THE 20x1 TRAINING METHOD
A NEW APPROACH TO STRENGTH TRAINING?
It is likely that if you are within the S&C community you will have heard of the 1×20 method (if you havent – I have written about how I use the 1×20 method in my programming [HERE]). This method has seemingly taken coaches by storm and has become a semi-staple in conversations and posts gearing towards S&C programming and athlete development.
“ BUT WAIT, IN THE TITLE IT SAID THE 20X1 METHOD - WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 1X20 ? ”
No, this wasn’t a typo… While the 1×20 method has gained some traction, and likely warrants some merit towards its conceptual principles for general strength development (i.e. training with lighter loads and exposing a beginner athlete to varying movement patterns while doing so).
It got me thinking why 20 reps and what’s the importance of this amount of volume? Quite simply one day, like any S&C innovator on a quest for betterment, I woke up and thought ‘What if I just flip the 1×20 volume based approach (which traditionally uses lighter loads) and create one that exposes an individual to repeated efforts at much higher intensities’.
AND SO 20x1 WAS BORN....
This was my attempt at making an intensity based approach for more advanced athletes with the primary goal being to develop maximal strength. At the time of me having this idea I felt like a lot of programs (Including my own), defaulted to some format of 5×5, 5×3, 4×2 and so on. So this was a way of changing the training approach and bringing a new format to what my athletes had been used to, in an attempt to switch things up.
In this article we will look at the 20×1 method, some conceptual foundations and how I use it as a means to develop specific maximal dynamic strength with my athletes and clients.
LETS BEGIN...
THE 20×1 METHOD is one that requires a little more experience with loading protocols by exposing the individual to higher intensities (>80% of 1 Repetition Max). The key is manipulating the intensity (load) or rest (e.g. every minute on the minute, 1:1 work rest, every 30 secs or longer rest intervals) for the given intensity range within a session and over time in a program.
This makes 20×1 a method that looks to explore intensity as a key variable, with higher absolute loads requiring greater force production to move the external loads. Given the aim is to improve these force generating qualities, I normally reserve this rep scheme for my main training exercises that typically target maximal dynamic strength adaptations (the primary physiological stimulus).
SO WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS “NEW” METHOD OF TRAINING?
Surprise, surprise… As with anything in the S&C domain, when you think you have created something new, someone else has already explored the methodology (or at least partly / indirectly).
After having the idea of 20×1 a few years ago, I of course found myself going to google scholar and pubmed libraries to see if anyone else had used a method like this..
Keijo Hakkinen has entered the chat…
Of course there is some research, from a high level group in the S&C scientific field, floating around that has looked at the exposure to heavy single repetition sets for exactly 20 sets.
While this isn’t exactly how I program the 20×1 method (discussed in the section below), these papers lend us some insight into the basis of why this method may be useful for strength adaptations.
In 1993 Hakkinen & Pakarinen looked at the acute hormonal responses in high level strength trained males, who completed both 20×1 (performed at 1 repetition max) and 10×10 (performed at 70% 1 repetition max) resistance training sessions. The authors deemed these programs “fatiguing heavy resistance training protocols”. Rowdy…
The authors programmed 20×1 @ 100% maximum with 3 minutes rest between sets (if you’re thinking what I’m thinking – they aren’t messing around with this one!). Noting that as the protocol progressed the athletes were unable to complete the original prescribed load, so they adjusted to the maximal that could be lifted for the subsequent set. In doing so the authors showed within the session a ~10% decrease in 1-RM using the 20×1 method. Of note the 10×10 protocol had a load decrease of ~24% across the session, suggesting more fatigue being accumulated using this high volume protocol in comparison to the maximal singles with rest.
When comparing hormonal responses, serum testosterone, free testosterone and cortisol remained unchanged in the 20×1 group. Though it was noted that the testosterone levels were lower in the rest days (up to 48h) following the protocol in comparison to the baseline levels on the training day. They also observed an increase in serum growth hormone and blood lactate within the program (albeit to a lesser extent than the 10×10 protocol).
