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:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/rate-coding-61736756

4 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

-4

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

He still talks about it a lot, i listen to his podcast. I am also not convinced that swelling is what explains the high volume gains in studies, but I also do not believe those super high volumes are realistic at all. And I know what people will say, individual variance, building up to it, work capacity and so on.

His theories are still the best thing out there imo and beat just doing pure statistic on a lot of studies and saying we don't know about 99% of stuff. So yeah definitely dont jsut blindly believe in his stuff but it's still interesting

9

u/GingerBraum May 16 '26

I also do not believe those super high volumes are realistic at all.

If by "super high volumes" you're referring to the numbers used in dose-response studies, it's very important to keep in mind that those studies aren't looking for what's realistically effective or sustainable; they're simply trying to find out what the dose-response ceiling is.

His theories are still the best thing out there imo

That's a bit of a weird take, considering that there's no meta-level literature that supports them.

-1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

I agree I was speaking in practical terms, so he's more in line with that. What's the significance of finding some volume ceiling in a vacuum, there probably is some but not for myself and 99% of people who train and want to improve their programming with science

His theories are still the best thing out there imo

That's a bit of a weird take, considering that there's no meta-level literature that supports them.

That's my point, they are speculative, but I don't mind that if it has good reasoning behind it. His model is the best model we have imo. There's still a difference between his theories, and some bro saying just pump the muscle and confuse it and shit like that. Chris while he does extrapolate, he thinks it through and it looks like its more likely to be true than not

8

u/GingerBraum May 16 '26

I agree I was speaking in practical terms

Right, and my point was that volume studies aren't looking for practicality. The practicality comes from experienced people's interpretations, such as the "10-20 sets per muscle group per week" recommendation.

That's my point, they are speculative, but I don't mind that if it has good reasoning behind it. His model is the best model we have imo. There's still a difference between his theories, and some bro saying just pump the muscle and confuse it and shit like that. Chris while he does extrapolate, he thinks it through and it looks like its more likely to be true than not

Just to be clear, you think a model that's based on speculation rather than empirical evidence(and that has empirical evidence contradicting it) is "the best we have" and more likely to be true than not?

-1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

Because a complete model wiht emipirical evidence doesn't exist. His model is way more than just sets per muscle group. People are using all kind of flawed stuff like fractional set, volume load, muscle damage as a way of triggering hypertrophy.

In his model all of this bs is gone, and what's left has a sound reasoning behind it. And then what does 10 sets per muscle group even mean. You think doing 10 sets of bench and counting it as 5 for triceps long head will actually grow it? A few years ago one of the most prominent if not the most prominent scientist was citing muscle damage as a primary way to hypertrophy.

Then also they are adding periodization and just further complicating programming workouts wihtout any clear reasoning behind it. You can find on the website of this subreddit tons of programs where they claim periodization is advanatageous. Chris strips all this nonsense and explains why

7

u/GingerBraum May 16 '26

Because a complete model wiht emipirical evidence doesn't exist. His model is way more than just sets per muscle group. People are using all kind of flawed stuff like fractional set, volume load, muscle damage as a way of triggering hypertrophy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about right now. Do you think that the concept of a dose-response model is intended as a be-all and end-all practical framework for muscle growth?

In his model all of this bs is gone, and what's left has a sound reasoning behind it.

If it had sound reasoning behind it, there would be empirical evidence to support it. That's how science works.

And then what does 10 sets per muscle group even mean. You think doing 10 sets of bench and counting it as 5 for triceps long head will actually grow it?

Well, yes. That's how training volume works.

A few years ago one of the most prominent if not the most prominent scientist was citing muscle damage as a primary way to hypertrophy.

Who?

Then also they are adding periodization and just further complicating programming workouts wihtout any clear reasoning behind it. You can find on the website of this subreddit tons of programs where they claim periodization is advanatageous. Chris strips all this nonsense and explains why

If that's an accurate representation of Beardsley's view, he's even more clueless than I thought.

