I Cut The Number Of Sets I Do In Half

[00:00] For the last 100 days, I cut all my

[00:02] workouts in half. I wanted to see what

[00:05] would happen if I went from doing my

[00:06] usual three to four sets per exercise

[00:08] down to just one allout set, sometimes

[00:11] two. Would I lose muscle? Well, in this

[00:14] video, I'll break down exactly what I

[00:16] did, what the science says, and what

[00:18] happened to my physique. For as long as

[00:21] I've been training, I've always been a

[00:22] pretty high volume guy. For one, that's

[00:24] the way the bodybuilding greats like

[00:26] Arnold, Ronnie Coleman, and Jay Cutler

[00:28] all trained. And it's also what the

[00:30] science suggested was most optimal. So

[00:32] for me, it was kind of a no-brainer. I

[00:34] generally do at least three to four sets

[00:36] on each and every exercise, every

[00:38] workout. But like I said, for the last

[00:40] 100 days, I flipped that completely. I

[00:42] became the lowest volume guy in the gym.

[00:45] Instead of three to four sets, I only

[00:46] did one or two sets per exercise. That's

[00:49] it. For several lifts, I just do one

[00:51] allout max effort set and move on.

[00:56] Oh man. Now, to get everyone on the same

[00:58] page, when I say volume, I mean the

[01:01] total number of hard working sets that

[01:03] you do for a muscle each week. So, if

[01:06] you do a large number of sets, you're

[01:08] doing a high volume program. If you do a

[01:10] small number of sets, you're doing a low

[01:12] volume program. So, let's use our chest

[01:13] as an example. Let's say you hit your

[01:15] chest on two days. Three sets of chest

[01:18] press on Monday and three sets of cable

[01:19] flies on Thursday. And that's all you do

[01:22] for the week. That means your weekly

[01:24] chest volume is six sets per week. And

[01:26] for the last decade or so, the standard

[01:28] science-based guideline for sets per

[01:31] muscle per week was, "What do you

[01:33] think?" It's about 10 to 20 sets per

[01:36] muscle per week. That's quite a lot.

[01:38] Going with our chest example, the low

[01:40] end of the science-based range at 10

[01:42] sets would look like this. Three sets of

[01:44] chest press three sets of cable flies on

[01:46] Monday and four sets of push-ups on

[01:49] Thursday. And the high end of the

[01:50] science-based range at 20 sets would

[01:53] look like this. four sets of chest press

[01:55] and four sets of cable flies on Monday.

[01:57] Three sets of push-ups and three sets of

[01:59] pec deck on Wednesday. Three sets of

[02:01] incline press and three sets of dumbbell

[02:03] flies on Friday. That's a lot of chest.

[02:05] And that doesn't include warm-up sets.

[02:07] These are all hard working sets all the

[02:10] way to failure or very close to it. And

[02:12] of course, that's just for one muscle.

[02:14] For your total body volume, you need to

[02:16] add up all the sets for all your other

[02:19] muscles, too. Those are some long

[02:21] workouts. Trust me, I trained like this

[02:23] for years. But not anymore. This is what

[02:26] my full week of chest training looks

[02:27] like now. Two sets of incline press and

[02:29] two sets of pec deck on Monday. Two sets

[02:31] of machine chest press on Thursday.

[02:33] That's it. Six sets per week. Let's use

[02:35] this graph to compare how my current

[02:37] volumes look compared to the standard

[02:39] science-based volumes. This is what the

[02:41] high end of the science range looks

[02:42] like. And this is what the low end of

[02:44] the science range looks like. And this

[02:45] is what I'm doing right now. So, it's

[02:47] pretty freaking low across the board.

[02:50] Most of my muscles get six sets per

[02:51] week. Some get four sets per week. And a

[02:54] few are in the 8 to 10 range. My

[02:55] shoulders get 10 sets, my back gets

[02:57] nine, my glutes get nine, and my quads

[02:59] get eight. On average, I'm only doing

[03:01] about 6 and 1/2 sets per muscle per

[03:04] week. And for the 100 day experiment, I

[03:06] split that volume up like this. Upper,

[03:08] lower rest upper lower arms rest.

