Muscle Maintenance is Pathetically Easy (Here's How)

[ElChe]

1 (ONE) set to failure per week (per muscle group)... is all you need to maintain 98% of your gains.

(Even if you've been in the gym for decades)

The other day I thought my gym membership had run out (and I wasn't going to renew it for a bit) so I did some research on the minimum work one has to do for muscle maintenance... and WOAH.

(Keep in mind what I found comes from a dude who has like 12 million YouTube subscribers, has won bodybuilding AND powerlifting competitions, has trained tons of people, doesn't take steroids and is basically at his genetic max in terms of muscle growth.)

I'll just cut to the chase--

Here's a routine you can follow:

(1 set per exercise per week, every set taken to failure)

1. Squat (or leg press to save time)
2. Bench press (or dumbbells to save time)
3. Pull-up
4. Seated leg curl
5. Military press
6. Face pull
7. Hammer curl
8. Calve raises
9. Crunches if you want idfk

(Of course, you can substitute whatever exercise that hits the same muscle group for any of these exercises. Such as, using a chest machine instead bench press)

• Literally this routine is less than an hour per week.

• You can do however many reps you want (doesn't affect hypertrophy as long as it's below 30-40 reps. Lower reps, higher weight will increase strength more). As long as you take each set to failure. I would just do like 5-10 reps per exercise.

• Also, I imagine you could do this workout a few times, figure out what your numbers were when taking everything to failure, then just make sure you hit the same weight and reps in the future.

(in other words, you'd probably get stronger over time and it'd be even easier to hit the same volume.)​

Why should you believe this works?

Here's a video from the "Chase Amante of Weightlifting" (I call him that cause he's well-accomplished and backs up his claims with research and shiz), his name is Jeff Nippard:

At 7:20 in the video, he talks about a study that found people maintained their hypertrophy... at 1/9th of the volume per week!

Since ~9/10 sets per muscle group per week is "optimal" (if you do more you WILL get more gains, up to around 20 sets/week, but around 10 is when returns start to diminish)... As low as 1 set per muscle group per week is enough to maintain most of your muscles.

Pretty neat, huh?

Side note: if you still don't believe this works, or want to make sure you maintain ALL your muscles... just do an extra set for every exercise per week. Or do two extra sets (3 sets per exercise to failure).

That'll still be like an hour per week working out... and you'll pretty much guarantee you'll maintain your size and most of your strength.

Other side note: if you're older, you'll probably need to do more volume. Probably 3-4 sets per week. You could just do 2 sets per exercise per DAY... but go in 2 days a week.

...

This routine is great for guys who've built some muscle and think weightlifting is pretty cool, but know deep inside that most women don't give a shit as long as you aren't fat, and the 6 hours per week you're spending at the gym could be spent doing more productive things, like learning how to sew, or learning how to breed cows, or something like that.

 

[ulrich]

Amazing.

I was suspecting this too and also heard Alex Hormozi saying something on like but I don’t think he is as good with backing up his claims Jeff is.

Do you think a chalks génica routine will also provide the same protective effect?
When gyms were closed during the pandemics I tried chalistenics for a time but I lost some volume (not strength, though).

 

[ElChe]

Amazing.

I was suspecting this too and also heard Alex Hormozi saying something on like but I don’t think he is as good with backing up his claims Jeff is.

Do you think a chalks génica routine will also provide the same protective effect?
When gyms were closed during the pandemics I tried chalistenics for a time but I lost some volume (not strength, though).

I haven't seen anyone talk about calisthenics for maintenance but... I do know from a couple of studies Jeff pointed out, there is no difference in volume GAINS between lower reps and higher reps. As long as:

1. The effort is the same (e.g. you're going to failure in both low rep VS high reps)
2. The volume is the same (e.g. 100 lb, 3 reps = 300 lb total... VS a 50 lb, 12 reps = 600 lb... so you'd have to do an extra set of the 100 lb to match the volume of the 50 lb)

I believe once you go past 40 reps per set though, you don't gain as much (but it's probably not a big difference).

So based off of that, I'd imagine calisthenics is good enough for maintenance... or at least very close to good enough. As long as you're going to failure.

But if it isn't, a pair of dumbbells of the right weight would be enough to hit every body part. And maybe a really heavy dumbbell to do goblet squats (cause doing tons of reps for legs stinks). Edit: nvm bruh heavy dumbbells are super expensive, it'd be a long term investment.

 

[POB]

I'd love to see real life results that back up those claims...even Mike Mentzer, the king of minimalism, used to train 2-3 days per week.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but I have 28 years in the gym.
Already tried everything under the sun....and I NEVER seen this once a week approach working for anybody, especially if you are natural.

 

[Train]

I'd love to see real life results that back up those claims...even Mike Mentzer, the king of minimalism, used to train 2-3 days per week.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but I have 28 years in the gym.
Already tried everything under the sun....and I NEVER seen this once a week approach working for anybody, especially if you are natural.

To add to this, in my experience (15 years), I could get away with working out 2x a week and maintain strength/lifts/musculature.

I work lower-rep ranges (3x5-8) so about 6 sets per push/pull/legs. Total 1.5 hours a week at most.

I could get away with a week in between workouts every now and then. But I could feel lifts get weaker if I waited two weeks between workouts.

Right now, I am able to maintain doing 1 hard set a day for each muscle group. Tested and valid for months now. But by reducing that to doing 1 hard set a week for each muscle group, my expectation is I would get weaker or lose musculature.

