# Doing Sets or Continuously?



## Ceicei (Feb 4, 2004)

I read in the March 2004 (I know it's only February, but that issue is already out on the newsrack), the article "The Demands of Combat".  Basically, it discusses ideas and viewpoints of the grappling legend, Gene LeBell.

In the article, the author (Mark Hatmaker) wrote:  "You can build what LeBell calls a "certain amount of pain tolerance" by developing your ability to perform each exercise as one continuous set.  Ideally, the calisthenics should be executed with no breaks during each exercise or between different exercises.  In other words, there are no sets--just crank it until you're done."

That makes me wonder.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing continuously versus doing in sets?  Do any of you just plow straight through all your reps until you tire out and that's it for the day?  How about those of you who subscribe to doing sets?  Any thoughts?  

I guess I'm trying to ask how either way will effect strength training and which would be better?

- Ceicei


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *In the article, the author (Mark Hatmaker) wrote:  "You can build what LeBell calls a "certain amount of pain tolerance" by developing your ability to perform each exercise as one continuous set.  Ideally, the calisthenics should be executed with no breaks during each exercise or between different exercises.  In other words, there are no sets--just crank it until you're done."
> 
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing continuously versus doing in sets?  Do any of you just plow straight through all your reps until you tire out and that's it for the day?  How about those of you who subscribe to doing sets?  Any thoughts?
> ...



There are such things as "Giant Sets" and such where you perform a certain number of repetitions of one exercise and then move to another exercise, usually a different muscle group, without a break.  These are usually used to break past plateaus, not for general training.  They allow you to work in a shorter time frame, but you typically can't lift as much weight.

Sets, in general, serve two purposes.
1) It gives you a defined number of repetitions in which you should exhaust the muscle.  The number of repetions in the set typically defines the "type" of strength being developed (higher repetitions build more muscular endurance, fewer build more strength).  That makes you pick a weight that is challenging without having to perform 200 repetitions.   For example, I can pick a heavy weight and perform 3 sets of 15 reps, but would be unable to do 45 reps straight through with the same weight.  The former builds more strength and the latter more endurance.

2) It gives you time to recover.  Weight lifting burns ATP and glycogen stored in the muscles.  The longer you lift, the more tired your muscle gets.  When you rest (usually less than a minute, depending on the repetitions), you rebuild these reserves enabling you to rebound with a similar weight for the next set.  If you're working a different muscle group, it affects both the physical and psycological aspects by giving you a "breather."  The "fresher" you are, the more weight you can lift.  For example, you usually hit the first exercises you do a lot more strongly than the last ones, you just get tired both physically and mentally and can't do as well on the last ones.  Bodybuilders typically train their least developed muscles first for this reason, they want to make sure they give it their all for these groups.


So, in short, both methods should be used, but I would stick with sets for general training and throw in Giant Sets to change it up now and then.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 5, 2004)

Thank you very much!  Your comments are really appreciated and I learned something today.

- Ceicei


----------