The authors concluded that the anaerobic difference in protocols can lead to markedly different fatigue responses, with 20×1 being less fatiguing than a higher volume 10×10 protocol. Now obviously as we know 10×10 is also a no joke protocol too, which is at the extreme end of volume for an exercise in a given session. But this gives us our first rational basis for 20×1 training. This method may not be as fatiguing as other training structures that are out there.
In the same year Hakkinen (1993) also published another study that assessed the effects of 20×1 @ 100% repetition max (with 3 minutes rest between sets) in both male and female powerlifters / bodybuilders. This time they assessed electromyographic activity (EMG) and maximal voluntary isometric contractions of the knee extensors (knee and hip angles 107° & 110°) in addition to blood lactate markers.
Again they observed a decrease in the achievable load lifted across the sets in both genders (male ~10% and female ~9%). Blood lactate concentrations also increased in both groups (male ~1.5 mmol, female ~1 mmol). The authors also observed a gradual decrease in maximal isometric peak force and force-time curve shifts down and to the right (indicating longer durations with less mean force produced).
The authors noted acute fatigue responses with this protocol, with significant recovery occurring after 1 hour with a return to baseline levels in their assessments within 24-48 hrs post protocol. It should also be noted that female athletes tended to have a steeper recovery response (recovering quicker) than males within the first 24 hrs. The authors concluded that within the program neuromuscular fatigue may be greater in males than in females, and recovery may be slower in male athletes.
When I originally read these studies I was actually quite surprised by the findings. They trained with some pretty large volume at maximal intensities within a session. So it led me to investigate a little more.
SO WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE KNOW ABOUT THE 20x1 METHOD?
The above studies detail the acute responses in relation to fatigue from the 20×1 protocol (albeit a protocol to intentionally fatigue the athlete at 100% maximal intensities). But to my knowledge the chronic adaptations aren’t reported as readily (if at all).
However we can likely borrow some of the chronic adaptations from the research assessing rest between repetitions. A key principle that the 20×1 method incorporates is inter-repetition rest or inter-set rest between reps (as we are performing heavy singles).
This rest period is important (as we learned above) because with too high an intensity (e.g. 100% 1 RM) you will not be able to sustain the same load throughout the protocol due to fatigue (per Hakkinen (1993) and Hakkinen & Pakarinen 1993). Therefore both the prescribed load and rest are key components to sustaining outputs and mitigating fatigue particularly when it comes to heavy singles.
A QUICK OVERVIEW OF INTER-REPETITION REST RESEARCH
Inter-repetition rest (as the name implies) is the rest period taken between single reps within a set. Sometimes this may also be called a cluster set, or the rest pause method.
Below is a quick overview of some studies that have assessed inter-repetition rest configurations…
Of the studies, the training study by Janicijevic et al (2023) has a similar approach to our 20×1 (utilizing a 30×1 method with inter-repetition rest) albeit with a slightly lower prescribed intensity (@75% 1 RM). The authors showed positive adaptations to this approach though most variables changed similarly to a straight sets format performing 6×5 with 3 mins inter-set rest (likely due to the volume load and total rest being matched).
This may provide some positive light on the use of inter-rep rest with high volume singles, though this study does not show superior adaptations to normal training methods, which may in part be due to the intensities used.
In both studies by Davies & colleagues (2020 & 2022), they show positive effects of an inter-repetition rest approach using 4x(5×1) totaling 20 repetitions of total volume at 85% 1 RM. They showed positive changes to both 1 RM, body mass, muscle thickness and maintenance of velocity. Which may suggest these positive adaptations can be seen in the 20×1 method. This study is also closer to the total volume and rest ratios that I typically use with the 20×1 method.
Another intriguing study was by Amar et al (2020), who looked at the output of maximal clean and jerks in relation to 2 different rest periods (2min and 3min). They observed a better maintenance of ground reaction forces and lesser decrease in peak power when using longer rest intervals. This is something that we consider later when developing rest intervals for higher intensities in the 20×1 method (albeit in the aforementioned study this was a more complex Olympic lift than the compound lifts that I recommend for the 20×1 method – though personally I have used this for cleans).
So from a quick summary of the literature it seems that positive adaptations can come from inter-repetition rest methods, particularly with those performed with intensities from 75-100% of 1-RM depending on the exercise selected.
