YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → I Cut The Number Of Sets I Do In Half

I Cut The Number Of Sets I Do In Half — Transcript

by Jeff Nippard · 3,901 words · 561 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00For the last 100 days, I cut all my
0:02workouts in half. I wanted to see what
0:05would happen if I went from doing my
0:06usual three to four sets per exercise
0:08down to just one allout set, sometimes
0:11two. Would I lose muscle? Well, in this
0:14video, I'll break down exactly what I
0:16did, what the science says, and what
0:18happened to my physique. For as long as
0:21I've been training, I've always been a
0:22pretty high volume guy. For one, that's
0:24the way the bodybuilding greats like
0:26Arnold, Ronnie Coleman, and Jay Cutler
0:28all trained. And it's also what the
0:30science suggested was most optimal. So
0:32for me, it was kind of a no-brainer. I
0:34generally do at least three to four sets
0:36on each and every exercise, every
0:38workout. But like I said, for the last
0:40100 days, I flipped that completely. I
0:42became the lowest volume guy in the gym.
0:45Instead of three to four sets, I only
0:46did one or two sets per exercise. That's
0:49it. For several lifts, I just do one
0:51allout max effort set and move on.
0:56Oh man. Now, to get everyone on the same
0:58page, when I say volume, I mean the
1:01total number of hard working sets that
1:03you do for a muscle each week. So, if
1:06you do a large number of sets, you're
1:08doing a high volume program. If you do a
1:10small number of sets, you're doing a low
1:12volume program. So, let's use our chest
1:13as an example. Let's say you hit your
1:15chest on two days. Three sets of chest
1:18press on Monday and three sets of cable
1:19flies on Thursday. And that's all you do
1:22for the week. That means your weekly
1:24chest volume is six sets per week. And
1:26for the last decade or so, the standard
1:28science-based guideline for sets per
1:31muscle per week was, "What do you
1:33think?" It's about 10 to 20 sets per
1:36muscle per week. That's quite a lot.
1:38Going with our chest example, the low
1:40end of the science-based range at 10
1:42sets would look like this. Three sets of
1:44chest press three sets of cable flies on
1:46Monday and four sets of push-ups on
1:49Thursday. And the high end of the
1:50science-based range at 20 sets would
1:53look like this. four sets of chest press
1:55and four sets of cable flies on Monday.
1:57Three sets of push-ups and three sets of
1:59pec deck on Wednesday. Three sets of
2:01incline press and three sets of dumbbell
2:03flies on Friday. That's a lot of chest.
2:05And that doesn't include warm-up sets.
2:07These are all hard working sets all the
2:10way to failure or very close to it. And
2:12of course, that's just for one muscle.
2:14For your total body volume, you need to
2:16add up all the sets for all your other
2:19muscles, too. Those are some long
2:21workouts. Trust me, I trained like this
2:23for years. But not anymore. This is what
2:26my full week of chest training looks
2:27like now. Two sets of incline press and
2:29two sets of pec deck on Monday. Two sets
2:31of machine chest press on Thursday.
2:33That's it. Six sets per week. Let's use
2:35this graph to compare how my current
2:37volumes look compared to the standard
2:39science-based volumes. This is what the
2:41high end of the science range looks
2:42like. And this is what the low end of
2:44the science range looks like. And this
2:45is what I'm doing right now. So, it's
2:47pretty freaking low across the board.
2:50Most of my muscles get six sets per
2:51week. Some get four sets per week. And a
2:54few are in the 8 to 10 range. My
2:55shoulders get 10 sets, my back gets
2:57nine, my glutes get nine, and my quads
2:59get eight. On average, I'm only doing
3:01about 6 and 1/2 sets per muscle per
3:04week. And for the 100 day experiment, I
3:06split that volume up like this. Upper,
3:08lower, rest, upper, lower, arms, rest.
3:12And I repeated that split for 14 weeks.
3:14The thing is, on paper, by following
3:17this plan, I was training at a level of
3:19volume that most experts would say is
3:22too low to maximize muscle growth. For
3:25the past 15 years, the research has been
3:27hammering the same message. Volume is
3:29king. Back in 2010, James Kger published
3:31a meta analysis of eight studies
3:34comparing one set versus two to three
3:36sets per exercise. And what he found was
3:38clear. Doing more sets caused more
3:41gains. Two to three sets per exercise
3:43was about 40% more effective than just
3:46doing one set. And over the next six
3:47years, at least another seven studies on
3:49volume and hypertrophy were published.
