I Halved My Workouts: Low Volume, High Intensity on a Cut

Why Cutting Workouts in Half Feels Risky, and Why He Tried It

Most people who lift regularly know the frustration of workouts that keep expanding until they feel unsustainable. When you are cutting calories, that frustration often turns into dread, especially on leg days. The expert in this video had trained high volume for years, partly because bodybuilding legends used it. He also followed the common science-based guideline of roughly 10 to 20 sets per muscle weekly. Then he decided to do the opposite for 100 days and see what actually happened.

His core question was simple but emotionally loaded for experienced lifters: would he lose muscle if he did far fewer sets. Instead of three to four sets per exercise, he dropped to one all-out set, sometimes two. He expected that such low volume might be below what experts consider “optimal” for growth. Yet he wanted a longer test than most studies, because real training is not a six-week intervention. He treated it as an N equals 1 experiment, not a universal rule for everyone.

The video’s perspective is not anti-science, it is a critique of how science gets applied in real gyms. He walks through why volume research looks convincing, then points out its blind spots for full-body training. Many studies “blast” one muscle group while leaving the rest relatively normal, which is not how most people train. He also emphasizes that most interventions happen at maintenance calories, not in a deficit. That matters, because recovery is part of the muscle-building equation.

He also framed the experiment around something many people ignore: enjoyment and consistency. He noticed that high-volume sessions could feel mentally draining, and his attention would fade midway through. Over time, that made the gym feel less fun, especially during cutting phases. He wanted a plan that was easier to recover from, easier to complete, and still effective. That practical lens, not just physiology, is a big part of the video’s unique message.

Did you know? By around week three, he felt he looked harder and fuller, with more vascularity, despite doing fewer sets.

What “Training Volume” Really Means, and How Low He Went

In the video, he defines training volume as the total number of hard working sets you do for a muscle each week. That means counting sets that are challenging and close to failure, not warm-up sets. He gives a chest example to make it concrete, where two days of three sets each equals six weekly sets. He contrasts that with the often-cited 10 to 20 set guideline, which can create very long sessions. He stresses that those are hard sets, not casual “pump” work.

He then shows what his chest training looked like during the experiment, and it is dramatically simpler. On one day he did two sets of incline press and two sets of pec deck. On the other chest day he did two sets of machine chest press, and that was it. That totals six weekly sets for chest, which is below the common “minimum effective” range many lifters assume. Across the whole body, most muscles got six sets weekly, some got four, and a few reached eight to ten.

His weekly split stayed consistent for 14 weeks: upper, lower, rest, upper, lower, arms and delts, rest. The structure matters because it spreads the limited sets across multiple days, rather than cramming them into one marathon session. He describes the approach as low volume but very high intensity, with almost every set taken to failure. The logic is that when volume is low, you can afford to push harder without accumulating endless fatigue. That is a key trade he intentionally made.

The exact “low volume” numbers he used

On average, he was doing about 6.5 sets per muscle per week, which is far below many evidence-based templates. He notes that shoulders were higher at about 10 sets, back and glutes around nine, and quads around eight. Many other muscle groups sat closer to four to six sets weekly. The important detail is that these were not easy sets, they were treated as max-effort working sets. In practice, the sessions were shorter, but each set carried more psychological and physical weight.

He also emphasizes that he tracked outcomes in several ways, not just by “feel.” He used progress photos under the same lighting to reduce visual bias. He tracked chest and quad strength with a standardized protocol to reduce day-to-day noise. He also used DEXA scans to estimate fat mass and lean mass changes over time. That combination is central to the video’s perspective, because it turns a gym experiment into something closer to self-research.

What the Volume Research Says, and the Practical Problems He Sees

The video spends time acknowledging why volume became the dominant idea in hypertrophy discussions. He references multiple meta-analyses showing a dose-response relationship, meaning more sets generally produce more growth. He describes how early work comparing one set versus multiple sets found multi-set training produced larger gains. Later analyses looked at sets per muscle per week and again found higher volumes tended to win. He even notes that a newer, larger meta-analysis still found more volume correlated with more hypertrophy.

He does not dismiss those findings, and he does not claim volume “doesn’t matter.” Instead, he argues the way people interpret the research can become simplistic, as if more volume always means better results. He brings up the concept of diminishing returns, where additional volume gives smaller and smaller benefits. That matters because the cost of volume is time, fatigue, and sometimes joint irritation. In real life, the “best” plan is not only the one that works in theory, but the one you can recover from and repeat.

