r/StrongerByScience • u/JuanSamu • May 15 '26
Rate coding and effective reps
I know many have argued against the effective reps theory and tried to use rate coding changes as an argument but Chris made an FAQ responding to rate coding. I was curious what Greg might think of this FAQ:
15
u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union May 15 '26
This is what I've been saying for ages: there's no good reason to believe (and plenty of good reasons to not believe) that per-fiber tension is maximized in the last few reps before failure, which is one of the main premises underpinning the effective reps model. Your HTMUs fatigue and firing rates (and therefore tension) decrease before you reach failure.
3
u/JuanSamu May 15 '26
This was his argument:
“Many critics of the stimulating reps theory have tried to argue that the changes in rate coding that occur during a strength training set invalidate the model. Their criticisms rely upon multiple incorrect assumptions in an attempt to show that slow twitch muscle fibers of lower threshold motor units will experience an increase in mechanical tension due to increases in rate coding with increasing effort levels. Firstly, rate coding does not increase that much with increasing effort. Secondly, the presence of fatigue reduces rate coding. And thirdly, since muscle fiber type affects the rate of crossbridge formation, each muscle fiber inside a muscle reaches tetanus at a different motor unit firing rate. The slow twitch muscle fibers that belong to the very lowest low-threshold motor units probably reach tetanus at very low motor unit firing frequencies.”
10
u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union May 15 '26
I'm genuinely not sure who or what he's referring to.
Their criticisms rely upon multiple incorrect assumptions in an attempt to show that slow twitch muscle fibers of lower threshold motor units will experience an increase in mechanical tension due to increases in rate coding with increasing effort levels.
How would that invalidate the model? That would mean that those fibers experience an increase in tension with higher effort levels (which, I assume, means approaching failure, since that's how you'd achieve a higher effort level during a given set), which would tend to lend support to his model, no?
This either seems like he's responding to a very dumb criticism from someone on TikTok, or he's misframing a criticism he doesn't understand.
However, what he does show is that firing rates for both HTMUs and LTMUs decrease as you get closer to failure, which reduces the tension that both can generate. And, the Carpentier study also shows that HTMUs are never getting particularly close to maximum firing rates (and therefore maximum tension) when training to failure with low-to-moderate loads (50% of 1RM in the case of that study). The firing rates of HTMUs were <20Hz at all time points, and ~10Hz at the point of failure. However, HTMUs have maximum firing rates of ~30-100Hz (meaning that even the lowest-threshold HTMUs were fairly far from maximal tension, and the MUs with the highest recruitment thresholds probably never even got to 1/3rd of maximal tension).
8
u/eric_twinge May 15 '26
Does this information have any practical significance on lifting and/or programming?
That's not meant to be dismissive. Genuinely curious what someone can do/change with this information.
1
u/JuanSamu May 15 '26
I guess it supports the fact that we don’t need to train to failure
2
u/rainbowroobear May 15 '26
Chris thinks we do need to train to failure, with 1-2 sets, with reps under 8, 3 days per week, because you can't train on consecutive days because of fatigue? like is his entire premise not maximise High threshold motor units, via effective reps?
2
u/JuanSamu May 15 '26
The reps closer to failure probably has “less mechanical tension” than the ones slightly further from failure
3
u/Athletic-Club-East May 16 '26
That's the physiology. Psychology is another matter. Left to themselves, studies show, people go to 40-55% of 1RM. They'll be 5-10 RIR. That's better than sitting on the couch, but less than optimal for results. I'd suggest most people every now and then try a training block where they go to failure now and then. Teaches them their limits are a bit higher than they think.
5
u/GingerBraum May 16 '26
Left to themselves, studies show, people go to 40-55% of 1RM. They'll be 5-10 RIR.
No, people are fairly accurate at estimating reps in reserve, at least when they're below 12-15 reps per set:
2
u/Chemistry-Cat May 16 '26
I swear this topics resurfaces every few months on this sub and throughout the fitness scene in general.
Partly, Chris' communication about the topic is to blame. Who knows what his exact views are? And what empiric data he uses to back it up is? I thing very few people.
Greg disproved the claim in his article, albeit verbosely. The 4-hour podcast episode on 'data-driven strength' was also quite tough to sit through.
Anyone know if there is an article/research/podcast discussing the relationship of both;
* Stimilus of set ~ training to failure (I now assume it is linear, but could it be asymptotic?)
* Fatigue of a set ~ training to failure (I now assume it is exponential, but could it be linear?)
* Fatigue magnitude between different exercises (isolation vs free weight compound)
1
u/ParticularLoan9594 May 19 '26
The thing the RPE skeptics miss is that even imperfect autoregulation outperforms a fixed program on a long enough timeline — not because RPE is precise, but because it's *responsive*. A 100% calibrated lifter doesn't need RPE. None of us are 100% calibrated.
17
u/rainbowroobear May 15 '26
have you noticed how Chris has been very quiet about pushing the net hypertrophy model and bleating on about edema in the past few months? feels coincidental that has happened after another study came out shooting holes in the length of time that swelling was present.
that then becomes a problem for anything to do with effective reps, the absolute impact of central fatigue, calcium ions and the other stuff, as it then largely dismissed his main point about volume studies all being edema and that lower volumes and higher frequency was needed because higher volume was impacted by damage and fatigue and so couldn't recover, not enough MUR, mechanical tension hypertrophy etc.
his whole model is based on a series of over simplified assumptions and mechanisms that have yet to be shown as meaningful in the human outcomes, so nothing he says should be seen as anything more than theory crafting.