' University Study '

       The Scientific Basis of the Matrix Once Per Week Training Program

 By Scott Elkovich

The remarkable gains in muscular size, strength, endurance and definition afforded by Matrix Training have already been demonstrated by the many clinical trials undertaken to test its efficacy.

Although Professor Laura, the creator of the Matrix System, has continued his research development of the system, and now has several different training programs available, my concern in this paper is to focus upon the most recent version of his System which he calls the “Matrix Once-Per-Week Body Shaping Program”.

Dozens of testimonials by trainees of the program attest to the amazing results they have received from it, but it has, yet to be explained adequately from a scientific perspective why it works so well.

 Because the physiological mechanisms which underpin the specific techniques of Matrix Training are ahead of their times’, it has been only recently that the relevant scientific principles have been sufficiently understood to see how they apply here.

My aim in what follows is thus to explain scientifically how the Matrix Once Per Week Single-Set Training Program can be more effective than conventional multiple set programs undertaken three or more times per week.

In the light of recent exercise physiology text books and strength and conditioning related texts it is clear that the dominant view is that experienced trainers should be performing multiple sets of each exercise, several times per week for best results.

The idea is that sets with low repetitions and heavy weight will increase strength, while high repetition sets will serve to increase endurance.

Durationally brief sets of explosive repetitions will develop muscular power, and the weights used are generally heavy ^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 & 12}. In relation to these dominant guidelines it is also recommended that the specific types of exercise referred to be completed at a frequency of up to two sessions a day for four to five days per week, thus totalling up to 20 hours per week of training ¹².

In contrast to the dominant view of training set out above is a plethora of empirical evidence which suggests that it is possible to achieve results which either match or surpass those of the high frequency multi-set programs by doing as little as a one set per muscle group to exhaustion only one to two times per week ^{13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}.

There have now been over one hundred studies which have examined the relationship between training intensity and training frequency and the majority of them have shown that the difference in overall strength, size and endurance gains between single set training and multiple set training is negligible.

 Although we are continually bombarded with books, journal and sport magazine recommendations suggesting that we need to train for up to twenty hours a week to achieve the results we want, the truth of the matter is that we may just be wasting our time, a point Professor Laura made in “The Matrix Priniciple” more than a decade ago. 

In 1998 Carpinelli reviewed thirty five case studies comparing single set training against multiple set training. He concluded that in thirty three out of thirty five cases the evidence suggested that single set training produced optimal results ²¹.

He went on to suggest that most modern exercise physiology textbooks cite a study completed in 1962 by Berger ²² as their main support data in the promotion of multiple set weight training programs, rather than single set training programs.  

Once Carpinelli examined Berger’s study more closely, he found that there were a number of confounding variables upon from which Berger drew his final conclusions. Carpinelli challenges that Berger’s study was biased towards multiple set training, as he did not control the amount and types of exercises which subjects in the multiple set training group were allowed to perform outside the study.  

The results when compared against the single set training group showed an unfair advantage in performance gains which did not reflect the results of the multiple set training programs sessions in the controlled environment of the study only.  

When examining the majority of references that are used to support multiple set training, It became apparent that they were predominantly academic books of a theoretical kind and not scientific evidence-based journal articles.

The scientific integrity of these texts and guidelines is further compromised given that their cited support data is primarily drawn from theory and other books.

There have also been a number of studies performed by various people comparing single and multiple set training ¹² & ²³, which can be shown to misrepresent the performance outcomes for subjects undertaking a single set training program.

This can be seen by looking at the performance results for a person undertaking a single set training program in the fore mentioned studies ¹² & ²³ and comparing them against the performance results produced from a single set training program in a great number of other studies which examine the very same issue (see Pollock ²⁴ and Tucci ²⁵).

Whether there could also be researcher bias present in any proceeding papers or books citing the fore mentioned studies as key support data in promoting multiple set training over single set training is also highly plausible.

Starkey et al ²⁶ examined performance differences in knee flexion and extension between a single set training program and a multiple set training program.

He concluded that there were no significant differences in subjects at the end of their training period irrespective of whether they trained three times a week or only once.

He also reported that there were increases in muscle thickness in both groups with no clear between group differences.  

Ostrowski divided subjects into three distinct training program groups and analysed the changes in absolute strength between the groups over a ten week period.