3:51So in 2016, Kger and colleagues dropped
3:54another metaanalysis. This time, rather
3:56than sets per exercise, they looked at
3:58sets per muscle per week, and they found
4:01a clear dose response effect. Once
4:03again, more volume meant more gains. By
4:06this point, volume had pretty much
4:08cemented itself as the main driver of
4:10hypertrophy within the science-based
4:11community. I was even singing its
4:13praises. Training volume. This has been
4:15cited as being the main driver of
4:18hypertrophy. But were we all kind of
4:20wrong? Well, last year, Pelund and
4:23colleagues dropped the biggest, most
4:25detailed meta analysis on training
4:27volume that's ever been published by
4:29far. Now we're up from 15 to get this,
4:3335 studies on training volume for muscle
4:37growth. And this time, yeah, they found
4:40another super clear dose response
4:41relationship between volume and
4:43hypertrophy. More volume, more gains.
4:45And that trend held from as low as four
4:48sets per muscle per week all the way up
4:50to 43 sets per muscle per week. Even the
4:54authors were kind of like, man, I don't
4:56know what to tell you. Doing a lot of
4:57volume just really seems to work. But
5:00there are some issues. If you venture
5:02deep into the dingy underground corners
5:04of the online science-based lifting
5:06subculture, you'll find plenty of people
5:08criticizing this paper. You'll hear that
5:10none of these studies are actually
5:11measuring true muscle growth. What's
5:13really happening is all that high volume
5:15training is simply causing the muscle to
5:17swell up with blood and inflammation,
5:20something called edema. It's really just
5:22a big pump that lasts a few days, making
5:24it look like the subjects gained more
5:26muscle when the researchers measured it.
5:28There's probably some truth to this, but
5:30it's not the angle I'm taking. I think
5:32the overall effect is just too big
5:34across too many studies. It's more than
5:36just edema gains. Plus, the authors
5:39address this in the paper itself. No,
5:41instead, I'm going to criticize this
5:43literature through a much more practical
5:45lens. First, let's get this straight.
5:47These studies didn't apply high volumes
5:50to every muscle all at once. No, most of
5:52them just blasted their biceps and
5:54triceps or their quads with high
5:56volumes. And for the most part, all
5:58their other muscles were trained
6:00normally or not at all. So, the best you
6:02can really say is that high volume works
6:05if you blast a single muscle or two.
6:07Even the authors note that doing high
6:08volume for your entire body could cause
6:10some serious recovery issues. And
6:12speaking of recovery, almost all of
6:14these studies were done at around
6:16maintenance calories. But what happens
6:18if you're in a caloric deficit like I am
6:20right now? A deficit means less energy,
6:23which means less recovery. So, it's just
6:26not clear if these results apply when
6:27you're cutting. This is a crucial point
6:30that I'll come back to when I show you
6:31my fat loss results throughout this low-
6:33volume experiment. Perhaps most
6:35importantly, though, all of these
6:36studies are short-term interventions.
6:39They usually only last 6 to 12 weeks.
6:41So, what happens over a longer time
6:43frame, like a year or two? Do higher
6:45volumes keep pulling you ahead forever,
6:47or do they just give you a short-term
6:49boost and lower volume training would
6:51eventually catch up as you get closer
6:52and closer to your natural limit? Based
6:55on this research, we can't really say
6:57because they don't last long enough. And
6:58then there's this whole thing with
7:00diminishing returns in general. On the
7:02surface, all these studies can
7:03definitely make it feel like doing
7:05exponentially more volume will get you
7:07exponentially more gains, but that isn't
7:10how it works at all. The extra muscle
7:12growth that you get by doing more and
7:13more volume gets smaller and smaller.
7:16All of that is why I wanted to test this
7:18out for myself. Was I doing all this
7:21volume just based on some bodybuilding
7:23anecdotes from guys 100 lbs bigger than
7:24me and some science that while valid has
7:27some serious practical limitations? My N
7:30equals 1 experiment lasted for 100 days,
7:32which is longer than almost all of these
7:34studies I've shown you so far. I track
7:36my chest strength and my quad strength
7:37using a standardized science-based
7:39protocol. I track my physique with
7:41progress photos under the exact same
7:42lighting. And I tracked my body fat and
7:44lean mass with DEXA. For the challenge,
7:46I wrote the most effective low volume
7:48split I could think of. Upper, lower,
7:50rest, upper, lower, arms and delts,
7:53rest. In just one to two sets per
7:55exercise, with almost every set taken to
7:57failure. I knew from other research that
7:59if I was going low on volume, I needed
8:01to go ultra high on intensity.
