Arthur Jones on how much exercise is "enough"

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by Frederick Foresight, Mar 28, 2017.

  1. Arthur Jones (1926-2007), was the inventor of Nautilus and MedX exercise equipment. He was a controversial figure in the fitness and bodybuilding world who lived a colorful life. Here are his thoughts on exercise volume. (Please forgive the formatting; it couldn't be helped.)


    Just how much exercise is “enough”? And how much is “too much”? Those two questions have resulted in enormous


    numbers of widely-varying opinions and a lot of controversy during the last quarter century, and still no consensus has



    been produced.



    Personally, it took me twenty-six years, from 1938 to 1954, to discover that two sets of each exercise produced far



    better results than four sets of each exercise. Then it took me another year to learn that only eight exercises in each



    workout produced better results than twelve exercises during each workout. By 1970, I clearly understood that best



    results from exercise were usually produced by only one set of each exercise. In 1986, I had learned that only two



    weekly workouts were usually better than three weekly workouts. Now, ten years later, in 1996, I know that only one



    weekly workout is required by most subjects, and that some people do better with a schedule of only one workout every



    two weeks, and that a few people do best on a schedule of one workout every three weeks.



    When, in 1970, I introduced the first Nautilus exercise machines, together with the statement that only one set of each



    exercise was required, or even desirable, several people accused me of making false claims in an attempt to encourage



    the sale of my exercise machines; which charge, in fact, was utterly false, since my statements were based upon clearly



    established research results that could not be disputed.



    And just what does science have to say on the subject in 1996? As it happens, surprisingly little; but most of what little



    has been published on that subject clearly supports my statements mentioned above,



    Three days ago, on January 19, 1996, Dr. Michael Pollock, of the School of Medicine of the University of Florida, gave



    me a copy of a study that he had just completed, a study that I was not even aware of until after it had been written up



    for publication.



    This study included careful consideration of the results of several research projects conducted by members of Dr.



    Pollock’s research staff and also considered every other study that they were able to discover by a careful review of the



    entire scientific literature: in effect, “everything ever published on the subject in any scientific journal.”



    Results? ONE: in 1962, a Ph.D. named Berger, using 177 subjects for a period of 12 weeks, and using the bench press



    as the exercise being tested, compared the results of one set to the results of both two and three sets. One set increased



    the average strength of that group by 23.6 percent; two sets increased strength by 24 percent, only four tenths of one



    percent better than one set; three sets increased strength by 26.3 percent, only 2.7 percent better than one set. Whereupon



    Berger concluded that one set was as good as two but that three sets were better. Well, in fact, any such slight differences



    fall well within the differences of random variation, and certainly do not indicate any slightest differences in results.



    Secondly, considering the fact that Berger was using healthy but previously-untrained college-age young men as subjects,



    his overall results were somewhere between pitiful and God awful. The starting strength of his subjects was very low,



    which means that they had the potential for rapid and large-scale increases in strength, yet failed to produce any such



    results.



    In contrast, thirteen years later, in 1975, using military cadets as subjects during a study at the U. S. Military Academy,



    West Point, we produced an average strength increase of 60 percent in a period of only 6 weeks; so our results were



    more than twice as good as Berger’s even though we trained our people only half as long as he did his. And, of course,



    we used only one set of each exercise.



    TWO: in 1982, a man named Silvester, using 48 subjects, compared the results of one set of biceps curls to three sets.



    One set increased strength by 24.6 percent within a period of 8 weeks while three sets increased strength by 26.2



    percent, a difference of only 1.6 percent; again, a difference so slight that it is meaningless; or, as they say in the



    scientific community, “non-specific,” or “no significant difference.”



    THREE: in 1983, a man named Stowers, using 28 subjects, during a program that continued for 7 weeks, compared one


    set to three sets in both the squat and the bench press. And found, again, that there was no significant difference.



    FOUR: in 1986, a man named Westcott, using 79 subjects for a period of 4 weeks, while comparing one set to two sets,



    actually produced somewhat better results from one set than he did from two sets; but, again, the difference was not



    significant since one set increased strength by 11.2 percent while two sets increased strength by 10.8 percent.