[03:12] And I repeated that split for 14 weeks.

[03:14] The thing is, on paper, by following

[03:17] this plan, I was training at a level of

[03:19] volume that most experts would say is

[03:22] too low to maximize muscle growth. For

[03:25] the past 15 years, the research has been

[03:27] hammering the same message. Volume is

[03:29] king. Back in 2010, James Kger published

[03:31] a meta analysis of eight studies

[03:34] comparing one set versus two to three

[03:36] sets per exercise. And what he found was

[03:38] clear. Doing more sets caused more

[03:41] gains. Two to three sets per exercise

[03:43] was about 40% more effective than just

[03:46] doing one set. And over the next six

[03:47] years, at least another seven studies on

[03:49] volume and hypertrophy were published.

[03:51] So in 2016, Kger and colleagues dropped

[03:54] another metaanalysis. This time, rather

[03:56] than sets per exercise, they looked at

[03:58] sets per muscle per week, and they found

[04:01] a clear dose response effect. Once

[04:03] again, more volume meant more gains. By

[04:06] this point, volume had pretty much

[04:08] cemented itself as the main driver of

[04:10] hypertrophy within the science-based

[04:11] community. I was even singing its

[04:13] praises. Training volume. This has been

[04:15] cited as being the main driver of

[04:18] hypertrophy. But were we all kind of

[04:20] wrong? Well, last year, Pelund and

[04:23] colleagues dropped the biggest, most

[04:25] detailed meta analysis on training

[04:27] volume that's ever been published by

[04:29] far. Now we're up from 15 to get this,

[04:33] 35 studies on training volume for muscle

[04:37] growth. And this time, yeah, they found

[04:40] another super clear dose response

[04:41] relationship between volume and

[04:43] hypertrophy. More volume, more gains.

[04:45] And that trend held from as low as four

[04:48] sets per muscle per week all the way up

[04:50] to 43 sets per muscle per week. Even the

[04:54] authors were kind of like, man, I don't

[04:56] know what to tell you. Doing a lot of

[04:57] volume just really seems to work. But

[05:00] there are some issues. If you venture

[05:02] deep into the dingy underground corners

[05:04] of the online science-based lifting

[05:06] subculture, you'll find plenty of people

[05:08] criticizing this paper. You'll hear that

[05:10] none of these studies are actually

[05:11] measuring true muscle growth. What's

[05:13] really happening is all that high volume

[05:15] training is simply causing the muscle to

[05:17] swell up with blood and inflammation,

[05:20] something called edema. It's really just

[05:22] a big pump that lasts a few days, making

[05:24] it look like the subjects gained more

[05:26] muscle when the researchers measured it.

[05:28] There's probably some truth to this, but

[05:30] it's not the angle I'm taking. I think

[05:32] the overall effect is just too big

[05:34] across too many studies. It's more than

[05:36] just edema gains. Plus, the authors

[05:39] address this in the paper itself. No,

[05:41] instead, I'm going to criticize this

[05:43] literature through a much more practical

[05:45] lens. First, let's get this straight.

[05:47] These studies didn't apply high volumes

[05:50] to every muscle all at once. No, most of

[05:52] them just blasted their biceps and

[05:54] triceps or their quads with high

[05:56] volumes. And for the most part, all

[05:58] their other muscles were trained

[06:00] normally or not at all. So, the best you

[06:02] can really say is that high volume works

[06:05] if you blast a single muscle or two.

[06:07] Even the authors note that doing high

[06:08] volume for your entire body could cause

[06:10] some serious recovery issues. And

[06:12] speaking of recovery, almost all of

[06:14] these studies were done at around

[06:16] maintenance calories. But what happens

[06:18] if you're in a caloric deficit like I am

[06:20] right now? A deficit means less energy,

[06:23] which means less recovery. So, it's just

[06:26] not clear if these results apply when

[06:27] you're cutting. This is a crucial point

[06:30] that I'll come back to when I show you

[06:31] my fat loss results throughout this low-

[06:33] volume experiment. Perhaps most

[06:35] importantly, though, all of these

[06:36] studies are short-term interventions.