At the conclusion of his study he proposed that there were significant increases in strength for all subjects regardless of whether they trained one, two or four sets per training session with no apparent significant differences between each group ²⁷ 

Pollock et al ²² advised that based on his 1993 study of a training programs influence on cervical extension strength that a subject need only complete one single set of dynamic strength exercises once or twice a week to achieve an overall increase in cervical strength of 35 and 40 percent respectively.

In another study by Haas et al ²⁷ in 2000 it was shown that there is no difference in isometric knee extension strength and knee flexion torque development regardless of whether an experienced weight trainer completes one or three sets of nine exercises over thirteen weeks.

Let me summarise the discussion this far. The conventional and dominant view in the literature is that optimal training volume and frequency for maximum results from a training program is best achieved by training up to and in some cases above twenty hours a week, what is surprising is that reflection on a more comprehensive scientific literature suggests that once per week single set training is at least as effective as multiple-day training programs, if not more so, thus explaining why the Matrix Once Per Week Programs work so effectively.  

The scientific literature examining single and multiple set training program effectiveness suggests also that it is not solely the volume or frequency of training which determines the rate of development in strength, endurance, size and definition, but rather the intensity and quality of the muscular contractions within the set, and whether we activate maximal muscle fibre in the most efficient way ²⁰. Research has also shown that in addition to the fact that the extra sets we complete in our training session will not yield more significant gains than single set training, they do increase the risk of injury, along with overuse and perhaps even burnout.

This is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that the duration of training generally recommended is so much higher.

For example, Graves et al ²⁹ evaluated the effects of a twelve week resistance training program on previously untrained subjects using one set of lumbar extension exercises either once, twice or three times a week.

He concluded that all groups significantly increased lumbar extension strength with no between group differences.

The only really significant difference related to one of the subjects in the three times a week trial group who actually lost strength due to overuse atrophy.  

A more comprehensive study was completed by Taaffe ³⁰ showing that after twenty four weeks, his subjects showed no significant differences in strength regardless of whether they trained once, twice or three times a week.

This study evaluated the development of training the whole body with five upper body exercises and three lower body exercises, making this the most comprehensive study in this area to date.

So the ideal training program for optimal results according to current scientific research is one which activates the muscle completely over the entire range of motion, for a period of time significant enough to produce volitional fatigue. The key is to achieve this without causing injury to that particular area, an increased risk of which is usually associated with the use of heavy weights that put excessive strain on the muscle fibres, tendons and joints as each particular muscle group approaches exhaustion.

Now that we have looked at the scientific research and concluded with what type of training we typically need to gain strength, endurance, definition, size and power is there a method or technique of training which can provide all the benefits of conventional training and incorporate the need to work the muscle holistically for a period of time significant enough to evoke muscular failure and volitional fatigue? The answer is of course YES!

Professor Ronald. S. Laura

Educated at the Universities of Harvard, St John’s College, Cambridge and Brasnose College, Oxford, Dr Laura is currently Senior Professor in Education, supervising some 30 postgraduate research and higher degree students at the University of Newcastle. He was for three years Chairman of the Sports Medicine and Education Committee, at the Hunter Academy of Sport and was for ten years Australian Director of the Human Performance Research Centre, a division of the International Federation of Bodybuilders, U.S.A. A highly respected International judge for Body Building and a former Power Lifting World Champion, Professor Laura has conducted Body Building clinics all over the world including America, Australia and the UK.

He has recently just finished a successful fitness program and infomercial in US T.V. and has recently returned to Australia. Professor Laura has contributed regularly in many well-known body building magazines, which include Muscle and Fitness (US), Body Power (UK), Ultra Fit (UK) and Australian Fitness and Training.

In 1991, after 10 years of clinical trials on specialist weight training programs, Professor Laura’s Matrix System of Weight Training was published by Allen & Unwin, with Professor Ken Dutton joining him as Co-author. The book soon became a best-seller. 

The Matrix System has revolutionised our understanding of rapid muscle development and affords trainee a whole new approach to making amazing gains after only seven weeks of once-per-week training. 

Over the last fifteen years Professor Laura has continually endeavoured to refine the Matrix System, incorporating new Matrix techniques to maximise his already clinically proven and scientifically supported method of training. 