SO WHERE DO I START WITH THE 20x1 METHOD?
Lets walk through an example of how to set up the 20×1 method within your training program…
This serves as a primary guide (not a set of rules) regarding the method which i have found to be the guiding principles for my usage.
LETS MOVE ON TO EXERCISE SELECTION...
The primary exercises I like to choose within this method format are as follows:
- Hex Bar Deadlift
- Safety Bar Hatfield Split Squat
- BB RDL
- BB/DB Bench Press
- Weighted Neutral Grip Pull Ups
- BB/DB Bent Over Row
- BB/DB Push Press
Others exercises that I have used (though less regularly and typically in individual cases)
- BB Front Squat
- BB Back Squat
- SSB Split Squat / Reverse Lunge
- DB Split Squat / Lunge Variation
- Safety Bar Squat / Hatfield Variation
- BB Clean / Power Clean
- BB Hang Clean
- BB Military Press
- BB Landmine Press
- BB Incline Bench Press
Again the exercises should be reserved for the compound type exercises in that we would likely value load as one of the primary progressions for maximal dynamic strength and potential transference to other performance factors.
MICROCYCLE ORGANIZATION
When it comes to organizing this method I have typically run a 4-5-day / week split or a 6-day / week (though personally have used this method as little as 2-days / week). Below are some example exercises and splits that I have typically programmed for a given week. Obviously this can be programmed however you see fit with your primary strength exercises…
In this example I have an equal split of lower body and upper body exercises ranging across 6 training days. This is a type of program I would use after working with an athlete for at least 12-24 months (using other methods beforehand to improve general strength qualities, “work capacity” and maximal dynamic strength before attempting this block). By about week 3 you figure out whether this training split is accomplishable or whether a deload is needed (e.g change in frequency of session exposure).
Though, I don’t see any reason why a less advanced athlete couldn’t do this training block (with potentially lower intensities to start), I generally feel it’s a little advanced for novice lifters. Particularly being mindful that they may not recover as quickly between consecutive lifting exposures.
In this case example we break up the lifting days with additional days of rest between the block of days. This is typically my secondary format if an athlete isn’t feeling great by day 2-3 I recommend a recovery day.
In the past I have also played around with using an Upper and Lower body split within the same day (two exercises in one program). This is what I would typically program for those individuals more interested in resistance training goals (like myself) and not those of sport athletes though, as we may be competing with other adaptations.
SELECTING THE INTENSITY
As mentioned prior, I reserve this training block for when changes in maximal dynamic strength (what some may be familiar with as absolute strength) are desired and thus utilize higher intensities (>80% 1RM). Though I would also speculate that this method could also accompany some hypertrophy adaptations too (due to volume and the provision of additional accessory work that can complement the primary exercise). As such normally for my athlete populations this is a block we run in the early off-season (when sport training demands are reduced and they aren’t competing).
As we are aiming for some maximal force production adaptations, generally this means starting the program with 80-85% of your 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) and then progressing 2.5-5% each week until you come to the 95% 1RM training block for all sets.
However for those athletes that are less familiar with the inter-repetition rest format I also run familiarity block weeks at both 70 and 75% 1-RM to get used to the methodology and accumulate some volume before the exposure to higher intensities (this is particularly useful for those athletes starting at lower relative strength numbers). Because we use percentages of 1-RM for the estimation of the load, it is desired that this is known.
I won’t cover methods on how to get your 1-RM in this specific post, but briefly if I don’t have this from prior training I will perform either a 1-RM, 3-RM or AMAP at a 8/10 perceived load to gauge 1-RM intensity (of course this is in the absence of load-velocity profiling using a velocity based training tool – which can also serve as a means to estimate 1-RM and track progress in this program given the intensities that the athlete trains at) [LINK TO SPORT SMITH ARTICLE]
Per the example above, depending on how many weeks you are aiming to run this program for in WEEK 1 it is recommended that all repetitions be at around 70-80% 1-RM depending on the relative strength level of an athlete (e.g. someone who can squat 2x bodyweight can likely start at a more aggressive intensity and likely doesn’t need to run this block as long as say someone with a 0.75x bodyweight squat).
