How I Trained During My Diet Down to 6% Body Fat

Israetel explained that myo‑rep matching is a core RP methodology and has a strong evidence base. By keeping rest between mini‑sets extremely short (5–10 seconds), the muscle stays pumped and metabolite‑loaded, while the repeated approaches to failure recruit high‑threshold motor units. This makes the stimulus per time very high. He used it for delts (up to 6 match sets), biceps, triceps, and calves, noting it allowed him to ‘cook’ a muscle group in under 10 minutes. Variation: some exercises he used a single giant myo‑rep set (50–60 total reps) rather than matched sets.

Israetel noted that using the same station and movement eliminates any need for a second warm‑up, saving time. The nervous system is ‘ultra‑potentiated’ by the heavy sets, so the unweighted reps feel extremely light and you can achieve a stronger mind‑muscle connection and more total reps than if you did unweighted alone. He varied grip between pull days (neutral grip one day, overhead the next) to reduce wear‑and‑tear and injury risk.

Israetel described this superset as ‘cooking the triceps like crazy’ with a little extra pec stimulus. Because the overhead extension already places the long head of the triceps in a stretched position, the deficit push‑up targets the same muscle group from a different angle and with a closed‑chain movement, adding metabolic stress and volume without extending the session. He said the whole superset took very little extra time because the push‑ups were performed immediately after the extension set.

Israetel explained that hip hinge movements (good mornings, SLDLs) primarily load the hamstrings at the hip, but muscles like the short head of the biceps femoris only cross the knee and get minimal stimulus from hip‑dominant work. A leg curl fills that gap. In his experience, doing two hip hinges per week caused his lower back to fail to recover, reducing strength and increasing injury likelihood. The hinge + curl approach distributes the load and adds variety. He programmed good mornings on leg day one and lying leg curls on leg day two.

Israetel stressed that in a fat loss phase, the body’s recovery capacity is severely limited. Adding 5–10 lbs per week like in a mass phase would overly stress the system, causing missed reps and potential injury. He advocated ‘buttering yourself up’ with small, sustainable progress. He gave the analogy of a boardroom presentation where you take the safe route to the bin instead of attempting a fadeaway shot that could backfire. By using tiny increments, he maintained and even slightly increased performance across the diet, which he considers winning.

Israetel pointed out that during a fat loss phase, energy and pump quality decline, making training less enjoyable. If you are forcing yourself to do a barbell bench press when you really vibe with dumbbells and the Smith machine, you are needlessly making the phase harder. He recommended picking from the available flat‑press variations the ones that get you excited to train. The same applies to the split itself—choose the architecture that you find motivating. This psychological buttering is critical for adherence when physiological and psychological fatigue are high.

Israetel emphasised that during a fat loss phase the body is primed to break down muscle for energy. If a muscle group is trained only once per week, the anabolic signal fades after a few days, and for the remaining 2–3 days the muscle becomes a target for catabolism. Training twice per week keeps the ‘muscle‑sparing’ signal more constant. His programme structure (pull‑legs‑push twice per 6–7 days) ensured biceps, triceps, delts, quads, hamstrings, and chest all got at least two sessions per week, with some (like side delts) getting up to four by appearing on pull and push days.

Israetel argued that in a calorie deficit, energy substrates are limited, and long workouts drain glycogen and increase cortisol, impairing recovery. The sets performed after about 75–90 minutes are often performed with less intensity and focus, contributing more to fatigue than to hypertrophy. His programme was designed to be completed in under an hour and a half by using myo‑rep matching, supersets, and economical exercise selection (e.g., no time‑wasting warm‑ups between similar movements).

Israetel explained that rigid Monday–Friday plans collapse when, say, an early Friday flight forces a missed session, and recovery then doesn’t line up for Monday. The floating split removes the weekday anchor: you do pull, legs, push, then when you feel healed you do the next pull, otherwise you rest 1–2 days. He found the only downside—lack of a fixed ‘chest day’—was far outweighed by the resilience. During his diet he averaged 5–7 training days per week and never missed a workout due to schedule. The approach also let him bias frequency toward 2–3x per muscle per week, which he argues is crucial for retaining muscle in a deficit.

He gave the example of dumbbell lateral raises: a first set of 13 reps close to failure, then subsequent sets where he would do 10 reps, rest 5–10 s, squeeze out 3 more to hit 13, repeated across 4–6 total sets. On push day two he did a single giant myo‑rep set of 50–60 reps for front raises. The method allowed him to train rear delts, side delts, biceps, triceps, and calves with very high total volume, yet each exercise slot took only a few minutes. The underlying idea is that metabolic stress and high motor unit recruitment are maintained when reps are taken close to failure with minimal rest, giving a potent growth stimulus even in a deficit.

He explained that after the heavy weighted sets, there is zero need to warm up for the unweighted version—you are already at the same station doing the identical movement. The nervous system is ‘ultra‑potentiated’, so the unweighted reps feel extremely light and you can achieve a much stronger mind‑muscle connection. He varied grips (neutral grip on pull day 1, overhead grip on pull day 2) to reduce overuse injury risk. For those not strong enough for weighted pull‑ups, he suggested scaling: regular pull‑ups → assisted pull‑ups; or assisted pull‑ups → lat pulldowns with the same grip.

He argued that hip‑hinge movements (good mornings, stiff‑legged deadlifts) primarily stress the hamstrings at the hip, leaving the knee‑flexing function—served by muscles like the short head of the biceps femoris—under‑stimulated. A leg curl targets that function directly. Doing one hinge and one curl each week gives complete hamstring development while reducing the total lower‑back load. He also noted that if he did two hip hinges, his lower back wouldn’t heal fast enough, lowering strength and increasing injury risk. The strategy also provides variety, preventing staleness.

He explained that in a fat loss phase, the body lacks the energy to build substantial new tissue; any specialisation stimulus is like ‘sending a building crew to a construction site with no materials’. What you can do is stimulate enough to offset catabolic signals. Therefore, he gave every muscle group equal attention—about 15–20 sets per week total—so nothing atrophied. His back thickness got only 4 sets per week because it’s genetically a strong point and needed only maintenance, but nothing was truly deprioritised.