---
title: 'I Cut The Number Of Sets I Do In Half'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=DzjWEn2BS_k'
video_id: 'DzjWEn2BS_k'
date: 2026-06-28
duration_sec: 0
---

# I Cut The Number Of Sets I Do In Half

> Source: [I Cut The Number Of Sets I Do In Half](https://youtube.com/watch?v=DzjWEn2BS_k)

## Summary



## Transcript

For the last 100 days, I cut all my
workouts in half. I wanted to see what
would happen if I went from doing my
usual three to four sets per exercise
down to just one allout set, sometimes
two. Would I lose muscle? Well, in this
video, I'll break down exactly what I
did, what the science says, and what
happened to my physique. For as long as
I've been training, I've always been a
pretty high volume guy. For one, that's
the way the bodybuilding greats like
Arnold, Ronnie Coleman, and Jay Cutler
all trained. And it's also what the
science suggested was most optimal. So
for me, it was kind of a no-brainer. I
generally do at least three to four sets
on each and every exercise, every
workout. But like I said, for the last
100 days, I flipped that completely. I
became the lowest volume guy in the gym.
Instead of three to four sets, I only
did one or two sets per exercise. That's
it. For several lifts, I just do one
allout max effort set and move on.
Oh man. Now, to get everyone on the same
page, when I say volume, I mean the
total number of hard working sets that
you do for a muscle each week. So, if
you do a large number of sets, you're
doing a high volume program. If you do a
small number of sets, you're doing a low
volume program. So, let's use our chest
as an example. Let's say you hit your
chest on two days. Three sets of chest
press on Monday and three sets of cable
flies on Thursday. And that's all you do
for the week. That means your weekly
chest volume is six sets per week. And
for the last decade or so, the standard
science-based guideline for sets per
muscle per week was, "What do you
think?" It's about 10 to 20 sets per
muscle per week. That's quite a lot.
Going with our chest example, the low
end of the science-based range at 10
sets would look like this. Three sets of
chest press three sets of cable flies on
Monday and four sets of push-ups on
Thursday. And the high end of the
science-based range at 20 sets would
look like this. four sets of chest press
and four sets of cable flies on Monday.
Three sets of push-ups and three sets of
pec deck on Wednesday. Three sets of
incline press and three sets of dumbbell
flies on Friday. That's a lot of chest.
And that doesn't include warm-up sets.
These are all hard working sets all the
way to failure or very close to it. And
of course, that's just for one muscle.
For your total body volume, you need to
add up all the sets for all your other
muscles, too. Those are some long
workouts. Trust me, I trained like this
for years. But not anymore. This is what
my full week of chest training looks
like now. Two sets of incline press and
two sets of pec deck on Monday. Two sets
of machine chest press on Thursday.
That's it. Six sets per week. Let's use
this graph to compare how my current
volumes look compared to the standard
science-based volumes. This is what the
high end of the science range looks
like. And this is what the low end of
the science range looks like. And this
is what I'm doing right now. So, it's
pretty freaking low across the board.
Most of my muscles get six sets per
week. Some get four sets per week. And a
few are in the 8 to 10 range. My
shoulders get 10 sets, my back gets
nine, my glutes get nine, and my quads
get eight. On average, I'm only doing
about 6 and 1/2 sets per muscle per
week. And for the 100 day experiment, I
split that volume up like this. Upper,
lower rest upper lower arms rest.
And I repeated that split for 14 weeks.
The thing is, on paper, by following
this plan, I was training at a level of
volume that most experts would say is
too low to maximize muscle growth. For
the past 15 years, the research has been
hammering the same message. Volume is
king. Back in 2010, James Kger published
a meta analysis of eight studies
comparing one set versus two to three
sets per exercise. And what he found was
clear. Doing more sets caused more
gains. Two to three sets per exercise
was about 40% more effective than just
doing one set. And over the next six
years, at least another seven studies on
volume and hypertrophy were published.
So in 2016, Kger and colleagues dropped
another metaanalysis. This time, rather
than sets per exercise, they looked at
sets per muscle per week, and they found
a clear dose response effect. Once
again, more volume meant more gains. By
this point, volume had pretty much
cemented itself as the main driver of
hypertrophy within the science-based
community. I was even singing its
praises. Training volume. This has been
cited as being the main driver of
hypertrophy. But were we all kind of
wrong? Well, last year, Pelund and
colleagues dropped the biggest, most
detailed meta analysis on training
volume that's ever been published by
far. Now we're up from 15 to get this,
35 studies on training volume for muscle
growth. And this time, yeah, they found
another super clear dose response
relationship between volume and
hypertrophy. More volume, more gains.