Today his Matrix Principle of Training consists of 48 specific routines, each of which sequenced in a way to provide the body with the constant progressive overload and dynamic stimulation of muscle fibre it needs to give optimal results.

What is this Revolutionary Matrix Method of Training?

Matrix Training is a method of weight training devised and developed by Professor R.S. Laura. It has been extensively tested against other forms of weight training under clinical conditions for a period of twelve years and has to date yielded some amazing results. (See The Matrix Principle 1991 Allen & Unwin)

The matrix principle of training takes weight trainers to an entirely new level of complexity. It is the combination of the conventional methods of isotonic, isometric and isokinetic training. Matrix training involves the constant changing of joint angles and ensures that the target muscle is worked throughout all levels of the desired movement ³¹.

Matrix training repetitions differ in range of motion throughout the set. This technique prevents the use of muscular momentum to complete the repetition. By isolating the particular muscle at its most vulnerable point in the range of motion, the amount of total muscle stimulation is increased dramatically ³². As it was noted earlier with reference to the most recent research, it is believed that the more time a muscle is under tension and the higher the percentage of muscle fibre that can be put under tension, the greater the amount of muscular adaptation generated.

This explains in part why Matrix Training produces such remarkable gains with as little as one workout per week.

The key principle to Matrix Training is the amount of force produced at the point in the movement where momentum is largely responsible for the primary action in terms of isotonic contractions.

This is usually the point where there is a brief pause or sticking point at the beginning of the eccentric (lengthening) phase and end of the concentric (shortening) phase ³³ 

When tested against conventional methods of training, the Matrix System showed average strength gains of twice that of the conventional methods and size gains of almost three times that of conventional training over the course of one year.

Where conventional trainees gained 1 inch on their arms after one year, Matrix Trainees gained three. Despite being a revolutionarily effective system of training, the uniqueness of Matrix Training comes from the fact that the gains trainees get from using the system is achieved from using roughly one third of the total weight needed to achieve gains from conventional training.

This ensures that Matrix Training is far safer than conventional training and can also be used by specific populations with injuries or health problems which prevent them from lifting the heavier weights necessary to achieve results from conventional training.

It is for this reason that matrix training is seen as a more complete method of weight training. It encompasses the broad range of proven effective training techniques in a sequenced and complex manner to maximise each and every repetition to generate optimal results¹.

The objective of matrix training is then to impact the muscle from a number of different angles using specific techniques.

This leads to complete muscle fibre stimulation and greater muscular adaptation. This Adaptation response is constantly stimulated with Matrix Training due to the constant changing of the stimulation process.

In short, the Matrix System constantly encourages the muscle to develop and grow at a more rapid rate than conventional methods ³³.

The breakdown of the concepts behind the matrix principle can be summarised as…

-         By using partial contraction methods at the muscles weakest point, you are in fact putting that particular muscle through the most significant stress possible causing maximum muscular adaptation.

-         By constantly changing the contraction demands on the muscle you are ensuring the most comprehensive overload on that muscle by not allowing the muscle to adjust to the movements in the set. This process ensures constant neural stimulation due to a lack of repetition.

-         Although all the physiological processes behind the success of Matrix muscle growth are not entirely clear, the notion that a combined muscle activation of general movements followed by specific isolations is more beneficial for muscle growth is. Matrix training utilises isolation to pre-fatigue muscle groups which allow the isolation of a specific muscle to be achieved more easily.

-         There has been considerable debate in research to whether the satellite muscle cells undergo a separation or splitting under large stress and muscle glycogen depletion.

-         This is an issue that will be still debated for a number of years but the rapidity of the results obtained from Matrix training could plausibly be explained by this theory known as ‘Hyperplasia’ ^31,32,33.

Professor Laura’s Matrix System has proved itself to be a safe method of training for people of all ages and levels of conditioning.

Professor Laura has himself documented in excess of 100 clinical trials which show that his method of resistance training can improve the strength and endurance levels of people of all ages significantly.

In conclusion, the Matrix System of Training reflects an awareness of the most recent breakthroughs in exercise physiology and is ideally suited to provide trainees with an extremely effective single set, single session per week training program.

Reference

1.  McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch VL. Exercise physiology. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2001. 

2. Ritzdorf W. Strength and power training in sport: In Elliot B, editor. Training in sport: applying sport science, pp 189-238. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1999.

