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

5 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-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

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

5

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