He also points out a practical limitation that many lifters overlook: most studies do not apply extremely high volume to every muscle simultaneously. Researchers often choose one or two muscles to “blast,” like biceps, triceps, or quads, while the rest of the body is trained normally or not at all. That design can show that high volume works for a targeted muscle, but it does not prove that very high volume is sustainable for full-body programming. Even the authors of such research sometimes note that whole-body high volume could create recovery problems.

Another limitation he highlights is energy availability, especially during a cut. Many interventions happen at maintenance calories, where recovery resources are higher. In a calorie deficit, you have less energy coming in, and many people also sleep worse or feel more stressed. That combination can reduce training performance and the ability to tolerate lots of hard sets. His argument is that the “volume is king” message may be less applicable when you are dieting aggressively.

What the research shows: Training adaptations depend on both stimulus and recovery, and both endurance and strength work create fatigue that must be managed, according to a review in PubMed Central.

The Missing Variable: Effort, Failure, and the “Focus Effect”

A major theme in the video is that low volume only makes sense if the sets are truly hard. He repeatedly emphasizes that he took almost every working set to failure, or very close to it. In his view, if you reduce sets but also reduce effort, you risk shrinking the training stimulus too much. That is why he calls his plan low volume but ultra high intensity. The key is not that fewer sets are magical, but that fewer sets can be pushed harder.

Why he thinks training close to failure matters more on low volume

He references a newer low-volume study where trained subjects did two full-body workouts weekly with one set per exercise. In that study, one group trained to failure and another left about two reps in reserve. Both groups improved, but the failure group tended to grow better overall. He uses that to support his belief that effort becomes the “crown” variable when volume is low. He also mentions a meta-analysis suggesting that training closer to failure is linked with more hypertrophy.

This is where his “focus effect” comes in, and it is one of the video’s most distinctive ideas. He noticed that during high-volume workouts, his attention often faded mid-session. He would check his phone more, rest longer, and socialize, which stretched workouts even further. With only one or two sets to get the job done, he felt forced to lock in. He would remind himself before each set that execution and effort had to be perfect.

He describes the focus effect as both psychological and physiological. Psychologically, fewer sets remove the temptation to “save energy” for later work. Physiologically, pushing one or two sets very hard can create a strong stimulus without the same cumulative fatigue as many near-failure sets. He argues that if you tried to take every set to failure on a high-volume plan, injury risk and fatigue would eventually outweigh benefits. This is a nuanced point, because it does not say failure is always best, it says failure may be more feasible when volume is constrained.

Quick tip: If you are experimenting with fewer sets, track intensity consistently, using RPE or reps-in-reserve, not just motivation.

His 100-Day Results: Strength Tests, DEXA Scans, and Photos

By around week three, he noticed changes that surprised him. He did not feel he was shrinking, and he thought he looked harder and fuller. He also noticed more vascularity, which he partly attributed to getting leaner during the cut. The bigger marker for him was strength stability while body weight was dropping. He treats maintained strength as a strong indicator that muscle is being retained, especially for an advanced lifter.

At the end of 100 days, he compared progress photos under consistent lighting. He was clearly leaner, but he also felt he looked more jacked in key areas like legs and shoulders. He emphasizes that he ended the experiment about seven pounds lighter. Despite that weight loss, he felt he kept muscle fullness, size, and density better than expected. This matters because many people assume dieting plus reduced volume equals a flatter look.

DEXA results were a central part of his evidence, though he acknowledges their limitations. From day one to day 100, he lost 5.5 pounds of fat mass and 1.8 pounds of lean mass. He notes that lean mass is not purely muscle, it also includes body water and other tissues. During a cut, losing some water is common, and that can show up as lean mass loss. He frames the ratio as solid for someone dieting while already being very trained.

He also got three DEXA scans, which let him look at the trend across the experiment. From day 30 to day 100, he lost another 2.3 pounds of fat mass while gaining about half a pound of lean mass. He admits that half a pound could be within DEXA’s margin of error, but he still found it encouraging. The point is not that low volume guarantees lean mass gain, but that it did not obviously harm retention for him. That result supported his evolving stance on cutting strategy.

