[0:00]I've been doing two sets per exercise since 2022, before it was trending. So watch my original video, Fewer sets with more exercises. because it covers all the details that most influencers still haven't talked about. I train all my clients this way, and the two sets philosophy is the default for my new Leonidas training app. I sincerely believe in it and I'm not going back. I wish I found this sooner. At this point, I even recommend two sets for novices. So the main exception is if I'm doing three sets of 10 at 70% after a max effort single. Or if I'm doing the volume specialization phase for one muscle only, which you can't do for all muscles at once. But for example, if your back is so strong that you're maxing out the stack on lapdowns, or you got to do higher reps on the heaviest dumbbell rows, or you constantly need to use a gym pen, then you can volumize your training as to be weaker. And in general, that applies to calisthenics, if you're not going weighted and want to make your exercises as hard as possible. So you just banging out set after set. Like with the classic Arnold 50, where you're doing five sets of 10 pull-ups with a minute of rest as the opener to your back workout. But every exercise after is two sets, and so is the general program. Also, not everything is about pure hypertrophy. Sometimes you need different methods to maximize work capacity and endurance gains. So with the volume situation, it's not that every muscle needs the same volume at the same time, which these volume studies keep missing. It's also important to note that higher volumes come with diminishing returns. Most lifters get better if not indistinguishable results on the lower to moderate side, which is what this two-set philosophy embodies. What it really boils down to is that most lifters don't train hard, and you see this in the gym every day. You'll look around and almost no one is grinding, grunting or looking uncomfortable. It seems like everyone is training with minimum three to four reps in reserve, easy mode. The moment the exercise starts to hurt or burn, they immediately set the weight down. In that case, I would actually argue that they should be doing higher volumes because it's going to take them multiple sets to reach a deep state of fatigue. where their strength has dropped, where bar speed slows down enough to activate the high threshold motor units. That said, my first line of defense besides increasing volume is always using a higher percentage of your one rep max. Somewhere in the 80 to 85% zone. Even if you don't go all out to failure and you leave one to two reps in the tank, you still get more effective reps in. Because you're already activating the high threshold motor units from rep one. This is why novice lifters get great results in the four to six rep range. They can't mess it up. But assuming normal sets and reps, most gym bros train with disturbingly low effort. Without overhauling their entire program or coaching them one on one to truly learn how to push, the easiest way to acquire the skill is by simply reducing the number of sets. With two sets per exercise being the ultimate sweet spot for everyone. Because within three weeks, it really doesn't take much longer, you'll automatically be hitting zero to one reps in reserve. The progressive overload becomes so fast that it ends up being that way. You only have two sets to worry about, so you naturally prioritize plus ones without messing around. You got to make them count. Since there's less opportunity for stimulus, junk volume is literally not an option. So you're less fatigued, and you don't have to hold back. Therefore, you can apply more effort. On the first set, you usually get borderline close to failure, and on the second set, you typically go all out, usually matching the reps or losing one. That's usually how it plays out, which guarantees a high stimulus. You can say that's where the training block really begins. When your lowest effort set is at least 1.5 reps in reserve, not even two. Some guys will even switch to doing one set after training this way for a long time, because now they finally know what it feels like to train at 100%. But the point is that you don't have to do one set, and most lifters shouldn't. Because one set incentivizes that you hit momentary muscular failure, while adding in some intensity techniques here and there. And it encourages you to add even more exercise to compensate for total volume, which is essentially what Dorian Yates' blood and guts hit is. Not just doing one set per movement pattern or one set per muscle. It's one set of four to six exercises. So the total workout volume is similar, just that each set is maximally hypertrophic and intense. So the whole point of lower volume and lower sets is so that you can do more exercises with higher intensity, ensuring they're never junky. With two sets in particular, you safeguard the intensity and manage fatigue in the most efficient way. On the first set, you leave one in the tank to know what you're capable of, and on the second, you lock in, get what you maybe could have done on the first set. Now the stimulus is maxed out, and you don't need to do a third set, which will be extra fatiguing, so there's no performance loss to worry about for that exercise. This is amazing if you don't want to go to momentary muscular failure, or if you train alone and don't have spotters or safeties. Like do you really want to go crashing down on the pins while squatting, or doing the roll of shame on bench? Guys need to understand that zero reps in reserve is not the same as momentary muscular failure, but it's similarly stimulating without the fatigue cost. Plus, if you tell the masses to do just one set to failure, they're not going to get there anyway. The only exception is for isolation lifts. Here it's less of a problem because they're generally not taxing, so feel free to go all out.
