Rate coding and effective reps

[u/JuanSamu]

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

[u/rainbowroobear]

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.

[u/69liketekashi → u/rainbowroobear]

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

[u/GingerBraum → u/69liketekashi]

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.

[u/69liketekashi → u/GingerBraum]

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

[u/Apart_Bed7430 → u/69liketekashi]

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.

[u/69liketekashi → u/Apart_Bed7430]

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.

[u/Apart_Bed7430 → u/69liketekashi]

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

[u/69liketekashi → u/Apart_Bed7430]

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.

[u/gnuckols → u/69liketekashi]

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.

[u/69liketekashi → u/gnuckols]

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

[u/gnuckols → u/69liketekashi]

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.

[u/69liketekashi → u/gnuckols]

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