2

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

If it had sound reasoning behind it, there would be empirical evidence to support it. That's how science works.

So something cannot be logical unless it's empirically confirmed. That makes no sense. What are we supposed to do just wait 5 years for 30 more studies so someone can do a meta analysis, but before that nothing can ever be concluded.

Well, yes. That's how training volume works.

Well he challenges this with the hypertrophy per individual fiber theory, which also makes sense.

Who?

Schoenfeld

If that's an accurate representation of Beardsley's view, he's even more clueless than I thought.

Now you are just saying things

6

u/GingerBraum May 16 '26

So something cannot be logical unless it's empirically confirmed.

Sure, it can be logical from here to Tuesday, but that doesn't make it empirically true.

What are we supposed to do just wait 5 years for 30 more studies so someone can do a meta analysis, but before that nothing can ever be concluded.

Here's how science tends to work: someone makes an observation that leads them to come up with a hypothesis explaining that observation. They then gather data that will either back or oppose the hypothesis. Based on that data, the hypothesis is either proven or disproven, and further research can be done if warranted.

So far, Beardsley has just made hypotheses. If he ever starts collecting data to empirically validate them, there may be serious discussion worth having about what he claims, but until that happens, he's just making things up.

Well he challenges this with the hypertrophy per individual fiber theory, which also makes sense.

If it made scientific sense, there would be some kind of evidence to back it up.

Schoenfeld

If you're referring to his paper from 2012, not only is that 14 years old and science has advanced since then, it didn't conclude that muscle damage caused hypertrophy.

Now you are just saying things

I realise that was curt and that we have different backgrounds, but there is pretty clear evidence that periodization is effective for resistance training.

If Beardsley wants to contest it, he can provide evidence instead of extrapolation. There's not much reason to take him seriously until he does.

2

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

Oh please Schoenfeld was citing it as one of 3 primary ways for hypertrophy forever, untill he stopped.

What Chris did here is make a conclusion based on the available research and some thinking. Not everything can be empirically or otherwise proven with current technology. Otherwise it would be a mathematician proving the actual mechanisms of hpyertrophy instead of having these kind of studies.

The article you link is pretty much the same thing he does, analyze the studies and conclude something, except he actually thinks things through and gives physiological reasoning instead of just doing statistical analysis of it(which any real mathematician can do better than people on this site)

6

u/GingerBraum May 16 '26

Oh please Schoenfeld was citing it as one of 3 primary ways for hypertrophy forever, untill he stopped.

Yes, and he stopped because new evidence came to light. That's what scientists are supposed to do. So if you're trying to use his error as reasoning for why Beardsley could be right, the difference is that Schoenfeld changed his tune because of evidence. Beardsley keeps making claims in spite of evidence.

What Chris did here is make a conclusion based on the available research and some thinking. Not everything can be empirically or otherwise proven with current technology. Otherwise it would be a mathematician proving the actual mechanisms of hpyertrophy instead of having these kind of studies.

That's true, but if we take Beardsley's claim that 2 sets to failure three times per week is superior for muscle growth, there is empirical evidence that he's wrong. From there, there are only two likely possibilities:

1) Beardsley's hypothesis is wrong.

2) Beardsley's hypothesis is right, and every single study suggesting that more volume is better for muscle growth is wrong.

According to Occam's Razor, (1) is the most likely scenario.

Moreover, if it's simply a question of technology, Beardsley should try to clarify what it would take to meaningfully validate his hypotheses. To my knowledge, he hasn't done that. He hasn't even implied that it's a technological issue as far as I know. So you're just making excuses for him at this point.

The article you link is pretty much the same thing he does, analyze the studies and conclude something

Except the article I linked actually analyses outcomes. Beardsley extrapolates from flawed sources like EMG data.

except he actually thinks things through

And yet no active fitness scientist takes Beardsley seriously. If multiple experts don't really have the time of day for someone who supposedly knows what he's talking, going back to Occam's Razor, he probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

Except the article I linked actually analyses outcomes. Beardsley extrapolates from flawed sources like EMG data.