[6:12]It's really the compounds where you have to be careful, which brings me back to the benefits of higher exercise selection. Whenever I recommend that, guys always ask me how I fit everything into one workout. They assume my workouts must take forever because they're doing tons of sets, and I'm not. In truth, my workouts take around the same amount of time, if not shorter. Yes, I'm doing more exercises, but I am not doing more volume. It's the same volume, or even lower in some cases. I need you to memorize that higher exercise selection is not synonymous with higher volumes. You can equalize everything. Just drop the sets by one per exercise and add extra exercises to get the same total volume. So let's say one more compound and one more isolation as a basic rule. So most workouts have two compounds and one isolation. Now you can do three compounds and two isolations. Therefore, you have more variety with automatically higher intensity. That's the distinction. So if you know what the optimal volume is for you, stick to it, but add or subtract sets depending on the exercise. You see, sometimes we can't do all the exercise we want in a single workout or week. Sometimes you have to make a choice because your recovery doesn't allow for it, but if you reduce the number of sets, now you can keep them all in for much longer, in the same block. And that's the biggest benefit of this style of training, which ties back to muscle biasing. As bodybuilders, we should train multiple angles, even when it's the same movement pattern, which many lifters actually understand, but then apply the wrong solution through high volume workouts. So they throw everything into one session, but end up with volumes that are difficult to sustain, like 18 to 20 sets a week, because they're doing too many sets per exercise. Whereas if you did the same amount of extra exercises, but with less volume, you can easily max out at 12 weekly sets of multiple angles if training twice a week. Which is the lower optimal range that is sustainable for everyone. None of you will have trouble recovering, yet you hit every muscle possible with all your angles in. This is where I get the most gains. And it's what got me to 405 bench twice. Funny how the total volume didn't change. Anyway, this 10 to 20 sets guideline that everyone talks about. Just think about it. Isn't it wild? We're talking about doubling the volume inside a very broad range. For what? For gains that don't scale equally. It's not like you're doing double the work and getting double the results. Even if you look at German volume studies comparing five sets of 10 versus 10 by 10 in one workout, so double the work, you do not see significantly better gains. Five sets per workout appears to be the plateau there. So if you're doing just six sets, you're mostly tapped out. In my experience, four to six hard sets per muscle is perfectly adequate.
[9:35]And for those who have a higher tolerance for recovery, because maybe you're in a caloric surplus, or you're not as strong, then considering adding another two hard sets. But it's very unlikely that you'll need more than that if the intensity of effort is high. All this to say, we know that subsequent sets are less stimulating. And the most important set is your first. But you're not just going to do one set per exercise, unless you're doing heavy duty. So it holds too much weight and pressure on the first set. It has to be perfect. Whereas two sets gives you leeway. It's less mentally taxing as well. There's less chance of messing up. If you weren't intense enough on the first set, you make up for it on the second. It manages fatigue better with accurate reps in reserve being on the tail end. If you're interested, this also gives you the option of frequency training. If you're doing two sets per exercise, you can easily do full body workouts three times a week. You can train every 40 hours and probably get away with it. Whereas if you're doing three to five sets per exercise, it becomes very hard to manage unless you compromise on intensity, which I don't recommend. That's how guys made it work with the typical heavy light medium split. But if you cut the sets down, you don't have to compromise intensity. Every day can be a heavy day or a medium day. You never have to sandbag your intensity to align with frequency, which might yield superior results. See, one of the arguments against frequency is that many studies use volumes that were too high to recover from. And I'm sure you've heard that one set done three times a week is better than three sets done once a week. So what if you do two sets three times a week, for a total of six sets, which might be the workout plateau. Would that be better than six sets done once a week on a chest day? That's likely the case. So I'm just sharing this as an option. Again, I don't train this way right now, but if I ever went back to full body training, of course, I would do two sets. It's also how I would rewrite naturally enhanced for the final edition. On that note, if you're doing two sets per exercise, you won't mind running a full body program. You're actually going to be less drained doing the whole thing, especially if you're incorporating super sets. Same for leg days. Many guys skip leg day because the volume is so high that they can