17/04/2026
HOW ONE TINY STUDY SOLD THE WORLD ON 3 SETS
In 1962, Berger ran a study on bench press strength.
He compared 1, 2, and 3 sets over 12 weeks in college-aged men.
Strength gains were roughly:
1 set: ~23.6%
2 sets: ~24.0%
3 sets: ~26.3%
So 3 sets only beat 1 set by about 2–3 percentage points.
That small difference is easily within normal training noise.
But this paper was treated as proof that “3 sets is superior.”
The story doesn’t end there.
Berger later did follow-up work with different set/rep schemes.
Those later results didn’t clearly replicate the idea that 3 sets is best or that one specific scheme was magic. When people went back and re‑analysed his work, they found the advantage for 3 sets was small and shaky, not a slam‑dunk case for mandatory multiple sets.
What that means for you:
1 hard set can still build a lot of strength.
More sets can help somewhat, but not like dogma suggests.
The right number of sets should fit the person, the goal, and the schedule,
not a rule from one old study.
Key Takeaways
The original Berger study showed only a tiny edge for 3 sets. Later analysis and follow‑up work weakened the “3 sets is best” claim.
Programming should be individualised, not chained to an old 3‑set rule.
Too many people just following blindly what they have been "taught" without critical thinking and asking... WHY?
At CPT, we deal in those why's 😉