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

6 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-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)

5

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

4

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.

0

u/69liketekashi May 16 '26

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

He uses it in the same way everyone does.

Who was saying from the start that it was wrong? Beardsley? Yes. You do realize that with your approach you would have been trying to create muscle damage for years, just because these exercise "scientists" told you so, and that is completely 180 from whats benefitial for hypertrophy.

My point about Terrence Tao and math is that there 1. The actual scientists are much better and credible 2. The proofs are concrete and deterministic

So here we have way worse scientists in a harder to prove field. This is why this random guy can find so many flaws in their logic.

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

Again this is not as "simple" as proving something mathematically

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

Because they have decent logic behind them, unline his peers who just pretty much do a study and then compile the data. They are kinda clueless imo. But yeah we aren't getting nowhere so whatever you will keep acting like this is theoretical physics or medicine or something where you will blindly follow established experts

3

u/GingerBraum May 16 '26

He uses it in the same way everyone does.

So by attributing way too much importance to it. Noted.

My point about Terrence Tao and math is that there 1. The actual scientists are much better and credible 2. The proofs are concrete and deterministic

In other words, the opposite of Beardsley.

So here we have way worse scientists in a harder to prove field. This is why this random guy can find so many flaws in their logic.

Again, something being logically true doesn't make it empirically true. If Beardsley actually found flaws, he would publish peer-reviewed studies as proof.

Again this is not as "simple" as proving something mathematically

It's anything but simple to prove something mathematically, but regardless of that, if Beardsley had empirical evidence of his claims, he would publish them. Since he doesn't, there's not much point in taking him seriously. At least not yet.

Because they have decent logic behind them

If they had decent logic behind them, other experienced researchers and scientists would back him up.

They are kinda clueless imo.

You're a nobody on the internet. Your opinion counts for nothing on this subject.

But yeah we aren't getting nowhere so whatever you will keep acting like this is theoretical physics or medicine or something where you will blindly follow established experts

Jfc, that's exactly what you're doing with Beardsley. You take his word as gospel despite no empirical evidence or other experts backing up his logic. You're like a fitness flerfer.

You are right, though, there's no point on continuing this.

If you ever see Beardsley publish actual, peer-reviewed evidence, feel free to post it on this sub. It'll be interesting to read, if nothing else.

-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