    FIVE: a later study performed by the same man, Westcott, performed in 1989, using 127 subjects, both men and



    women, and lasting for 10 weeks, using both dips and chin-ups as exercises, found almost no difference in results from



    one set, two sets, or three sets.



    SIX: in 1993, Dr. Pollock’s group, using 140 subjects, for a period of 12 weeks, using the cervical-extension exercise,



    compared one set to two sets and again found no meaningful difference.



    SEVEN: in 1995, Dr. Jay Graves, using 141 subjects for a period of 12 weeks, with lumbar (lower-back) extensions as



    the exercise, and comparing one set to two sets, produced quite a bit better results from one set than he did from two.



    EIGHT: in 1995, a man named Starkey, using 83 subjects for a period of 14 weeks, with both leg extensions and leg



    flexions as the exercises being tested, compared one set to three sets; in both cases, extension and flexion, one set



    proved to be better than three sets.



    AND SO IT GOES: in some cases one set was better than either two or three sets, and when multiple sets did seem to



    be better the difference was so slight that it was meaningless. The American Academy of Sports Medicine has now



    accepted, as its recommended protocol, “one set to failure, not more than three times weekly;” which, frankly, I still



    believe is too much for most people, and is required by nobody. I get several calls a week from strangers who tell me



    about the great results they are producing by only one weekly workout, or even less exercise. In the field of exercise,



    at least, while it is true that “some exercise” is good, it does not follow that “more exercise” is better; in fact, more is



    usually worse. Remember: exercise does NOT “produce” results; instead, if properly performed, it “stimulates” results.



    I sincerely hope that you can learn from my earlier mistakes, and can learn a lot faster than I ever did; if not, by the time



    you do learn anything of value about exercise it will probably be far too late to help you.




    http://www.arthurjonesexercise.com/First_Half/54.PDF
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
    fan27 likes this.
  2. Baron

    Baron ET Founder

    This is pretty much in line with what I do, meaning one set per exercise to failure and each workout comprised of about 8 or 9 exercises. My frequency of workouts is a lot higher though, as I usually workout about 4 - 5 days per week.
     
  3. Likewise, except that each workout is a full body routine that I do twice a week. I gather you're doing a split routine. I know I've asked you this question in the past, but you may have altered your routine since then. So if you don't mind my asking, how many total sets per muscle group per workout, and how many times do you work each muscle group per week?
     
  4. Baron

    Baron ET Founder

    I don't do a split routine. I do a full body workout each time. But each workout has different exercises. So the leg portion of the workout would be a set of squats and a set of lying leg curls, but the next day it would be a set of leg extensions and a set of stiff legged deadlifts.
     
    DTB2 likes this.
  5. Visaria

    Visaria

    The benefits of going to failure on a set are hugely outweighed by the negatives. Avoid.
     
  6. So you work each muscle group 4 to 5 times a week. Just curious, how did you arrive at that frequency? Did you play around with it?

    I ask because when I first started rethinking volume in 2012, I switched to 3 full body workouts a week from two, but with a bit less total weekly volume, which I slowly ratcheted downward. (I had done a 3x/week split routine with high volume several years earlier.) After an extended period of well over a year, I found that going all out 3 times a week on each muscle group proved too much for me. So I reduced it to twice a week. Eventually, I even tried 3 times every 2 weeks and once a week, but found the frequency too low. Not that my strength or body composition appeared to change during that time; I just wanted to go to the gym a bit more often.

    And so, I'm wondering how you arrived at your present frequency.
     
  7. Yes, I've read that, but I'm not convinced. After first reading about the concerns of going to failure, I began stopping short by a rep. It just didn't feel right. On a theoretical basis, it doesn't seem right either. How do you make a muscle grow if you do not subject it to overload, especially at lower, and time-efficient volumes and frequencies? What's the alternative?

    As an aside, more and more research is showing the benefits of intensity as it relates to a number of factors including, but not limited to, cardiovascular health.
     
  8. Visaria

    Visaria

    Just go 1 short of failure...virtually all the benefits but none of the side effects of failure. Side effects are primarily massive metabolic stress i.e. lactate, endocrine and ammonia production increase exponentially. Ammonia is toxic to the brain btw....
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
  9. Visaria

    Visaria

    Just increase your volume. Do another set if you want.
     
  10. Visaria

    Visaria

    #10     Mar 30, 2017