[06:39] They usually only last 6 to 12 weeks.

[06:41] So, what happens over a longer time

[06:43] frame, like a year or two? Do higher

[06:45] volumes keep pulling you ahead forever,

[06:47] or do they just give you a short-term

[06:49] boost and lower volume training would

[06:51] eventually catch up as you get closer

[06:52] and closer to your natural limit? Based

[06:55] on this research, we can't really say

[06:57] because they don't last long enough. And

[06:58] then there's this whole thing with

[07:00] diminishing returns in general. On the

[07:02] surface, all these studies can

[07:03] definitely make it feel like doing

[07:05] exponentially more volume will get you

[07:07] exponentially more gains, but that isn't

[07:10] how it works at all. The extra muscle

[07:12] growth that you get by doing more and

[07:13] more volume gets smaller and smaller.

[07:16] All of that is why I wanted to test this

[07:18] out for myself. Was I doing all this

[07:21] volume just based on some bodybuilding

[07:23] anecdotes from guys 100 lbs bigger than

[07:24] me and some science that while valid has

[07:27] some serious practical limitations? My N

[07:30] equals 1 experiment lasted for 100 days,

[07:32] which is longer than almost all of these

[07:34] studies I've shown you so far. I track

[07:36] my chest strength and my quad strength

[07:37] using a standardized science-based

[07:39] protocol. I track my physique with

[07:41] progress photos under the exact same

[07:42] lighting. And I tracked my body fat and

[07:44] lean mass with DEXA. For the challenge,

[07:46] I wrote the most effective low volume

[07:48] split I could think of. Upper, lower,

[07:50] rest, upper, lower, arms and delts,

[07:53] rest. In just one to two sets per

[07:55] exercise, with almost every set taken to

[07:57] failure. I knew from other research that

[07:59] if I was going low on volume, I needed

[08:01] to go ultra high on intensity.

[08:05] [Music]

[08:15] Oh, come on. Come on. Come on. Yeah.

[08:19] Nice.

[08:21] >> Nice, dude.

[08:22] >> You got a little cheaty at the end, but

[08:27] I'm going to count it.

[08:29] Ooh.

[08:31] Oh man.

[08:33] I love this machine. Now, I'll be

[08:35] honest. I did have some doubts,

[08:37] especially in those first few weeks.

[08:39] After years and years of doing 10 to 20

[08:41] sets per muscle per week, it did feel

[08:43] like I wasn't doing enough. But by

[08:46] around week three, I noticed something

[08:47] surprising. Not only was I not losing

[08:50] size, I actually looked harder and

[08:52] fuller. I was noticing more vascularity,

[08:54] too. That's probably because I was

[08:56] getting leaner, but the lower volume

[08:57] training was still keeping my muscles

[08:59] fuller than what I expected. And most

[09:02] importantly to me, despite steadily

[09:04] losing weight, I was keeping my strength

[09:06] up on all my lifts. And that's probably

[09:09] the best indicator that I was keeping my

[09:10] muscle.

[09:15] [Applause]

[09:17] >> Let's go, bro.

[09:18] >> After the first month was up, I started

[09:20] to think that maybe I just didn't need

[09:22] as much volume as I used to think, as

[09:24] long as I was pushing really hard. The

[09:26] research does show for the most part

[09:27] that on average higher volume training

[09:30] does lead to more muscle growth.

[09:32] However, I do think on a cut a low

[09:34] volume program can make more sense and

[09:36] that's because you have a lower recovery

[09:37] capacity and so a high volume training

[09:40] program could just be harder to recover

[09:41] from. So yeah, if you're doing a bulk or

[09:43] a recmp or whatever, high volume

[09:45] training works great. I think it makes

[09:47] perfect sense. But when you're on a cut,

[09:49] I think a lower volume program with

[09:51] really high intensity is a smarter

[09:53] approach and that's what we're doing.

[09:55] But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. 1

[09:57] month isn't that much to go by, and new

[09:59] programs are always fun at first anyway.

