength gains. The comparison concerns the size of improvement, not whether one set works at all. Four to six sets did not show a clear additional advantage, but only two studies included that range. This is too little evidence to establish a firm ceiling. The analysis also concerns maximum lifting strength, not an interchangeable measure of muscle growth, endurance, or general health.

How Does This Show Up in Real Life?

The decision is a trade-off between the time available and how strongly you prioritize additional strength gains. The author identifies multiple sets as a useful starting approach, noting that most included comparisons tested one set against three. For someone choosing between a brief session and a longer one, the finding does not turn a single-set routine into wasted effort. It suggests that the smaller routine may leave some improvement unrealized. Equally, the paper does not support adding sets without limit. Its guidance concerns sets per exercise, which should not be confused with the total work assigned to a muscle across several exercises. Those are different questions, and this evidence does not provide a complete weekly program tailored to each person.

The small amount of evidence on higher set counts makes the upper end of the dose-response uncertain. The statistical method supports associations rather than proving causation on its own. Requiring maximum single-lift tests also excluded studies using other strength measures. The analysis does not establish how differences between routines persist after people stop training, limiting conclusions about lasting advantage.

Why We Cite It

Alpekin can use the paper's checks of whether single studies drove the result as a model for evidence review. Guidance should not lean on one striking experiment when a broader pattern can be examined. This offers Alpekin a concrete standard for deciding how firmly to present a training claim.

The evidence is more informative about adding a modest amount of work than about identifying an exact maximum. Take the direction of the finding seriously without treating the reported percentage as a personal forecast. Effective training and the largest possible gain are not identical goals.