I think doing 6-9 hard sets a week isn't too time intensive in my opinion. If short for time, someone could test myo-reps for time efficiency: https://www.borgefagerli.com/myo-reps-in-english

Edit: I still encourage testing and playing with unconventional methodologies like in the OP because sometimes you find gold nuggets you wouldn't get by doing conventional means. Ex. My experiment with 1 daily hard set a day. I found a way to boost adherence and recovery while maintaining lifts.

 

[Jan]

I'd love to see real life results that back up those claims...even Mike Mentzer, the king of minimalism, used to train 2-3 days per week.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but I have 28 years in the gym.
Already tried everything under the sun....and I NEVER seen this once a week approach working for anybody, especially if you are natural.

Mike Mentzer's twice per week training method was for muscles INCREASE. OP's idea is for muscles MAINTENANCE.

 

[ElChe]

I'd love to see real life results that back up those claims...even Mike Mentzer, the king of minimalism, used to train 2-3 days per week.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but I have 28 years in the gym.
Already tried everything under the sun....and I NEVER seen this once a week approach working for anybody, especially if you are natural.

Yeah, I think the problem is probably that when you train so little, you HAVE to make sure each set is performed as perfectly as possible. I.e. taken to failure and with great form.

There's also the issue of motivation, it just might not be so motivating to feel like you are "just maintaining", and this could lower your performance.

But still, the studies Jeff Nippard pointed out DID have people maintain muscle at 1/9th of the volume. There's also a study pointed out in this article https://bretcontreras.com/how-much-training-is-necessary-to-maintain-strength-and-muscle/ that had some groups of people do 9 sets per week on 3 exercises for 16 weeks... Then had groups do either
-0 sets per week for 32 weeks
-1/3 of the volume they did before for 32 weeks (so 3 sets per week)
-1/9 of the volume for 32 weeks

You can look at the results in the article, but basically, the 1/3 group lost almost no lean mass, and the 1/9 group lost a little bit. The guy who wrote the article claims the lowest he could go was 1 set to failure per muscle group every 4-5 days.

Anyway...

For me, the conclusion to draw is that, for most people, 3-4 sets failure sets per week, per muscle group is probably good enough for maintenance... and if it isn't practical (due to motivation or skill or whatever) then surely, going just a bit higher (like 5-6 sets per week) will work... and that's still only like 2 hours per week in the gym.

I wouldn't recommend just 1 set per muscle group per week to most people (and I'm not an expert anyway lol), but I wanted to share the research and ideas I found so people can try it out, see what works, and maybe cut some (or a lot of) time they don't want to be spending working out.

But you are correct in pointing out that super low volume probably won't work perfectly for most people. That's an important thing to note, thanks

 

[ElChe]

Also!!--
Check this out:

This routine (45 min 2x per week) from Jeff is I think built to actually gain muscle. So logically, I'd assume it's good enough to maintain too

I prolly shoulda put this in the main post but whatever

 

[POB]

Mike Mentzer's twice per week training method was for muscles INCREASE. OP's idea is for muscles MAINTENANCE.

Tell me difference.
How do you know EXACTLY if are gaining or maintaining?
That's not how the body works.

 

[POB]

Yeah, I think the problem is probably that when you train so little, you HAVE to make sure each set is performed as perfectly as possible. I.e. taken to failure and with great form.

There's also the issue of motivation, it just might not be so motivating to feel like you are "just maintaining", and this could lower your performance.

But still, the studies Jeff Nippard pointed out DID have people maintain muscle at 1/9th of the volume. There's also a study pointed out in this article https://bretcontreras.com/how-much-training-is-necessary-to-maintain-strength-and-muscle/ that had some groups of people do 9 sets per week on 3 exercises for 16 weeks... Then had groups do either
-0 sets per week for 32 weeks
-1/3 of the volume they did before for 32 weeks (so 3 sets per week)
-1/9 of the volume for 32 weeks

You can look at the results in the article, but basically, the 1/3 group lost almost no lean mass, and the 1/9 group lost a little bit. The guy who wrote the article claims the lowest he could go was 1 set to failure per muscle group every 4-5 days.

Anyway...

For me, the conclusion to draw is that, for most people, 3-4 sets failure sets per week, per muscle group is probably good enough for maintenance... and if it isn't practical (due to motivation or skill or whatever) then surely, going just a bit higher (like 5-6 sets per week) will work... and that's still only like 2 hours per week in the gym.

I wouldn't recommend just 1 set per muscle group per week to most people (and I'm not an expert anyway lol), but I wanted to share the research and ideas I found so people can try it out, see what works, and maybe cut some (or a lot of) time they don't want to be spending working out.

But you are correct in pointing out that super low volume probably won't work perfectly for most people. That's an important thing to note, thanks

There are that other variables at work here:
- how seasoned you are as a lifter
- what's your genetic potential
- how much muscle mass you currently have
- your age
etc, etc

Most articles, books and videos from experts I've seen on this subject suggest that yes, 3-4 sets to failure per week are optimal, but you need to split it at least 3 days per week.
Example:
- A/B/C split
- A/B/A then B/A/B
- Full-body: Heavy / Light / Heavy
And so on.
The mTor activation alone justify that extra day in the gym.
And I'm not even touching on the added benefits in protein synthesis, appetite regulation, etc.

Personally, I would use the 1 or 2-day approach exclusively for vacations or very short periods where you need 100% focus on other things.
Just my 2 cents, and thanks, this is a nice discussion.

 

[POB]