[10:01] Plus, if it turns out that I lose a

[10:02] bunch of muscle by the 100 day check-in,

[10:04] I might change my tune. By the midway

[10:06] point, I started to feel like all that

[10:08] extra volume that I used to do was

[10:10] depleting me more than I realized. I

[10:12] actually think it was holding me back in

[10:14] some ways because training is supposed

[10:16] to be fun. And I'll tell you, I used to

[10:18] dread doing some of those super high

[10:20] volume workouts, especially leg days,

[10:22] and especially when cutting. Nowadays,

[10:25] for my leg workout, I hit two sets of

[10:27] squats, two sets of leg curls, one set

[10:29] of lunges, two sets of leg extensions,

[10:31] one set of abductions, and two sets of

[10:33] calves. It's not nothing. It's still a

[10:35] hard workout, but it only takes me about

[10:37] 45, maybe 60 minutes if I take my time.

[10:40] And I absolutely love it. I'm also more

[10:42] locked in than ever before. I don't know

[10:44] if it's some of my ADHD tendencies, but

[10:46] during almost every single high volume

[10:48] workout I used to do, my focus would

[10:50] always start to taper off near the

[10:52] middle. I'd go on my phone more. I'd

[10:53] rest a little longer in between sets and

[10:55] just start socializing. An already long

[10:58] workout would drag on even more. And

[11:00] this is where a low volume training

[11:02] style really shines. It's what I've been

[11:04] calling the focus effect. When you know

[11:06] you only have one or two sets to get the

[11:09] job done, you will lock in. Before every

[11:11] set, I remind myself that I need to nail

[11:13] my execution and my effort. And because

[11:16] of that, I don't think there's been a

[11:18] single set where I didn't bring the

[11:20] intensity for this entire challenge. But

[11:22] I don't want you to just take my word

[11:23] for it. After all, this challenge only

[11:25] has one subject. And I haven't even

[11:27] shown you my results yet. And even if

[11:29] they are amazing, you shouldn't base too

[11:31] much of your own training off of one

[11:32] person's experience. That's why I want

[11:34] to take a second look at the science.

[11:36] Because while on the surface it really

[11:38] can look like volume is king, there is

[11:41] more support for a lower volume training

[11:42] approach than you'd think, at least in

[11:44] the right context. For example, there's

[11:46] a lot of data showing that you need way

[11:48] less volume to maintain muscle than you

[11:51] need to build muscle. This classic study

[11:53] from Bickl and colleagues had subjects

[11:55] run two phases back to back, a high

[11:58] volume phase and a low volume phase. For

[12:00] the high volume phase, they hit their

[12:02] legs 3 days a week. Each workout had

[12:05] three sets of squats, three sets of leg

[12:07] press, and three sets of leg extensions.

[12:09] That's 27 sets per week just for their

[12:12] quads. And they did that for 16 weeks.

[12:15] Then half the subjects entered a super

[12:18] low volume phase where they dropped

[12:20] their workload down to, get this, one

[12:23] set for each exercise once a week. That

[12:26] means they went from 27 sets down to

[12:29] three. And guess what happened to their

[12:31] gains? They maintained 100% of their

[12:35] size and strength for another 16 weeks.

[12:40] Oh, and then another 16 weeks after

[12:42] that. They maintain their gains for 32

[12:45] weeks. That's 224 days doing just one

[12:49] set per exercise. Three sets total a

[12:52] week. That's it. And there were 70

[12:54] subjects in that study. Some of them

[12:56] actually kept making gains during the

[12:58] low volume phase. And to really drive

[13:00] this home, a brand new low-volume study

[13:03] from September of this year, so just

[13:05] last month, was just published. In this

[13:08] paper, Herman and colleagues had 42

[13:11] resistance trained subjects run a

[13:13] low-vol program. Two full body workouts

[13:16] per week with just one set per exercise.

[13:19] Each workout took about 30 minutes. They

[13:22] split everyone doing that low-vol

[13:23] program into a failure group and a

[13:26] non-failure group. The failure group

[13:28] obviously went to failure. The

[13:30] non-failure group left two reps in

[13:32] reserve. Other than that, both groups

[13:34] were following that 30inut workout twice

[13:36] a week low volume plan. And after 8

[13:39] weeks of one set per exercise per

[13:42] workout, both groups made significant

[13:45] gains. The failure group tended to grow

[13:47] better overall though. So this new study

[13:50] tells us two really important things.

