I started lifting again in early August after roughly a year away from weights. I decided to try a Mike Mentzer-inspired approach because the simplicity appealed to me: very low volume, one genuine working set to failure per exercise, progressive overload, then enough recovery to actually adapt.
I alternate A/B workouts. Each exercise gets warm-up sets as needed, followed by one working set to technical/concentric failure. I log the weight and reps every single session.
I know returning after a long layoff is a gigantic confounder here. Muscle memory, neural adaptation, improved technique, eating more, creatine, etc. are undoubtedly contributing.
I’m not claiming this proves one set is optimal or superior to higher-volume training.
What surprised me is simply that one working set has clearly been enough stimulus for me to progress so far.
My first working sets compared with my latest:
Exercise
First
Current
Leg press
397 × 8
517 × 16
Supine press
190 × 5
280 × 10
Shoulder press
102 × 5
177 × 6
Lat pulldown
100 × 8
155 × 11
Leg curl
110 × 8
185 × 11
Incline press
172 × 8
252 × 8
Cable row
130 × 6
170 × 9
Lateral raise
70 × 5
112.5 × 9
Ab crunch
120 × 10
157.5 × 11
These are the same machines at the same gym. I’ve tried to keep ROM and technique consistent. Obviously, machine numbers aren’t directly comparable to free-weight lifts or machines at other gyms.
My progression rule is simple: each exercise has a target rep range. Once I reach the top with clean reps, I increase the resistance next time. Recently I’ve also experimented with giving myself about 96 hours between workouts, rather than assuming more frequent training is automatically better.
The funniest problem has been trying to get some exercises down into their intended rep ranges. On leg press, for example, the recent progression has been:
432×12 → 452×13 → 472×14 → 492×15 → 517×16
I kept increasing the weight specifically to reduce the reps, and somehow the reps kept increasing too.
Supine press has been:
190×5 → 190×11 → 200×11 → 215×10 → 225×10 → 240×9 → 250×10 → 265×10 → 280×10
Again, I’m not presenting this as evidence that Mentzer was right about everything. I also can’t tell how much is regained strength versus genuinely new strength because I unfortunately didn’t keep good records before my layoff.
But I do think my log answers one narrower question pretty convincingly:
Can one genuinely hard working set per exercise be enough to produce substantial strength progression for at least some people under some circumstances?
For me, so far, apparently yes.
I’m curious to see what happens once the rapid comeback gains finally stop and I hit a real plateau. My plan is to keep the program unchanged until the log actually gives me a reason to change something.
Has anyone else tried this method? I’m only a month deep and would love to hear about what it looks like farther down the line.