And that trend held from as low as four
sets per muscle per week all the way up
to 43 sets per muscle per week. Even the
authors were kind of like, man, I don't
know what to tell you. Doing a lot of
volume just really seems to work. But
there are some issues. If you venture
deep into the dingy underground corners
of the online science-based lifting
subculture, you'll find plenty of people
criticizing this paper. You'll hear that
none of these studies are actually
measuring true muscle growth. What's
really happening is all that high volume
training is simply causing the muscle to
swell up with blood and inflammation,
something called edema. It's really just
a big pump that lasts a few days, making
it look like the subjects gained more
muscle when the researchers measured it.
There's probably some truth to this, but
it's not the angle I'm taking. I think
the overall effect is just too big
across too many studies. It's more than
just edema gains. Plus, the authors
address this in the paper itself. No,
instead, I'm going to criticize this
literature through a much more practical
lens. First, let's get this straight.
These studies didn't apply high volumes
to every muscle all at once. No, most of
them just blasted their biceps and
triceps or their quads with high
volumes. And for the most part, all
their other muscles were trained
normally or not at all. So, the best you
can really say is that high volume works
if you blast a single muscle or two.
Even the authors note that doing high
volume for your entire body could cause
some serious recovery issues. And
speaking of recovery, almost all of
these studies were done at around
maintenance calories. But what happens
if you're in a caloric deficit like I am
right now? A deficit means less energy,
which means less recovery. So, it's just
not clear if these results apply when
you're cutting. This is a crucial point
that I'll come back to when I show you
my fat loss results throughout this low-
volume experiment. Perhaps most
importantly, though, all of these
studies are short-term interventions.
They usually only last 6 to 12 weeks.
So, what happens over a longer time
frame, like a year or two? Do higher
volumes keep pulling you ahead forever,
or do they just give you a short-term
boost and lower volume training would
eventually catch up as you get closer
and closer to your natural limit? Based
on this research, we can't really say
because they don't last long enough. And
then there's this whole thing with
diminishing returns in general. On the
surface, all these studies can
definitely make it feel like doing
exponentially more volume will get you
exponentially more gains, but that isn't
how it works at all. The extra muscle
growth that you get by doing more and
more volume gets smaller and smaller.
All of that is why I wanted to test this
out for myself. Was I doing all this
volume just based on some bodybuilding
anecdotes from guys 100 lbs bigger than
me and some science that while valid has
some serious practical limitations? My N
equals 1 experiment lasted for 100 days,
which is longer than almost all of these
studies I've shown you so far. I track
my chest strength and my quad strength
using a standardized science-based
protocol. I track my physique with
progress photos under the exact same
lighting. And I tracked my body fat and
lean mass with DEXA. For the challenge,
I wrote the most effective low volume
split I could think of. Upper, lower,
rest, upper, lower, arms and delts,
rest. In just one to two sets per
exercise, with almost every set taken to
failure. I knew from other research that
if I was going low on volume, I needed
to go ultra high on intensity.
[Music]
Oh, come on. Come on. Come on. Yeah.
Nice.
>> Nice, dude.
>> You got a little cheaty at the end, but
I'm going to count it.
Ooh.
Oh man.
I love this machine. Now, I'll be
honest. I did have some doubts,
especially in those first few weeks.
After years and years of doing 10 to 20
sets per muscle per week, it did feel
like I wasn't doing enough. But by
around week three, I noticed something
surprising. Not only was I not losing
size, I actually looked harder and
fuller. I was noticing more vascularity,
too. That's probably because I was
getting leaner, but the lower volume
training was still keeping my muscles
fuller than what I expected. And most
importantly to me, despite steadily
losing weight, I was keeping my strength
up on all my lifts. And that's probably
the best indicator that I was keeping my
muscle.
[Applause]
>> Let's go, bro.
>> After the first month was up, I started
to think that maybe I just didn't need
as much volume as I used to think, as
long as I was pushing really hard. The
research does show for the most part
that on average higher volume training
does lead to more muscle growth.
However, I do think on a cut a low
volume program can make more sense and
that's because you have a lower recovery
capacity and so a high volume training
program could just be harder to recover
from. So yeah, if you're doing a bulk or
a recmp or whatever, high volume
training works great. I think it makes
perfect sense. But when you're on a cut,
I think a lower volume program with
really high intensity is a smarter
approach and that's what we're doing.
