Speaker A
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 all-out set, sometimes two. Would I lose muscle? Well, in this
Jeff Nippard experiments with halving workout volume to test muscle retention and fat loss over 100 days, challenging traditional high-volume training beliefs.
Key Takeaways
- High training volume generally produces more muscle growth, but with diminishing returns and recovery challenges.
- Low volume training with high intensity (sets to failure) can maintain muscle and support fat loss, especially during caloric deficits.
- Most volume research is short-term and focused on isolated muscles, so long-term whole-body effects are less understood.
- Cutting phases may require adjusted volume due to reduced recovery capacity.
- Personal experimentation is valuable alongside scientific guidelines to optimize training.
What the video covers
- Jeff Nippard cut his usual 3-4 sets per exercise down to 1-2 all-out sets for 100 days to test muscle loss and fat loss effects.
- He explains training volume as the total number of hard working sets per muscle per week and compares his low volume approach to science-based guidelines.
- Standard science suggests 10-20 sets per muscle per week for optimal hypertrophy, but Jeff averaged about 6.5 sets per muscle weekly during his experiment.
- Meta-analyses over the past 15 years consistently show a dose-response relationship: more volume generally leads to more muscle gains.
- Recent large meta-analyses confirm volume's importance but also highlight practical limitations like recovery, especially during caloric deficits.
- Most studies focus on short-term effects (6-12 weeks) and isolated muscles, leaving long-term and whole-body volume effects unclear.
- Jeff critiques the literature from a practical standpoint, noting that high volume for all muscles may cause recovery issues and may not apply when cutting.
- His experiment used an upper-lower split with rest days, emphasizing high intensity with low volume sets taken to failure.
- Jeff shares his personal results and reflects on how this experiment changed his views on volume during cutting phases.
- He encourages viewers to consider both scientific evidence and personal experimentation when designing training programs.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Experiment Overview
- 01:08Defining Training Volume and Examples
- 02:06Weekly Volume Comparison and Split Setup
- 04:21Scientific Research on Volume and Hypertrophy
- 05:21Critiques and Practical Considerations of Volume Studies
- 06:42Long-Term Volume Effects and Recovery Challenges
- 07:53Experiment Details: Intensity and Training Split
- 09:16Reflections and Adjustments Based on Results
- 10:23Final Thoughts and Program Promotion
- 12:00Conclusion and Call to Action
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
workout. But like I said, for the last 100 days, I flipped that completely. I became the lowest volume guy in the gym.
Speaker A
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 all-out max effort set and move on.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
muscle per week was, "What do you think?" It's about 10 to 20 sets per muscle per week. That's quite a lot.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
science-based range at 20 sets would look like this. Four sets of chest press and four sets of cable flies on Monday.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
like now. Two sets of incline press and two sets of pec deck on Monday. Two sets of machine chest press on Thursday.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
the science range looks like. And this is what I'm doing right now. So, it's pretty freaking low across the board.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
hammering the same message. Volume is king. Back in 2010, James Krieger 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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
So in 2016, Krieger and colleagues dropped another meta-analysis. 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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
instead, I'm going to criticize this literature through a much more practical lens. First, let's get this straight.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
can really say is that high volume works if you blast a single muscle or two.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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-
Speaker A
volume experiment. Perhaps most importantly, though, all of these studies are short-term interventions. They usually only last 6 to 12 weeks.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
equals 1 experiment lasted for 100 days,
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
[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.
Speaker A
Ooh. Oh man. I love this machine. Now, I'll be honest. I did have some doubts, especially in those first few weeks.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
up on all my lifts. And that's probably the best indicator that I was keeping my muscle.
Speaker A
[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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
hard workout, but it only takes me about 45, maybe 60 minutes if I take my time.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
legs 3 days a week. Each workout had three sets of squats, three sets of leg press, and three sets of leg extensions.
Speaker A
That's 27 sets per week just for their quads. And they did that for 16 weeks.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker 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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
that on a higher volume plan, the fatigue and injury risk would eventually start to outweigh any marginal benefits.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
my cut, when my macros were the lowest, I was hitting new PRs on the pendulum squad. Hey.
Speaker A
Yes. Seven. I did five reps with five plates two weeks ago. Yeah. Six reps with five plates last week.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
driving my feet 100%. The fact I know I've only got two, bro, I lock in and go crazy.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
one.
Topics:Jeff Nippardtraining volumemuscle hypertrophylow volume traininghigh intensity trainingworkout setsfat losscaloric deficitstrength trainingbodybuilding science