3. Wilmore JH, Costill DL. Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.

4. Baechle TR, editor. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994.

5. Bompa T. Serious strength training: periodisation for building muscle power and mass. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.

6. Aaberg E. Resistance training instruction. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.

7. Watson AWS. Physical fitness and athletic performance. London: Longman, 1995 

8. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing resistance training programs (2^nd edition), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997.

9. Zatsiorsky V. Science and practice of strength training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

10. Earle RW, Baechle TR. NSCA’s essentials of personal training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.

11. National Strength and Conditioning Association. NSCA Position Statements 2003.  HYPERLINK "http://www.nsca-lift.org" http://www.nsca-lift.org.

12. American College of Sports Medicine. Kraemer WJ, Writing Group Chairman. Position Stand: progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34:364-80.

13. Carpinelli RN., Otto RM,. Winett RA. A critical analysis of the ACSM position stand on resistance training: insufficient evidence to support recommended training protocols. JEPonline 2004;7(3):1-60.

14. Winett RA. Meta-analyses do not support performance of multiple sets or high volume resistance training. JEPonline. 2004;7(5):10-20.

15. Jones A. Nautilus bulletin #1., DeLand, FL: Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries, 1970.

16. Jones A. Nautilus bulletin #2. DeLand, FL: Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries, 1971.

17. Jones A. Specificity in strength training: the facts and fables. In Peterson JA, editor. Total fitness the Nautilus way, pp. 169-180. New York: Leisure Press, 1982.

18. Jones A. The lumbar spine, the cervical spine and the knee: testing and rehabilitation. Ocala, FL: MedX Corporation, 1993.

19. Jones A. My first half-century in the iron game part 3: the myth of isokinetics. Ironman: 1993 (October), 107-111.

20. Jones A. My first half-century in the iron game part 54. In The Arthur Jones collection, pp. 740-741. Ontario: Bodyworx, 2003 (originally published in Ironman magazine, 1996).

21. Carpinelli RN, Otto RM. Strength training: single versus multiple sets. Sports Med 1998;26(2):73-84.

22. Pollock ML, Graves JE, Bamman MM, Leggett SH, Carpenter DM, Carr C, Cirulli J, Matkozich J, Fulton M. Frequency and volume of resistance training: Effect on cervical extension strength. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:1080-1086.

 23. Stone MH, Plisk SS, Stone ME, Schilling BK, O’Bryant HS, Pierce KC. Athletic performance development: Volume load – 1 set vs multiple-sets, training velocity and training variation. Strength and Conditioning 1998;20:22-31. 

24. Tucci JT, Carpenter DM, Pollock ML, Graves JE, Leggett SH. Effect of reduced frequency of training and detraining on lumbar extension strength. SPINE 1992;17:1497-1501.

25. Starkey DB, Pollock ML, Ishida Y, Welsch MA, Brechue WF, Graves JE et al. Effect of resistance training volume on strength and muscle thickness. Med Sci  Sports Exerc 1996;28:1311-1320. 

26. Haas CJ, Garzarella L, De Hoyos D, Pollock, ML. Single versus multiple sets in long term recreational weightlifters. Med  Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:235-242. 

27. Graves JE, Pollock ML, Foster D, Leggett SH, Carpenter DM, Vuoso R, Jones A. Effect of training frequency and specificity on isometric lumbar extension strength. SPINE 1990;15:504-509.

28. Ostrowski KJ, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R., Murphy PW, Little AD. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. J Strength  Conditioning Res 1997;11:148-154. 

29. Taaffe DR, Duret C, Wheeler S, Marcus R. Once weekly resistance exercise improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults. J Am Geriatric Soc 1999;47:1208-1214.

 30. Westcott, W. L., Winett, R. A., Anderson, E. S., Wojcik, J. R., Loud, R. L., Cleggett, E., & Glover, S. (2001). Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 41, 154-158.

31. Laura, R.S., and K..R. Dutton (1991). The Matrix Principle. Allen and Unwin

32. Laura, R.S., and K..R. Dutton (1993). Matrix for Muscle Gain. Allen and Unwin

RECOMMENDATIONS

Consult your Medical Practitioner before beginning any exercise program. 

Individual results may vary. 

Privacy    Terms & Conditions   Contact Us  © Copyright 2012 Body & Soul Dynamics  All Rights Reserved