The progression I typically use is linear (particularly a 4-5 week block in the offseason). Here we acknowledge that 1-RM may vary week to week and progression day to day may not always be strictly linear (i.e. 80% one week may be 75% the next time you repeat that session based on readiness to train).
This is where VBT (velocity feedback) monitoring solutions can come in handy if you have them, as you can assess the change in velocity, particularly in warm up sets, at a set given intensity to gauge roughly where an athlete may be at for the session in comparison to speeds at previous exposure. However in the absence of velocity based feedback the general decision making can be based on perception of how these loads feel.
Particularly in the case of fatigue I give an athlete the option to repeat a specific intensity for a given week (i.e. they can stay at the previous week’s load if they aren’t feeling like it’s a push week). But in most cases from my experience an athlete can generally follow the progression well until week 3-4 / up to 90% 1-RM loads.
One reason for this may be because the rest interval between reps increases as each week goes on (outlined below) allowing for more recovery time following accommodation to lower rest intervals at lower relative intensities in the weeks prior.
Depending on the progression you are using and the total block time you will typically know by week 3-4 if you need to deload (either remove some volume from the main lift, or from accessory work, or reduce the frequency of sessions to give more rest and recovery).
DETERMINING THE REST INTERVAL IN 20x1
By this point you’re probably thinking, ‘wait… this just sounds like one big cluster set’. You wouldn’t be wrong in your line of thinking if so. This was most certainly one of the principal thoughts I had regarding this method. After reading about the efficacy of cluster sets and then the subsequent research on inter-repetition rest periods, and rest pause methods that slightly delineate from the typical cluster formats (e.g. rest between each rep) it made sense to maximize output of every effort in this method.
The ability to maintain higher velocities at a given load across a set vs traditional training methodologies has been an intriguing one to me. So this method could be viewed as a unique take on the research, in an attempt to produce repeated bouts of high-intensity efforts interspersed with just enough rest to maintain correct execution of the lift at high intensities that would be more fatiguing if higher consecutive repetition volumes were prescribed.
A general rule of thumb is the higher the intensity prescribed the slightly higher the rest interval should be (or at least for the first go around). So far I have tried to cap this at 60 seconds rest (or an every minute on the minute EMOM style) at the beginning of the sets with all intensities executed for given lifts.
For most of these movements this means the re-racking of the training utensil being used (or is in some cases the resting of this in the starting position, e.g. DB Bench Press resting the DBs on the thighs between reps). However as we discussed earlier with higher intensities we may likely need longer rest periods to mitigate fatigue (e.g. 1+ min). Again this will be determined if the person can sustain the repetitions or becomes visibly fatigued (or their perceived exertion increases to 9.5/10).
The rest interval will determine the total session time dedicated to this exercise alone, which can range from less than 15 minutes to up to 30 minutes (factoring time to lift including the rest interval).
When I have discussed this method with others, I have often received the question;
‘ Well isn’t that a pretty long time to spend focusing on only 1 exercise? ’
My answer here is, if you feel like your time could be better served doing something else then do that instead (all roads can lead to Rome some may get you there faster but I have had good success with this one!).
Because there is so much exposure to new exercises and trends, I feel that S&C has become about cramming as many methods into one session as possible, to hit as many movement patterns and physical capacities. Sometimes it’s okay to just focus on one good exercise with one primary physiological adaptation. The art of simplicity. Especially if on evaluation the method works.
If you do give this method a try, you will realize it is short enough to not get boring and long enough where you will feel like you have trained hard upon completion. Perhaps getting away from cramming density of exercises and supersets into a session and just training patterns we believe to give us the best bang for our buck in terms of achieving the necessary training adaptations is all we truly need?
Nevertheless the rest interval becomes important to the level that you can create more or less fatigue relative to the intensity prescribed so sometimes taking a longer rest period is important to maximize your session output. This means one could also progress this program through rest alone by shortening the rest interval in relation to a fixed intensity (this is something I am looking to explore in the future).