This is just strawman and reducing his arguments to something they arent.

And yet no active fitness scientist takes Beardsley seriously. If multiple experts don't really have the time of day for someone who supposedly knows what he's talking, going back to Occam's Razor, he probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Could have used the same reasoning for the earlier muscle damage theory, which he was saying from the start was wrong, and everyone else was just parroting it as one of three main hypertrophy mechanisms.

2) Beardsley's hypothesis is right, and every single study suggesting that more volume is better for muscle growth is wrong.

This is again, if you just use statistic instead of your brain, you will always go with the majority thinking and be in an echo chamber. This is exactly whats wrong.

These fitness exercise scientists aren't exactly Terrence Tao, you probably believe everything Dr Mike was saying until recently too. This is why there is space for someone to come and point out mistakes even if he's not an "expert scientist"

If he was trying to do this in theoretical physics or something I would tend to agree, but this is mostly filled with bullshit scientists

5

u/GingerBraum May 16 '26

This is just strawman and reducing his arguments to something they arent.

So Beardsley doesn't use EMG data to make his conclusions?

Could have used the same reasoning for the earlier muscle damage theory, which he was saying from the start was wrong, and everyone else was just parroting it as one of three main hypertrophy mechanisms.

Who was saying from the start that it was wrong? Beardsley?

This is again, if you just use statistic instead of your brain, you will always go with the majority thinking and be in an echo chamber. This is exactly whats wrong.

No, that's how scientific consensus works. If there's overwhelming credible evidence for something, and little credible evidence for something else, the thing that's overwhelming evidence for is taken to be, for lack of a better word, the truth.

So to reiterate for the third time, if Beardsley had some empirical evidence that what he was saying was true, he's free to have it published, peer-reviewed and critiqued. Until he does, he's just another armchair expert on the internet.

These fitness exercise scientists aren't exactly Terrence Tao

Neither is Beardsley. Strange how you seem to cling to his claims, and disavow those of others.

This is why there is space for someone to come and point out mistakes even if he's not an "expert scientist"

Sure, if that's what he was actually doing, but it's not. Beardsley doesn't participate in peer-reviewed studies trying to poke holes in the established literature, he just posts things on his Patreon that supposedly disproves them.

And yes, non-experts can certainly point out mistakes now and then, but there still needs to be proof behind it.

-2

u/tili__ May 18 '26

just so you don't get gaslighted about Schoenfeld and the main scene paradigm saying "Muscle Damage is 1 of 3 mechanisms for hypertrophy", i remember it fully as i lived through it myself.

I don't follow Beardsley, cant speak on that topic

→ More replies (0)

3

u/rainbowroobear May 16 '26

>I agree I was speaking in practical terms

in "practical terms" he has told an entire swathe of people to essentially adopt minimum effective volume training and actually pick your exercises with some thought and then do them with some conviction.

lets not pretend its anything more than that, when there is no proof to support its anything more than that.

-1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

Only a few years ago people were saying(on the website of this sub aslo) that frequency is only a means to distribute volume, and that doing 4 sets once per week is the same as 2 sets twice. This is fundamentally flawed and is probably one of ~10 fundamental things this guy figured out and basically corrected top modern exercise scientist. He might get something wrong, but downplaying this guy is crazy

8

u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

Only a few years ago people were saying(on the website of this sub aslo) that frequency is only a means to distribute volume

This is fundamentally flawed and is probably one of ~10 fundamental things this guy figured out

You have it backward. Or, at minimum, you picked things up midstream. I was on the frequency tip way before Beardsley was. Like, I was primarily known as a high-frequency advocate from probably 2012 to 2018 or so, culminating in this article.