Strength testing reinforced the same story. He hit new performance milestones on a pendulum squat late in the cut, when macros were lowest. On check-in days, he tested max strength on a Smith machine bench press and a leg extension under a strict fasted protocol. After 100 days, he matched bench strength and added 15 pounds to his leg extension max. Considering he was advanced, lighter, and training far fewer sets than usual, he saw that as a meaningful outcome.

Why Low Volume May Fit a Calorie Deficit Better Than a Bulk

One of the most important shifts in the video is that he updates his previous advice. He used to say training volume should not change just because you start cutting. After living through this experiment, he changed his mind. He now thinks low volume is “the way to go” during a cut, even though high volume can still work. His reasoning is straightforward: recovery capacity is lower in a deficit, so the same volume may cost more.

He describes recovery capacity as a practical mix of energy, sleep, stress, and the ability to train hard again soon. When calories drop, training can feel heavier, soreness can linger, and motivation can wobble. If you pile on high volume in that context, you may end up underperforming on key sets. You might also increase your risk of nagging aches, simply because fatigue is higher. He is not claiming low volume is superior for all goals, he is matching the tool to the phase.

This aligns with general guidance that training stress should be dosed and monitored, rather than maximized blindly. Public health guidelines emphasize balancing activity with recovery and overall health, even for people who are not competitive athletes. If you are trying to stay consistent while losing fat, a plan that fits your schedule and recovery may be more effective long-term. For readers who also do cardio, it can help to remember that total weekly fatigue includes both lifting and conditioning.

Note: If you have diabetes, heart disease, or take blood pressure medications, consult your clinician before changing training intensity or dieting aggressively.

He also gives a different idea for bulking phases, which is part of his unique perspective. He suggests keeping volume relatively low for most muscles, but “blasting” one muscle with 10 to 20, maybe even 30 sets per week. Then, every few months, you rotate which muscle gets the high-volume focus. His reasoning is that advanced trainees may benefit from specialization, while still controlling whole-body fatigue. It is a compromise between the volume literature and real recovery limits.

To support the broader idea of dosing intensity and volume, it helps to understand how intensity is defined. Many people confuse “hard” with “reckless,” but intensity can be measured and adjusted. Tools like perceived exertion, heart rate, and reps-in-reserve help you keep effort consistent across weeks. Guidance on how to gauge intensity can be found in practical resources like the Mayo Clinic’s overview of exercise intensity. When intensity is measured, lower volume becomes a clearer, safer experiment.

How to Experiment Safely With Lower Volume Without Guessing

The video’s biggest takeaway is not that everyone should do one set forever, it is that you can test what you actually need. He designed his experiment with standardized tracking, rather than relying on gym mirrors alone. You can borrow that mindset even if you do not have access to DEXA scans or a lab. The goal is to reduce guesswork, so you can see whether fewer sets maintain strength and physique. If you have injuries or chronic conditions, it is wise to discuss changes with a qualified professional first.

A simple step-by-step way to run your own “low volume” trial

A key detail from the video is that low volume is not “easy,” it is concentrated. He still did a full split with upper and lower days, plus an arms and delts day. His leg day, for example, included 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. That is not a minimal workout, but it is time-contained and mentally focused. He reported it took about 45 to 60 minutes, which made it easier to look forward to.

He also emphasizes that recovery and adherence are outcomes worth tracking, not just muscle size. If a program leaves you depleted, you may compensate by sleeping worse, moving less, or skipping sessions. In that sense, a lower-volume approach can support metabolic health indirectly by keeping activity consistent. Research in other exercise contexts shows that reducing training dose can change outcomes, reminding us that “less” is not always equal, it depends on intensity and structure. For example, a paper in PLOS ONE found that reducing intensity and volume in interval training diminished certain adaptations, highlighting the importance of which variable you cut.

Finally, it helps to zoom out and remember that training is only one part of metabolic health. People often cut calories, train hard, and forget that daily movement, stress, and nutrition drive how well you recover. National recommendations emphasize a mix of strength training and aerobic activity across the week, adjusted to your abilities and medical situation. You can review those broader benchmarks in the StatPearls summary of physical activity guidelines. If your lifting becomes shorter, you may find it easier to add walks, sleep more, or keep meal prep consistent.

Key Takeaways