8:05[Music]
8:15Oh, come on. Come on. Come on. Yeah.
8:19Nice.
8:21>> Nice, dude.
8:22>> You got a little cheaty at the end, but
8:27I'm going to count it.
8:29Ooh.
8:31Oh, man.
8:33I love this machine. Now, I'll be
8:35honest. I did have some doubts,
8:37especially in those first few weeks.
8:39After years and years of doing 10 to 20
8:41sets per muscle per week, it did feel
8:43like I wasn't doing enough. But by
8:46around week three, I noticed something
8:47surprising. Not only was I not losing
8:50size, I actually looked harder and
8:52fuller. I was noticing more vascularity,
8:54too. That's probably because I was
8:56getting leaner, but the lower volume
8:57training was still keeping my muscles
8:59fuller than what I expected. And most
9:02importantly to me, despite steadily
9:04losing weight, I was keeping my strength
9:06up on all my lifts. And that's probably
9:09the best indicator that I was keeping my
9:10muscle.
9:15[Applause]
9:17>> Let's go, bro.
9:18>> After the first month was up, I started
9:20to think that maybe I just didn't need
9:22as much volume as I used to think, as
9:24long as I was pushing really hard. The
9:26research does show for the most part
9:27that on average higher volume training
9:30does lead to more muscle growth.
9:32However, I do think on a cut a low
9:34volume program can make more sense and
9:36that's because you have a lower recovery
9:37capacity and so a high volume training
9:40program could just be harder to recover
9:41from. So yeah, if you're doing a bulk or
9:43a recmp or whatever, high volume
9:45training works great. I think it makes
9:47perfect sense. But when you're on a cut,
9:49I think a lower volume program with
9:51really high intensity is a smarter
9:53approach and that's what we're doing.
9:55But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. 1
9:57month isn't that much to go by, and new
9:59programs are always fun at first anyway.
10:01Plus, if it turns out that I lose a
10:02bunch of muscle by the 100 day check-in,
10:04I might change my tune. By the midway
10:06point, I started to feel like all that
10:08extra volume that I used to do was
10:10depleting me more than I realized. I
10:12actually think it was holding me back in
10:14some ways because training is supposed
10:16to be fun. And I'll tell you, I used to
10:18dread doing some of those super high
10:20volume workouts, especially leg days,
10:22and especially when cutting. Nowadays,
10:25for my leg workout, I hit two sets of
10:27squats, two sets of leg curls, one set
10:29of lunges, two sets of leg extensions,
10:31one set of abductions, and two sets of
10:33calves. It's not nothing. It's still a
10:35hard workout, but it only takes me about
10:3745, maybe 60 minutes if I take my time.
10:40And I absolutely love it. I'm also more
10:42locked in than ever before. I don't know
10:44if it's some of my ADHD tendencies, but
10:46during almost every single high volume
10:48workout I used to do, my focus would
10:50always start to taper off near the
10:52middle. I'd go on my phone more. I'd
10:53rest a little longer in between sets and
10:55just start socializing. An already long
10:58workout would drag on even more. And
11:00this is where a low volume training
11:02style really shines. It's what I've been
11:04calling the focus effect. When you know
11:06you only have one or two sets to get the
11:09job done, you will lock in. Before every
11:11set, I remind myself that I need to nail
11:13my execution and my effort. And because
11:16of that, I don't think there's been a
11:18single set where I didn't bring the
11:20intensity for this entire challenge. But
11:22I don't want you to just take my word
11:23for it. After all, this challenge only
11:25has one subject. And I haven't even
11:27shown you my results yet. And even if
11:29they are amazing, you shouldn't base too
11:31much of your own training off of one
11:32person's experience. That's why I want
11:34to take a second look at the science.
11:36Because while on the surface it really
11:38can look like volume is king, there is
11:41more support for a lower volume training
11:42approach than you'd think, at least in
11:44the right context. For example, there's
11:46a lot of data showing that you need way
11:48less volume to maintain muscle than you
11:51need to build muscle. This classic study
11:53from Bickl and colleagues had subjects
11:55run two phases back to back, a high
11:58volume phase and a low volume phase. For
12:00the high volume phase, they hit their
12:02legs 3 days a week. Each workout had
12:05three sets of squats, three sets of leg
12:07press, and three sets of leg extensions.