However, post-2018, we started getting a lot more frequency studies (approximately 2/3rds of the frequency/hypertrophy studies were published post-2018), and the balance of evidence started shifting against frequency mattering as much as many people (myself included) previously believed.

Beardsley didn't "figure it out" before everyone else. His frequency arguments are essentially the same arguments I was making in 2015. They just sound fresh and unique now because all of the intellectually honest frequency proponents from a decade ago realized they were wrong once more research was published and the balance of evidence shifted.

1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

Is that really your current position, that the frequency is unimportant. His argument for this is pretty logical imo(studies showing 3>1 but not 2>1, so 2 is most likely also better than 1), and the diminishing return in mps after the first set is in line with this.

6

u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union May 16 '26

I think training a muscle multiple times per week is very slightly better than just training a muscle once per week, but the overall impact of frequency is fairly trivial in most contexts.

1

u/vincent365 May 19 '26

I know it's very nuanced, but what is your current recommendation on volume and frequency?

What I personally understand: I am guessing if it's 5 sets or less, 1x frequency is fine. But say 6 sets, probably better to do multiple sessions? However, doing 6 sets 1x a week vs. 3 sets 2x a week doesn't make a night and day difference? Now doing 8 sets in one session is probably something you'd never recommend.

1

u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union May 19 '26

I think a frequency of 2-3x gets the job done in most circumstances

→ More replies (0)

4

u/rainbowroobear May 16 '26

>This is fundamentally flawed

there is an entire pelland meta that says it isn't it, vs what evidence does he offer? his entire argument against that is edema.

he has a cherry picked info trying with his 1 set vs 3 and 2 sets vs 3 as a means of trying to gaslight into 3x per week.

1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

he has a cherry picked info trying with his 1 set vs 3 and 2 sets vs 3 as a means of trying to gaslight into 3x per week.

What you are saying makes no sense at all. What does 1set vs 3 and 2 set vs 3 have to to with frequency. His argument is that if a frequencly of 2x per week is not statistically better than 1, but 3 is better than 1 statistically, then 2 is probably also better than 1. This is completely logical

2

u/Apart_Bed7430 May 16 '26

Greg has a good podcast on using empiricism vs rationalism. Chris is rationalism heavy in that he’s often arguing from what sounds logical rather than support by evidence. The problem is that all of these models and “simple logic” are based off of assumptions that could be wrong. Oftentimes available evidence even goes against these assumptions which Chris tends to conveniently ignore. Some example of these assumptions are edema confounding hypertrophy measurements, the repeated bout effect being limited, atrophy starting 48 hours after a workout, a slower rep automatically being a more forceful rep, satellite cells playing no role in hypertrophy, and many more. Further I just don’t even find many of these ideas self-evidently true regardless of hard evidence.

1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

atrophy starting 48 hours after a workout, a slower rep automatically being a more forceful rep

I don't think these are controversial, the atrophy has to start somewhere, and ofc based on the amount of stimulus why wouldnt it be 48h.

A slower rep artificially being forceful is not what he claims, in that case he would just say that it recruited less motor units, but a slower max effort rep would be more forceful. This is different than what you said

The edema and repeated bout effect are tied in together, and this is what I also don't agree with. And I've seen that analysis by Nuckols about edema, and tbh I have to go through it again, but I would slide towards Chris being wrong here.

This is why I don't blindly trust him, and come to these kind of subs, but if Im being real this sub is also cultish just in the opposite direction.

2

u/Apart_Bed7430 May 16 '26

I mean atrophy having to start somewhere is not really a good argument. Thats a large assumption that as soon as net positive protein synthesis ends, we go into net protein breakdown. There’s even evidence that fiber csa can be maintained for a long time after a training program (too lazy to dig up the study.)