But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. 1
month isn't that much to go by, and new
programs are always fun at first anyway.
Plus, if it turns out that I lose a
bunch of muscle by the 100 day check-in,
I might change my tune. By the midway
point, I started to feel like all that
extra volume that I used to do was
depleting me more than I realized. I
actually think it was holding me back in
some ways because training is supposed
to be fun. And I'll tell you, I used to
dread doing some of those super high
volume workouts, especially leg days,
and especially when cutting. Nowadays,
for my leg workout, I hit two sets of
squats, two sets of leg curls, one set
of lunges, two sets of leg extensions,
one set of abductions, and two sets of
calves. It's not nothing. It's still a
hard workout, but it only takes me about
45, maybe 60 minutes if I take my time.
And I absolutely love it. I'm also more
locked in than ever before. I don't know
if it's some of my ADHD tendencies, but
during almost every single high volume
workout I used to do, my focus would
always start to taper off near the
middle. I'd go on my phone more. I'd
rest a little longer in between sets and
just start socializing. An already long
workout would drag on even more. And
this is where a low volume training
style really shines. It's what I've been
calling the focus effect. When you know
you only have one or two sets to get the
job done, you will lock in. Before every
set, I remind myself that I need to nail
my execution and my effort. And because
of that, I don't think there's been a
single set where I didn't bring the
intensity for this entire challenge. But
I don't want you to just take my word
for it. After all, this challenge only
has one subject. And I haven't even
shown you my results yet. And even if
they are amazing, you shouldn't base too
much of your own training off of one
person's experience. That's why I want
to take a second look at the science.
Because while on the surface it really
can look like volume is king, there is
more support for a lower volume training
approach than you'd think, at least in
the right context. For example, there's
a lot of data showing that you need way
less volume to maintain muscle than you
need to build muscle. This classic study
from Bickl and colleagues had subjects
run two phases back to back, a high
volume phase and a low volume phase. For
the high volume phase, they hit their
legs 3 days a week. Each workout had
three sets of squats, three sets of leg
press, and three sets of leg extensions.
That's 27 sets per week just for their
quads. And they did that for 16 weeks.
Then half the subjects entered a super
low volume phase where they dropped
their workload down to, get this, one
set for each exercise once a week. That
means they went from 27 sets down to
three. And guess what happened to their
gains? They maintained 100% of their
size and strength for another 16 weeks.
Oh, and then another 16 weeks after
that. They maintain their gains for 32
weeks. That's 224 days doing just one
set per exercise. Three sets total a
week. That's it. And there were 70
subjects in that study. Some of them
actually kept making gains during the
low volume phase. And to really drive
this home, a brand new low-volume study
from September of this year, so just
last month, was just published. In this
paper, Herman and colleagues had 42
resistance trained subjects run a
low-vol program. Two full body workouts
per week with just one set per exercise.
Each workout took about 30 minutes. They
split everyone doing that low-vol
program into a failure group and a
non-failure group. The failure group
obviously went to failure. The
non-failure group left two reps in
reserve. Other than that, both groups
were following that 30inut workout twice
a week low volume plan. And after 8
weeks of one set per exercise per
workout, both groups made significant
gains. The failure group tended to grow
better overall though. So this new study
tells us two really important things.
First, on a low-volume program, going to
failure seems to work better. And
perhaps more importantly, it tells us
that even experienced trainees can make
gains on a low-volume program. Volume
might not be the king that we thought.
At least that's what I make of this 2023
meta analysis from Robinson and
colleagues, which very clearly showed
that the closer you train to failure,
the more muscle you gain. To me, if any
one variable should wear the crown, it
should probably be training hard, right?
And with low volume training, since
you're only doing a small handful of
sets, you can afford to push nearly
every single set to failure without
hurting your recovery. If you try to do
that on a higher volume plan, the
fatigue and injury risk would eventually
start to outweigh any marginal benefits.
So, after 100 days of low volume
workouts, what happened? Did it work?
