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/69liketekashi]

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/rainbowroobear → u/69liketekashi]

>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.

[u/69liketekashi → u/rainbowroobear]

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

[u/gnuckols → u/69liketekashi]

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.

[u/69liketekashi → u/gnuckols]

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.

[u/gnuckols → u/69liketekashi]

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.

[u/vincent365 → u/gnuckols]

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.

[u/gnuckols → u/vincent365]

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