barely walk after. The pain is unbearable. But if you're just able to lock in a few good sets, especially with low reps, you won't mind doing the hard stuff. Maybe that's why you're afraid of the basics. And so you'll have the energy to hit them hard, even if the legs are placed at the end of a full body workout. So there's different ways to apply this method. As a general rule, I recommend two to three compounds of two sets each. Because if you did two compounds for three sets, that's six sets. But you could have gotten the same volume with three compounds for two sets, with almost certainly higher quality. You're also hitting more areas, so it's less redundant by design. So the classic chest workout of flat barbell bench press, incline dumbbell bench press and weighted dips, now it's totally workable. And it's a pretty darn good workout since you hit all the pec divisions. That's what I meant by muscle biasing. You don't have to pick one variation over another. Then, if you still want to get your typical nine sets in, because you're technically missing three sets, guess what? You can do that with isolations. Two sets of flies for the weight stretch and one set of crossovers or pull-overs for the costal pecs and long head of the triceps. Now you get a far more complete stimulus. So not only did we equate the volume, but just look at the quality of work that's being done. Heck, even for arm isolations, you can do one set of push-downs and two sets of extensions if you want to hit three sets for the day. Instead of doing only push-downs because you're fried. Same for curls. You can do one set of hammer curls and two sets of preacher curls. Now the elbows are happy. Another example is doing the minimum for an important lift, as to not lose the skill. So I'll often do two sets of A.D. press and one set of O.H.P. just so I can keep the standing movement pattern in, with a 100% vertical torso. Now the carryovers are feeding into each other. I'll do two sets of normal pull-ups and one set of behind the neck pull-ups, which also lowers the injury risk of that movement. being in a weakened state. So it works for pre-exhaust as well. Therefore, exercises that are inherently more dangerous get the lowest possible volume. And you're still getting three sets, exactly like doing one exercise, but now you get some joint angle variety, which goes a long way. And remember, the first set is the most stimulating, which you got here. So if you just do one set of behind the neck press, at least you know you got the best possible side delt stimulus for a vertical press. You'll grow well from that. So this is why I recommend single set training, not as a standalone, but to complement two sets. You do it after on a different variation. So there is a beauty in treating that as a backdown set. And again, two sets is literally the purest form of double progression. I coined the term reductionist double progression. Others call it the two sets method. But remember, my video came out first, so it's progressing in weight and reps twice, having only two attempts. This makes your programming so easy to manage and track. You don't even need periodization. All you do is rotate exercises when you stall, or every training block. And the most complexity will be a top set and a back down set for basic auto regulation. So if you're doing two sets of four to six reps and you got four reps on your first set, then back it down by five to 10% on your second set. And your load selection will be perfect every single time. You'll be in the optimal rep range. So that's how you introduce dynamic double progression without breaking your head. It's that simple. Any of you could do this, and it's been the gold standard for decades. And again, a unique point with this is that you develop fewer overuse injuries. When you're pounding one movement pattern with a bunch of sets, that's how you get snapped up. High volume programs with low exercise selection are notoriously fatiguing and unsustainable for that exact reason. Most lifters burn out or get injured. It's a question of when. The horror stories are endless because they eventually exceed their maximum recoverable volume, or they're just getting straight up overuse. Now, back in the day, I used to talk a lot about rotating exercises to overcome the law of accommodation and correct weaknesses. I was basing this mostly from a strength perspective, because Louis Simmons used to say that to adapt to training is to never adapt. It's not muscle confusion, obviously that's nonsense, but when you constantly rotate exercises, you can biohack your workload by keeping your volume and intensity high throughout the yearly training cycle. You don't need to wave your sets and reps anymore. You also overcome certain weaknesses by getting stronger in multiple joint angles that were weaker. Typically, when you go back to your initial exercise, you end up breaking PR's, so it's a plateau buster while keeping your training fun and exciting. That said, the biggest thing is not even the progressive overload itself, or the fact that you become this complete athlete who can do it all. Even though that's a huge selling point. No, the primary ultimate benefit is in reducing overuse injuries. That's why I'm always going to be a fan of higher exercise selection. I've