12:09That's 27 sets per week just for their
12:12quads. And they did that for 16 weeks.
12:15Then half the subjects entered a super
12:18low volume phase where they dropped
12:20their workload down to, get this, one
12:23set for each exercise once a week. That
12:26means they went from 27 sets down to
12:29three. And guess what happened to their
12:31gains? They maintained 100% of their
12:35size and strength for another 16 weeks.
12:40Oh, and then another 16 weeks after
12:42that. They maintain their gains for 32
12:45weeks. That's 224 days doing just one
12:49set per exercise. Three sets total a
12:52week. That's it. And there were 70
12:54subjects in that study. Some of them
12:56actually kept making gains during the
12:58low volume phase. And to really drive
13:00this home, a brand new low-volume study
13:03from September of this year, so just
13:05last month, was just published. In this
13:08paper, Herman and colleagues had 42
13:11resistance trained subjects run a
13:13low-vol program. Two full body workouts
13:16per week with just one set per exercise.
13:19Each workout took about 30 minutes. They
13:22split everyone doing that low-vol
13:23program into a failure group and a
13:26non-failure group. The failure group
13:28obviously went to failure. The
13:30non-failure group left two reps in
13:32reserve. Other than that, both groups
13:34were following that 30inut workout twice
13:36a week low volume plan. And after 8
13:39weeks of one set per exercise per
13:42workout, both groups made significant
13:45gains. The failure group tended to grow
13:47better overall though. So this new study
13:50tells us two really important things.
13:53First, on a low-volume program, going to
13:56failure seems to work better. And
13:58perhaps more importantly, it tells us
14:00that even experienced trainees can make
14:03gains on a low-volume program. Volume
14:06might not be the king that we thought.
14:08At least that's what I make of this 2023
14:10meta analysis from Robinson and
14:11colleagues, which very clearly showed
14:13that the closer you train to failure,
14:15the more muscle you gain. To me, if any
14:18one variable should wear the crown, it
14:20should probably be training hard, right?
14:22And with low volume training, since
14:24you're only doing a small handful of
14:26sets, you can afford to push nearly
14:28every single set to failure without
14:30hurting your recovery. If you try to do
14:32that on a higher volume plan, the
14:34fatigue and injury risk would eventually
14:36start to outweigh any marginal benefits.
14:39So, after 100 days of low volume
14:41workouts, what happened? Did it work?
14:44Well, this is what I looked like at the
14:46beginning of the challenge. And this is
14:48what I look like now after 100 days of
14:51low volume training. I was cutting
14:53during this experiment, so I am clearly
14:55leaner now. But I also think I look more
14:57jacked, especially in my legs and my
14:59shoulders. And despite being about 7 lbs
15:02lighter in the after, I think I held on
15:04to my muscle fullness, size, and density
15:06really well. And my DEXA supports that,
15:08too. From day 1 to day 100, I lost 5.5
15:12lbs of fat mass. and 1.8 pounds of lean
15:16mass. I think that's a really solid
15:18ratio, especially when you consider that
15:20lean mass isn't only muscle mass. It
15:22also includes any water that I lost
15:24during the cut. And at my training age,
15:26you always lose some water as you shred
15:28down. But the crazy thing is, I think my
15:31results are even better than that
15:32implies because throughout this
15:34challenge, I got three DEXA scans. One
15:37done on day one, another on day 30, and
15:40a final check-in on day 100. from day 30
15:43to day 100. So across 70 days of low
15:47volume training, I actually gained half
15:50a pound of lean mass while losing
15:52another 2.3 lb of fat mass. That lean
15:56mass change could be within the margin
15:57of error, but it was still pretty
15:59encouraging to see. I also gained
16:01strength. Even in the very last week of
16:03my cut, when my macros were the lowest,
16:06I was hitting new PRs on the pendulum
16:08squad. Hey.
16:12>> Yes.
16:13>> Seven.
16:14>> I did five reps with five plates two
16:17weeks ago.
16:17>> Yeah.
16:18>> Six reps with five plates last week.
16:22Seven reps with five plates this week.
16:24>> Let's go.
16:24>> And my weight is going down. It's so
16:26insane how much better you lock in when
16:31you only have two sets to do. If I knew
16:33I had like four sets on that, I would be
16:35driving my feet 100%. The fact I know
16:38I've only got two, bro, I lock in and go
16:40crazy.