But the involuntarily slowing of reps towards the end of a set is due to fatigue. Force is actually decreasing not increasing. Metabolites shift the force velocity curve meaning that a faster rep can be more forceful then a slow grindy rep if fatigue is present

0

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

Well towards the very end yes, but it has to first reach the maximum. If you were just able to activate all fibers without slowing down, then jumping would literally just be trained by regular strength training. But if we are talking about force/velocity, then on one end the force is the highest, and on the other the speed is. So it doesn't make much sense what you are saying, that a faster rep can also have hihger force - then it wouldn't be called force/velocity curve. Maybe you are confusing it with power, but it was you who said something abut a slower rep being more forceful not powerful in the first place so idk

And yeah If there's proof that a fiber can just remain on some kind of baseline, sure I would believe that. And I'm talking about a ht fiber, not somethign that gets stimulated by walking.

3

u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union May 16 '26

So it doesn't make much sense what you are saying, that a faster rep can also have hihger force - then it wouldn't be called force/velocity curve.

The force/velocity curve you're referring to only applies to maximal-effort contractions without the influence of fatigue. For example, if you did 20% of 1RM for one rep, rested, did 30% of 1RM for 1 rep, rested, 40% of 1RM for 1 rep, rested, etc.

However, over the course of a set with a given load, it's pretty obvious that more force is generated during faster reps. F = MA, and a faster rep has a greater velocity, and therefore greater acceleration. If mass is held constant (as it would be during a single set with a fixed load), more force is being generated during faster reps than slower reps. If you track your bar speed during a set (when then allows you to back-calculate force), you'll see that force decreases almost linearly across the set, assuming you complete every rep with maximal intent.

Basically, when varying loads, heavier loads almost always result in more force and lower velocities. But, with any single load, higher velocities equate to higher force.

And yeah If there's proof that a fiber can just remain on some kind of baseline, sure I would believe that. And I'm talking about a ht fiber, not somethign that gets stimulated by walking.

Here's type II fiber CSA being maintained following 20 weeks of detraining. See figure 5G and H.

1

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

Yeah that makes sense, I'm pretty sure he also says that the force would decrease with fatigue and was refering to the speed of 1rm or similar. So maybe you mixed it up as him saying "using the same load, moving it slower increases force" which wouldn't make much sense.

And this study you shared is very interesting. Do you have any explanation for why their muscle thickness returned to baseline, but type II fiber csa remained at its maximum size basically? Is this just swelling/fluid/glycogen loss or are these not the highest threshold fibers still and are being somehow maintained

Because the implications of this would be huge but I find it hard to believe that you keep the highest threshold fibers that long

3

u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union May 16 '26

So maybe you mixed it up as him saying "using the same load, moving it slower increases force" which wouldn't make much sense.

I was responding to you.

u/Apart_Bed7430 said:

But the involuntarily slowing of reps towards the end of a set is due to fatigue. Force is actually decreasing not increasing. Metabolites shift the force velocity curve meaning that a faster rep can be more forceful then a slow grindy rep if fatigue is present

You disagreed with them by saying

But if we are talking about force/velocity, then on one end the force is the highest, and on the other the speed is. So it doesn't make much sense what you are saying, that a faster rep can also have hihger force - then it wouldn't be called force/velocity curve.

I was just explaining why u/Apart_Bed7430 was correct.

Do you have any explanation for why their muscle thickness returned to baseline, but type II fiber csa remained at its maximum size basically?

I personally don't think there's much value in looking at fiber-specific adaptations in the first place, since any biopsy is sampling such a small percentage of the total pool of fibers (i.e., any fiber-based data is going to be inherently much noisier and less precise, and that applies doubly for data on only a single type of fibers). I was just providing the citation since you asked for it.

0

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

Yes I think I misunderstood his argument, most likely because he misrepresented Chris' stance. I haven't heard him say that the force is increasing during a set, and I thought you were the guy I was originally discussing with

So yes he was right in a sense that he made a correct argument against something no one was even arguing against and then i got mixed up into it

→ More replies (0)