Here is a review of strength training in the military: http://hprc-online.org/physical-fitness/files/STRENGTHTRAINING.pdf It discusses the importance of heavy weights, lots of volume and frequency, fancy periodization and other complexities. And then there is Ralph Carpinelli's critical analysis of that review. Carpinelli takes the review to task. https://www.researchgate.net/public...a_Review_on_Strength_Training_in_the_Military Here are a few excerpts: ABSTRACT Carpinelli RN.A Critical Analysis of a Review on Strength Training in the Military.JEPonline2013;16(2):70-81. This critical analysis challenges the validity of evidence cited in a review entitled Strength Training for the Warfighter. Most of the claims and recommendations in that review, especially regarding the size principle of motor unit recruitment, are not supported by resistance training studies. Rather than providing evidence based recommendations for strength training, that review is based primarily on unsubstantiated opinions. Critical Analysis This critical analysis is specifically focused on a review entitled Strength Training for the Warfighter by Kraemer and Szivak (53). Science places the entire burden of proof on the claimant (Kraemer and Szivak) and all claims should be supported by strength training studies. However, the majority of the claims and recommendations proposed by Kraemer and Szivak are unsubstantiated. They have consistently misinterpreted the size principle of motor unit recruitment throughout their review, which has resulted in the recommendations for unnecessarily heavy, complex, high volume strength training in the military. CONCLUSIONS The review by Kraemer and Szivak was one of 13 articles related to the military published in a special supplement to the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (53). The articles were submitted by scientists from the 2nd International Congress of Soldiers’ Physical Performance. As guest editors, Kyrolainen and Nindl (54) claimed that all the articles were carefully evaluated in their peer review process before acceptance. However, the majority of the claims and recommendations by Kraemer and Szivak (53) are not supported by strength training studies. In fact, their review is an accumulation of unsubstantiated opinions and, therefore, challenges the editors’ claim that the manuscripts were carefully evaluated. There is very little evidence to suggest that the very heavy, time consuming, complex protocols, and voluminous amount of strength training recommended by Kraemer and Szivak (53) are any more effective than simple, moderate resistance, low volume guidelines such as those recommended for any healthy demographic—civilian or military personnel (12). Select one or two free weight or machine exercises for each muscle group that provide an overload throughout a pain free range of motion. Use a repetition duration that is conducive to maintaining consistent good form throughout each repetition (e.g., 3 sec lifting, 3 sec lowering the resistance). Choose a range of repetitions between 3 and 20 (e.g., 3 to 5, 6 to 8, 9 to 12, etc), which may vary from exercise to exercise or session to session. Continue each exercise until it becomes difficult to maintain proper form during the concentric phase of a repetition. The level of effort required for optimal strength gains is unknown. Perform one set of each exercise. There is very little evidence to suggest that multiple sets of each exercise are superior to a single set for strength gains (5-6,8,10-12,59). Allow enough rest between exercises to execute proper form. Depending on individual recuperation and response, train each muscle group 1 to 3 times·wk-1. Combat military personnel deserve recommendations for training that are based on the preponderance of strength training studies. Kraemer and Szivak (53) failed to meet the burden of proof and provide substantial evidence to support their opinions and recommendations.
"In summary, there is now a consensus in the research literature supporting the idea that multiple sets are superior to single set training for increasing muscular strength. Summary The debate as to the superiority of single versus multiple set training has been on-going for around 40 years. High intensity training (HIT), originally popularized by Arthur Jones in the 1970s, promotes the idea that single set training is superior to traditional multi-set training for improving both strength and size. Until now research on this topic has been equivocal and unable to resolve the dispute. However, six recent meta-analyses have confirmed that multiple set training produces greater increases in both strength and size than single set training in both trained and untrained subjects." entire article at: http://www.trainingscience.net/?page_id=94
I don't think so. Most of the literature supporting multiple sets stems from a poorly-controlled 1962 study by Berger, which is explained here: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/5/319.full Further, look at the Berger study more closely to see how marginal the alleged improvement is using multiple sets. It's laughable. Attached is a more thorough and critical analysis of the single versus multiple set debate.
Also, fhl, the link you posted cites the meta-analysis by Krieger. Carpinelli has also taken Krieger to task.
Warriors are not built in the gym, they're forged in the field carrying heavy cumbersome shit up and down hills in sweltering heat and bitter cold. I know plenty of big lift types who couldn't hump thirty minutes, let alone all day, then dig in, catch a couple zzzz's and then go out and hunt bad guys all night. Give me and average strength guy with a no quit attitude and I'll build you a fighter that can be counted on in a pinch.
I agree that warriors are not built in the gym. But they still need to do some strength training in the gym as a matter of course. The question is, How much? And that is the point of this thread. Regarding "carrying heavy cumbersome shit up and down hills in sweltering heat and bitter cold," nothing prepares someone for that better than carrying heavy cumbersome shit up and down hills in sweltering heat and bitter cold. This is in accordance with the SAID principle. (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands.)
And where's Charlie now? Hey, I'm the guy supporting the research for less, not more, since there is insufficient rigor in the research supporting greater volume, frequency and complexity in the gym. Send your raspberry to fhl, whose purpose in life is to contradict me. He's the guy who's evidently supporting more gym, more often, per his post above.