LET’S SUMMARIZE THE 20x1 CONCEPT
The 20 x 1 method brings a large amount of volume to the heavy singles concept of training using and manipulating inter-repetition rest to maximize the outputs at specific percentages of 1-RM (80-95%).
Though an uncommon approach, practically I have found this programming method useful to developing maximal dynamic strength in compound exercises while accessory work focuses on improving hypertrophy / power qualities (depending on the individual’s need).
This method however could be used with any exercise that you would deem a 1-RM threshold or maximal strength important.
Typically I reserve this method for early off-season programming – I believe this is the best time to develop these qualities (particularly in my scenario – in which athletes leave over the summer).
An area of future exploration is using this method for more speed/power qualities (such as maximal sprinting, sled sprinting, cleans and jerks etc…) to assess if the same transfer is apparent in those physical qualities.
I’m hoping to get some data out there soon, having utilized these methods with basketball athletes in multiple offseason, so stay peeled for that paper once it is published.
Ammar, A., Riemann, B. L., Abdelkarim, O., Driss, T., & Hökelmann, A. (2020). Effect of 2-vs. 3-minute interrepetition rest period on maximal clean technique and performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(9), 2548-2556.
Davies, T. B., Halaki, M., Orr, R., Helms, E. R., & Hackett, D. A. (2020). Changes in bench press velocity and power after 8 weeks of high-load cluster-or traditional-set structures. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(10), 2734-2742.
Davies, T. B., Halaki, M., Orr, R., Mitchell, L., Helms, E. R., Clarke, J., & Hackett, D. A. (2022). Effect of set-structure on upper-body muscular hypertrophy and performance in recreationally-trained male and female. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
Hakkinen, K., & Pakarinen, A. (1993). Acute hormonal responses to two different fatiguing heavy-resistance protocols in male athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology, 74(2), 882-887.
Häkkinen, K. (1993). Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in male and female athletes during heavy resistance exercise. International journal of sports medicine, 14(02), 53-59.
Hardee, J. P., Triplett, N. T., Utter, A. C., Zwetsloot, K. A., & Mcbride, J. M. (2012). Effect of interrepetition rest on power output in the power clean. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(4), 883-889.
Janicijevic, D., González-Hernández, J. M., Jiménez-Reyes, P., Márquez, G., & García-Ramos, A. (2022). Longitudinal effects of traditional and rest redistribution set configurations on explosive-strength and strength-endurance manifestations. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 10-1519.
Martínez-Rubio, C., Quidel-Catrilelbún, M. E. L., Baena-Raya, A., Rodríguez-Pérez, M. A., & Pérez-Castilla, A. (2024). Inter-repetition Rest Impact on Percentage of Repetition Completed at Certain Velocity Loss. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(02), 116-124.
Nickerson, B. S., Williams, T. D., Snarr, R. L., & Park, K. S. (2019). Individual and combined effect of inter-repetition rest and elastic bands on jumping potentiation in resistance-trained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(8), 2087-2093.
Prestes, J., Tibana, R. A., de Araujo Sousa, E., da Cunha Nascimento, D., de Oliveira Rocha, P., Camarço, N. F., … & Willardson, J. M. (2019). Strength and muscular adaptations after 6 weeks of rest-pause vs. traditional multiple-sets resistance training in trained subjects. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33, S113-S121.
Zaras, N., Stasinaki, A. N., Mpampoulis, T., Spiliopoulou, P., Hadjicharalambous, M., & Terzis, G. (2022). Effect of inter-repetition rest vs. Traditional resistance training on the upper body strength rate of force development and triceps brachii muscle architecture. Journal of Human Kinetics, 81(1), 189-198
INTERESTED IN THE PROGRAM ?
HERE IS MY 20x1 METHOD TRAINING PROGRAM...
-
Sale!
Quick ViewSTRONG | THE ULTIMATE 20×1 METHOD
TRAINING PROGRAM Original price was: $45.00.$22.50Current price is: $22.50.
Here you will gain access to my online training application. This program includes testing weeks (to determine your 1 repetition maximums) and training weeks with a linear progression of intensity using the 20×1 method. Also included is common accessory work that I pair with the primary lifting exercise to compliment strength and power qualities.