[13:53] First, on a low-volume program, going to

[13:56] failure seems to work better. And

[13:58] perhaps more importantly, it tells us

[14:00] that even experienced trainees can make

[14:03] gains on a low-volume program. Volume

[14:06] might not be the king that we thought.

[14:08] At least that's what I make of this 2023

[14:10] meta analysis from Robinson and

[14:11] colleagues, which very clearly showed

[14:13] that the closer you train to failure,

[14:15] the more muscle you gain. To me, if any

[14:18] one variable should wear the crown, it

[14:20] should probably be training hard, right?

[14:22] And with low volume training, since

[14:24] you're only doing a small handful of

[14:26] sets, you can afford to push nearly

[14:28] every single set to failure without

[14:30] hurting your recovery. If you try to do

[14:32] that on a higher volume plan, the

[14:34] fatigue and injury risk would eventually

[14:36] start to outweigh any marginal benefits.

[14:39] So, after 100 days of low volume

[14:41] workouts, what happened? Did it work?

[14:44] Well, this is what I looked like at the

[14:46] beginning of the challenge. And this is

[14:48] what I look like now after 100 days of

[14:51] low volume training. I was cutting

[14:53] during this experiment, so I am clearly

[14:55] leaner now. But I also think I look more

[14:57] jacked, especially in my legs and my

[14:59] shoulders. And despite being about 7 lbs

[15:02] lighter in the after, I think I held on

[15:04] to my muscle fullness, size, and density

[15:06] really well. And my DEXA supports that,

[15:08] too. From day 1 to day 100, I lost 5.5

[15:12] lbs of fat mass. and 1.8 pounds of lean

[15:16] mass. I think that's a really solid

[15:18] ratio, especially when you consider that

[15:20] lean mass isn't only muscle mass. It

[15:22] also includes any water that I lost

[15:24] during the cut. And at my training age,

[15:26] you always lose some water as you shred

[15:28] down. But the crazy thing is, I think my

[15:31] results are even better than that

[15:32] implies because throughout this

[15:34] challenge, I got three DEXA scans. One

[15:37] done on day one, another on day 30, and

[15:40] a final check-in on day 100. from day 30

[15:43] to day 100. So across 70 days of low

[15:47] volume training, I actually gained half

[15:50] a pound of lean mass while losing

[15:52] another 2.3 lb of fat mass. That lean

[15:56] mass change could be within the margin

[15:57] of error, but it was still pretty

[15:59] encouraging to see. I also gained

[16:01] strength. Even in the very last week of

[16:03] my cut, when my macros were the lowest,

[16:06] I was hitting new PRs on the pendulum

[16:08] squad. Hey.

[16:12] >> Yes.

[16:13] >> Seven.

[16:14] >> I did five reps with five plates two

[16:17] weeks ago.

[16:17] >> Yeah.

[16:18] >> Six reps with five plates last week.

[16:22] Seven reps with five plates this week.

[16:24] >> Let's go.

[16:24] >> And my weight is going down. It's so

[16:26] insane how much better you lock in when

[16:31] you only have two sets to do. If I knew

[16:33] I had like four sets on that, I would be

[16:35] driving my feet 100%. The fact I know

[16:38] I've only got two, bro, I lock in and go

[16:40] crazy.

[16:41] >> Yeah.

