Single-Set Training: Can One Set Really Be Enough?

When it comes to strength training, we're often encouraged to believe that more is better. More exercises, more sets and more repetitions must surely lead to greater improvements in strength and muscle growth. But is that always the case?

Most traditional strength-training programmes prescribe multiple sets of each exercise, often three or four, with the aim of providing enough stimulus for the muscles to adapt. While there's good evidence to support this approach, research also suggests that meaningful improvements can be achieved with fewer sets than we might expect.

This raises an interesting question: if one challenging set can stimulate improvements in strength and muscle growth, how much additional benefit do we actually gain from performing several?

It's a question that sits within the broader research explored in Dr Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis's book Train Smarter, Not Longer, which examines how training volume influences strength and muscle development. The answer isn't quite as straightforward as one set being better or worse than three, and understanding the distinction can help us make more informed decisions about how strength-training programmes are structured.

What Is Single-Set Training?

Single-set training involves performing one challenging working set of an exercise rather than the multiple sets commonly prescribed in traditional resistance-training programmes.

For example, instead of completing three working sets of a particular exercise, a single-set approach would involve performing just one, with the resistance and level of effort selected to provide an appropriate challenge.

It's important to distinguish this from simply doing one set of exercise without much thought or preparation. A working set is the part of an exercise intended to provide the main training stimulus, and depending on the movement and the load being used, it may still be preceded by lighter warm-up sets.

Single-set training also doesn't mean performing only one exercise or neglecting particular muscle groups. A well-designed programme still needs to consider exercise selection, movement patterns, training frequency and the individual's overall goals.

The underlying idea is that muscles can respond and adapt to a relatively small amount of appropriately challenging resistance exercise. However, whether one set provides enough stimulus will depend on the person performing it and what they're trying to achieve.

What Does the Research Say About One Set Versus Multiple Sets?

One of the most interesting findings from resistance-training research is that a single working set can produce meaningful improvements in strength and muscle growth, particularly among people who are new to structured resistance training.

That doesn't mean additional sets are without benefit. In fact, research comparing different training volumes generally suggests that multiple sets produce greater improvements when the objective is to maximise strength or muscle development.

A 2009 meta-analysis by researcher James Krieger found that performing two or three sets per exercise was associated with greater strength gains than performing just one. A subsequent analysis published in 2010 also found an overall advantage for multiple sets when examining muscle hypertrophy, the process through which muscles increase in size.

However, these findings don't suggest that single-set training is ineffective. Rather, they demonstrate that while one set can provide a sufficient stimulus for improvement, additional sets may produce further adaptations.

This is where the distinction between achieving meaningful results and maximising results becomes important.

Someone who is relatively new to strength training may experience considerable improvements from a modest amount of appropriately challenging exercise. A more experienced individual, particularly someone looking to maximise muscle growth or develop high levels of strength, may benefit from a greater amount of training volume.

There's also the question of diminishing returns. Although increasing training volume can produce additional benefits, those benefits don't necessarily increase in direct proportion to the amount of work performed. Doubling the number of sets, for example, doesn't automatically mean doubling the results.

This is one of the ideas explored within the minimum effective dose approach discussed in Train Smarter, Not Longer. The broader principle is that training should provide enough stimulus to achieve a desired adaptation, while recognising that additional work isn't always accompanied by an equivalent improvement in results.

Why Training Effort Matters

If you're performing only one working set of an exercise, the quality and difficulty of that set become particularly important.

Muscles need to experience an appropriate level of challenge to become stronger and grow. A set completed with very little effort may provide a different training stimulus from one performed closer to the point where another repetition would no longer be possible with good technique.

This is often discussed in terms of repetitions in reserve, or RIR, which describes how many additional repetitions someone could have completed before reaching their current muscular limit.

For example, finishing a set knowing you could comfortably perform another eight repetitions is very different from finishing when you feel capable of only another one or two. Both involve resistance exercise, but the level of muscular effort is considerably different.

When overall training volume is relatively low, ensuring that the working sets provide a sufficient challenge becomes especially relevant. However, this doesn't mean every set needs to be taken to complete muscular failure. Research suggests that training to failure isn't essential for building muscle or strength, and repeatedly pushing to that point may create additional fatigue without necessarily providing proportionately greater benefits. The appropriate level of effort depends on the exercise, the individual's experience and the wider training programme.

Progressive overload remains important too. As muscles adapt, the training demands need to change if further progress is the goal. This might involve increasing resistance, completing additional repetitions or adjusting other aspects of the programme.

In other words, single-set training isn't simply about performing fewer sets. It's about ensuring that the work being performed is sufficiently challenging and continues to support the intended training adaptations.

Is Single-Set Training Suitable for Everyone?

As with most aspects of strength training, the effectiveness of single-set training depends on the individual.

Training experience is an important consideration. Someone beginning resistance training may respond well to a relatively small amount of exercise, while a person who has been training consistently for several years may require a greater stimulus to continue progressing.

Goals also influence how much training volume is appropriate. A programme designed to improve general muscular fitness may look quite different from one intended to maximise muscle growth or develop competitive levels of strength.

It's also worth considering that training volume is only one part of a much broader picture. Exercise selection, frequency, intensity, recovery and progression all contribute to how effective a programme will be.

For example, two people could perform the same number of sets yet experience different results because of differences in training experience, effort, technique or recovery. Even within the same individual, the amount of work required to produce progress can change over time.

This is why prescribing a fixed number of sets without considering the person performing them isn't necessarily the most effective approach. A well-structured strength-training programme should take into account someone's goals, current capabilities, training history and response to exercise, with adjustments made as those factors change.

The Bigger Picture: Quality, Volume and Progression

The discussion around single-set versus multiple-set training is sometimes presented as though one approach must be right and the other wrong. In reality, both can be effective, and each has a place within resistance training.

The research indicates that additional sets can offer advantages, particularly when the objective is to maximise strength and muscle growth. At the same time, it challenges the assumption that performing more sets will always produce proportionately better results.

Perhaps the most useful lesson from single-set training is that effective exercise prescription involves more than simply deciding how many sets to perform.

At CBPT, we believe that training should be structured around the individual, with careful consideration given to exercise selection, training volume, effort and progression. Understanding how these elements interact allows a programme to provide an appropriate challenge without assuming that more work is always the answer.

Single-set training offers an interesting example of how resistance-training research can challenge conventional thinking. It reminds us that the effectiveness of a programme isn't determined solely by the amount of exercise performed, but by how well that exercise is selected, prescribed and progressed.

Ultimately, the question isn't simply whether one set is enough. It's whether the training you're doing is appropriate for your goals, your capabilities and your ability to continue making progress.