16:41>> Yeah.
16:41>> And I even hit a huge new PR on the
16:44chest press machine in the final upper
16:46body workout of the experiment,
16:49>> dude. That's three reps. Four reps more
16:53than my previous PR. That's actually
16:55nuts. On the check-in days, we also
16:57tested my max strength on the Smith
16:59machine bench press and the leg
17:01extension under a strict fasted
17:03protocol. After 100 days, I matched my
17:06bench press strength and I added 15 lbs
17:09to my leg extension max. That may not
17:11sound like much, but considering that I
17:13lost 7 lb, I'm already very advanced and
17:16I was actually doing really low volume
17:18compared to my baseline, I think that's
17:20super solid. And I'll link the raw data
17:22for the DEXA and my strength tests down
17:24below as well. I think my progress
17:25updates show a clear picture, too. Much
17:27more definition in my lower half, more
17:29pop in my shoulders, and more shape in
17:31my arms. The biggest surprise for me
17:33though was just how good the workouts
17:35felt. This variable is becoming more and
17:37more important to me at 34 and almost
17:39two decades deep into training. Instead
17:41of dreading long workouts, now I
17:44actually can't wait to train each day.
17:45And this challenge did cause me to
17:47change my mind on something pretty big.
17:49If you've been following me for a while,
17:51you might remember that I used to say
17:52that your training volume shouldn't
17:54change just because you start cutting.
17:56How do training requirements change when
17:58you go from a caloric surplus to a
18:00caloric deficit? And I think the answer
18:02is actually quite simple. It doesn't.
18:05But after doing this challenge, I want
18:07to update that. If you're cutting, I
18:09think low volume is the way to go. High
18:11volume will still work, but I don't
18:13think it's ideal since your recovery is
18:14lower in a deficit, and low volumes
18:17retain muscle just fine as long as
18:19you're training hard. If you're bulking,
18:21I honestly think the best approach might
18:23be to keep your volume relatively low
18:25for every muscle except one. Blast one
18:28muscle with 10 to 20, maybe even 30 sets
18:31per week at a time. And then every few
18:34months, you can rotate which muscle
18:36you're blasting. I think this makes a
18:38lot of sense, especially as you get more
18:39advanced. And I think once I start a
18:41lean bulk again, this is probably what
18:43I'll do. And now that I've got the
18:44muscle lab, I'll make sure that I
18:46document all that progress and keep you
18:47guys posted on how it goes. In the
18:49meantime, if you're looking for a
18:50lowvol, highintensity program like the
18:52one that I ran during this challenge,
18:53you can get my brand new Minmax program
18:56over at jeffnnipper.com and it's 25% off
18:59for launch week. In case you're watching
19:00this after launch week, I'll go ahead
19:01and put a discount code in the
19:03description box down below so you can
19:04still save some money. Research shows
19:05that one of the most common reasons that
19:07people skip the gym is lack of time. And
19:09the low volume workouts in the Minmax
19:11program are shorter, easier to stick to,
19:14more enjoyable, and easier to recover
19:16from. This is my favorite program that
19:17I've ever released. It comes with over
19:1990 brand new exercise demos filmed in
19:21the new muscle lab, a full 12-week
19:24program with exercise substitutions in
19:26case there's any exercise you can't do,
19:27coaching notes from me, and a full ebook
19:30explaining all the science behind the
19:31program. It's suitable for all
19:32experience levels, but if you're a
19:34complete beginner just starting the gym,
19:36I'd suggest running through my
19:37fundamentals program first. If you're
19:38aiming to lose fat right now, this is
19:40absolutely the best training program I
19:42could recommend to you. And if your main
19:44goal is to build muscle, I think this is
19:46the perfect plan as long as you want
19:47shorter, more intense, and more
19:49timeefficient workouts, or if you just
19:51like to experiment with low volume
19:52training for yourself. Also, if you
19:54haven't already, make sure you download
19:55a free trial of Macro Factor, which is
19:57my smart nutrition app. Your diet is
19:59also super important for building your
20:01best physique, and it's the thing that
20:02most people miss. All right, that's it
20:04for this one, guys. Don't forget to
20:05leave me a thumbs up if you enjoyed the
20:06video. Subscribe if you haven't already,
20:07and I'll see you all here in the next
20:09one.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of I Cut The Number Of Sets I Do In Half by Jeff Nippard, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 3,901 words across 561 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.