[16:41] >> And I even hit a huge new PR on the

[16:44] chest press machine in the final upper

[16:46] body workout of the experiment,

[16:49] >> dude. That's three reps. Four reps more

[16:53] than my previous PR. That's actually

[16:55] nuts. On the check-in days, we also

[16:57] tested my max strength on the Smith

[16:59] machine bench press and the leg

[17:01] extension under a strict fasted

[17:03] protocol. After 100 days, I matched my

[17:06] bench press strength and I added 15 lbs

[17:09] to my leg extension max. That may not

[17:11] sound like much, but considering that I

[17:13] lost 7 lb, I'm already very advanced and

[17:16] I was actually doing really low volume

[17:18] compared to my baseline, I think that's

[17:20] super solid. And I'll link the raw data

[17:22] for the DEXA and my strength tests down

[17:24] below as well. I think my progress

[17:25] updates show a clear picture, too. Much

[17:27] more definition in my lower half, more

[17:29] pop in my shoulders, and more shape in

[17:31] my arms. The biggest surprise for me

[17:33] though was just how good the workouts

[17:35] felt. This variable is becoming more and

[17:37] more important to me at 34 and almost

[17:39] two decades deep into training. Instead

[17:41] of dreading long workouts, now I

[17:44] actually can't wait to train each day.

[17:45] And this challenge did cause me to

[17:47] change my mind on something pretty big.

[17:49] If you've been following me for a while,

[17:51] you might remember that I used to say

[17:52] that your training volume shouldn't

[17:54] change just because you start cutting.

[17:56] How do training requirements change when

[17:58] you go from a caloric surplus to a

[18:00] caloric deficit? And I think the answer

[18:02] is actually quite simple. It doesn't.

[18:05] But after doing this challenge, I want

[18:07] to update that. If you're cutting, I

[18:09] think low volume is the way to go. High

[18:11] volume will still work, but I don't

[18:13] think it's ideal since your recovery is

[18:14] lower in a deficit, and low volumes

[18:17] retain muscle just fine as long as

[18:19] you're training hard. If you're bulking,

[18:21] I honestly think the best approach might

[18:23] be to keep your volume relatively low

[18:25] for every muscle except one. Blast one

[18:28] muscle with 10 to 20, maybe even 30 sets

[18:31] per week at a time. And then every few

[18:34] months, you can rotate which muscle

[18:36] you're blasting. I think this makes a

[18:38] lot of sense, especially as you get more

[18:39] advanced. And I think once I start a

[18:41] lean bulk again, this is probably what

[18:43] I'll do. And now that I've got the

[18:44] muscle lab, I'll make sure that I

[18:46] document all that progress and keep you

[18:47] guys posted on how it goes. In the

[18:49] meantime, if you're looking for a

[18:50] lowvol, highintensity program like the

[18:52] one that I ran during this challenge,

[18:53] you can get my brand new Minmax program

[18:56] over at jeffnnipper.com and it's 25% off

[18:59] for launch week. In case you're watching

[19:00] this after launch week, I'll go ahead

[19:01] and put a discount code in the

[19:03] description box down below so you can

[19:04] still save some money. Research shows

[19:05] that one of the most common reasons that

[19:07] people skip the gym is lack of time. And

[19:09] the low volume workouts in the Minmax

[19:11] program are shorter, easier to stick to,

[19:14] more enjoyable, and easier to recover

[19:16] from. This is my favorite program that

[19:17] I've ever released. It comes with over

[19:19] 90 brand new exercise demos filmed in

[19:21] the new muscle lab, a full 12-week

[19:24] program with exercise substitutions in

[19:26] case there's any exercise you can't do,

[19:27] coaching notes from me, and a full ebook

[19:30] explaining all the science behind the

[19:31] program. It's suitable for all

[19:32] experience levels, but if you're a

[19:34] complete beginner just starting the gym,

[19:36] I'd suggest running through my

[19:37] fundamentals program first. If you're

[19:38] aiming to lose fat right now, this is

[19:40] absolutely the best training program I

[19:42] could recommend to you. And if your main

[19:44] goal is to build muscle, I think this is

[19:46] the perfect plan as long as you want

[19:47] shorter, more intense, and more

[19:49] timeefficient workouts, or if you just

[19:51] like to experiment with low volume

[19:52] training for yourself. Also, if you

[19:54] haven't already, make sure you download

[19:55] a free trial of Macro Factor, which is

[19:57] my smart nutrition app. Your diet is

[19:59] also super important for building your

[20:01] best physique, and it's the thing that

[20:02] most people miss. All right, that's it

[20:04] for this one, guys. Don't forget to

[20:05] leave me a thumbs up if you enjoyed the

[20:06] video. Subscribe if you haven't already,

[20:07] and I'll see you all here in the next

[20:09] one.