Well, this is what I looked like at the
beginning of the challenge. And this is
what I look like now after 100 days of
low volume training. I was cutting
during this experiment, so I am clearly
leaner now. But I also think I look more
jacked, especially in my legs and my
shoulders. And despite being about 7 lbs
lighter in the after, I think I held on
to my muscle fullness, size, and density
really well. And my DEXA supports that,
too. From day 1 to day 100, I lost 5.5
lbs of fat mass. and 1.8 pounds of lean
mass. I think that's a really solid
ratio, especially when you consider that
lean mass isn't only muscle mass. It
also includes any water that I lost
during the cut. And at my training age,
you always lose some water as you shred
down. But the crazy thing is, I think my
results are even better than that
implies because throughout this
challenge, I got three DEXA scans. One
done on day one, another on day 30, and
a final check-in on day 100. from day 30
to day 100. So across 70 days of low
volume training, I actually gained half
a pound of lean mass while losing
another 2.3 lb of fat mass. That lean
mass change could be within the margin
of error, but it was still pretty
encouraging to see. I also gained
strength. Even in the very last week of
my cut, when my macros were the lowest,
I was hitting new PRs on the pendulum
squad. Hey.
>> Yes.
>> Seven.
>> I did five reps with five plates two
weeks ago.
>> Yeah.
>> Six reps with five plates last week.
Seven reps with five plates this week.
>> Let's go.
>> And my weight is going down. It's so
insane how much better you lock in when
you only have two sets to do. If I knew
I had like four sets on that, I would be
driving my feet 100%. The fact I know
I've only got two, bro, I lock in and go
crazy.
>> Yeah.
>> And I even hit a huge new PR on the
chest press machine in the final upper
body workout of the experiment,
>> dude. That's three reps. Four reps more
than my previous PR. That's actually
nuts. On the check-in days, we also
tested my max strength on the Smith
machine bench press and the leg
extension under a strict fasted
protocol. After 100 days, I matched my
bench press strength and I added 15 lbs
to my leg extension max. That may not
sound like much, but considering that I
lost 7 lb, I'm already very advanced and
I was actually doing really low volume
compared to my baseline, I think that's
super solid. And I'll link the raw data
for the DEXA and my strength tests down
below as well. I think my progress
updates show a clear picture, too. Much
more definition in my lower half, more
pop in my shoulders, and more shape in
my arms. The biggest surprise for me
though was just how good the workouts
felt. This variable is becoming more and
more important to me at 34 and almost
two decades deep into training. Instead
of dreading long workouts, now I
actually can't wait to train each day.
And this challenge did cause me to
change my mind on something pretty big.
If you've been following me for a while,
you might remember that I used to say
that your training volume shouldn't
change just because you start cutting.
How do training requirements change when
you go from a caloric surplus to a
caloric deficit? And I think the answer
is actually quite simple. It doesn't.
But after doing this challenge, I want
to update that. If you're cutting, I
think low volume is the way to go. High
volume will still work, but I don't
think it's ideal since your recovery is
lower in a deficit, and low volumes
retain muscle just fine as long as
you're training hard. If you're bulking,
I honestly think the best approach might
be to keep your volume relatively low
for every muscle except one. Blast one
muscle with 10 to 20, maybe even 30 sets
per week at a time. And then every few
months, you can rotate which muscle
you're blasting. I think this makes a
lot of sense, especially as you get more
advanced. And I think once I start a
lean bulk again, this is probably what
I'll do. And now that I've got the
muscle lab, I'll make sure that I
document all that progress and keep you
guys posted on how it goes. In the
meantime, if you're looking for a
lowvol, highintensity program like the
one that I ran during this challenge,
you can get my brand new Minmax program
over at jeffnnipper.com and it's 25% off
for launch week. In case you're watching
this after launch week, I'll go ahead
and put a discount code in the
description box down below so you can
still save some money. Research shows
that one of the most common reasons that
people skip the gym is lack of time. And
the low volume workouts in the Minmax
program are shorter, easier to stick to,
more enjoyable, and easier to recover
from. This is my favorite program that
I've ever released. It comes with over
90 brand new exercise demos filmed in
the new muscle lab, a full 12-week
program with exercise substitutions in
case there's any exercise you can't do,
coaching notes from me, and a full ebook
explaining all the science behind the
program. It's suitable for all
experience levels, but if you're a
complete beginner just starting the gym,
I'd suggest running through my
fundamentals program first. If you're
aiming to lose fat right now, this is
absolutely the best training program I
could recommend to you. And if your main
goal is to build muscle, I think this is
the perfect plan as long as you want
shorter, more intense, and more
timeefficient workouts, or if you just
like to experiment with low volume
training for yourself. Also, if you
haven't already, make sure you download
a free trial of Macro Factor, which is
my smart nutrition app. Your diet is
also super important for building your
best physique, and it's the thing that
most people miss. All right, that's it
for this one, guys. Don't forget to
leave me a thumbs up if you enjoyed the
video. Subscribe if you haven't already,
and I'll see you all here in the next
one.