had a lot of guys tell me that they've never seen someone do so many variations before. And it's not because I'm trying to be different or believe it's better for hypertrophy. It's that more exercises with less volume means less repetitive joint stress, and I'm living proof of that. You're less likely to mess up your elbows, or get nagging tweaks in your shoulders, your pec tendons, your knees, your lower back, everything. And imagine if you're doing a lot of volume on an exercise that doesn't agree with you, and you find that out years from now, you're going to wish you did two sets. So that's why it goes perfectly with the two sets philosophy, because now you can push even harder without worrying about overuse. You look forward to the rotations, and you don't burn out, physically or mentally. Guys don't realize that when you've been training for long enough, going from lower to higher volumes doesn't give you that much anyway. Your gains are really slow. You're putting on maybe two pounds of muscle a year if you're lucky. So the most important thing is not getting hurt, and generally, guys get better results from lower volumes when they're stronger. Which is what we're seeing with Jeff Nippert. So many seasoned lifters are coming to that realization, which I fully embraced three years ago. Even Lyle McDonald has been saying this forever. It's true. The stronger you are, the harder you can push, and the heavier the absolute loads are. You can more easily mess yourself up. Like I don't want to do multiple sets of bench with over 315. I just don't.
[19:06]At this level, two sets is already a workout in itself. Like I've been a broken record about this, but your recovery is not the same when you're strong. And it's not because of getting older or having more mileage. It's the heavy weight. Even if the percentages of your one rep max are the same as an intermediate on paper, and the bar speeds are identical, the effect on the body is not the same. The axial fatigue alone is a great example. You're not going to tell me someone squatting five plates is equally as fatigued as a novice squatting two plates. Give me a break. If I do one to two sets of Hatfield squats in the four to six rep range with 500 pounds, I have to be mentally prepared for that. It is anxiety provoking, and I couldn't imagine doing more sets as an introduction to the leg workout, followed by many more exercises with the same volume. Now, years ago, that wouldn't have been an issue. Certainly not when you're squatting in the 300s. But past that point, it's a different game, my friend. That's what all these strong lifters keep trying to tell you. And it's why we're always trying to get more out of less weight. It's probably the only way we can handle reasonable volumes. Like I can't remember the last time I did more than one top set of deadlifts. That's why I do it through good mornings. Two sets of six to 10. So for legs, this is relatable, and most of you understand what I'm saying very soon. And for upper body, if you train long enough, you'll get there too. Trust me. If you're overhead pressing your body weight for reps, benching over 275, dipping three to four plates at the end of your workout, you get it. And no, these numbers are not unrealistic, raise your standards. And if you want to fulfill your natural potential, you're not going to be weak after a decade plus. So for all my strong lifters, and I'll make another video on this soon, you have to find ways as to not wreck your recovery. And one of the best instant fixes is just switching to two sets. Simple. It's also great for making sure you don't slack on accessories, even when you're fatigued. So that's why two sets are king, and why I refuse to do more. I'm hitting higher quality sets, which are more hypertrophic, because each subsequent set is less stimulating. I can do top sets and back down sets with more muscle biasing, fewer overuse injuries, and not worry about overdoing the volume. If I want to hit my upper limit, that can be done with isolations. Even doing two sets for one exercise, and one set of another. But nine out of 10 times, I train twice a week, and I'll do six sets of compounds with four sets of isolations for those muscles. I just evenly divide this total volume by doing two sets per exercise, so I can do more exercises in one workout. But it's not high volume. And I'll tell you right now, if you can't make gains training this way, then adding more volume is simply compensation for your lack of intensity. In that case, you might have to do 16 to 20 sets a week, but that's on you. Because if you're actually strong and do two proper sets with focus and precision, you're going to make unreal gains without needing to go that high on the volume. This also works well for cutting, since your recovery is worse, and it's good for bulking, since you can push your sets even harder. So it's a win-win no matter what your goals are. No downsides, it's the best. So that's why I stick to two sets and have zero plans on going back, except for niche methods. Now I hope you try it out, because it really works. And your sessions will be far more productive and predictable. And the feedback I've gotten so far has been nothing short of miraculous. So give it an honest shot and be prepared to be shocked at the efficiency.
