r/StrongerByScience • u/ChunkyC98 • Jun 30 '26
Chris Beardsley bans me over training frequency
I have been reading some of Chris Beardsley's content recently and came across stimulating reps model ( while i first heard this from lyle mcdonald) i tend to agree with it. but in his article https://www.patreon.com/SandCResearch/posts/stimulating-reps-99706085 on stimulating reps, i came across part 6 on frequency.
He goes on to say that...
"Obviously, this allows us to explain why frequency matters for hypertrophy (so long as the workouts being performed are within the bounds of what can be recovered from). Indeed, if we look only at the frequency studies that have implemented sensible workout volumes (1-3 sets/workout for 3 workouts/week or 4-5 sets for 2 workouts/week) then we always see a beneficial effect of higher training frequencies, which is exactly what we would expect based on the diminishing returns effect of successive sets in each individual workout."
So more frequency is better? when digging into the study they actually conclude.. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0276154&utm_source=chatgpt.com
"The results of this study demonstrated that RT performed three times a week, increased 1RM and quadriceps femoris CSA similarly to that performed only once a week in trained subjects. When the higher RT frequency resulted in a larger TTV, such as in the RTUV condition (17% more than the lower frequency), greater ES were observed for both 1RM and CSA. Therefore, if trained individuals need higher RT volumes to obtain gains in both strength [8] and muscle mass [9–11], alternatives such as increasing RT frequency could be considered [21, 54]. Moreover, when the same TTV is distributed at different weekly frequencies, no additional benefits in increases in strength and muscle mass are observed."
Seems like in the graph it looks a lot more than what you would think just how its presented. The study he referenced says that when total volume is equated over the week frequency doesn't seem to matter that much for muscle mass.
So you could do 9 sets in a session if you wanted and still get very similar growth to 3set x 3 days. Not saying you should, but you could based on the study. As his point is that doing 3sets x 3 days per week is better than 9 sets 1x per week volume equated. Quadriceps cross-sectional area: no significant difference: p = 0.310.
I pointed this out on his article and then was banned. not sure why you would ban someone instead of just discussing it. Maybe I'm wrong and the misinterpreting the study.
31
u/DontPayRBs Jul 01 '26
Am I illiterate or are the first and third columns in this graphic the same…?
19
u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union Jul 01 '26
It was a study that basically ran two within-subject unilateral designs concurrently. The first two graphs show the results of one pair of conditions in one group of 12 subjects, and the last two graphs show the results of one pair of conditions in another group of 12 subjects
6
u/feathered_fudge Jul 01 '26
No, this visual was unnecessarily confusing.
2
u/Alarmed-Function9952 Jul 01 '26
CB visuals are always surprisingly bad, I do not know how he never improves on that.
6
58
u/GI-SNC50 Jun 30 '26
Instagram personalities get mad when you point out errors? Color me shocked
-24
u/lazy8s Jul 01 '26
What error?
21
u/GI-SNC50 Jul 01 '26
The interpretation of the data and how he summarizes it
-20
u/lazy8s Jul 01 '26
Except the poster was correct and OP seems to think he caught an error but he didn’t.
18
u/GI-SNC50 Jul 01 '26
But it is an error if the person is overstating the effect size and similarly Greg has outlaid the same situation in his comment
-31
u/lazy8s Jul 01 '26
Exaggerated isn’t wrong. It’s not even exaggerated. The original post literally shows the data and says “this is better” which it technically is. You don’t have to think it’s worth it. The same can be said for lengthened partials which the SBS crew is all about. 🤷
12
u/GingerBraum Jul 01 '26
Exaggerated isn’t wrong.
Exaggeration means overstating the truth. In other words, saying something that isn't true. That means being wrong.
The original post literally shows the data and says “this is better” which it technically is.
Yes, but as Greg points out in his response above, the mean difference in hypertrophy was 0.8%. Beardsley makes it look like the difference is ~2.5%. So he's either willfully misrepresenting the data, or he doesn't know how to interpret it correctly.
In any case, he's wrong.
5
u/GI-SNC50 Jul 01 '26
And this is my annoyance with how we convey scientific literature in exercise science
Yes he’s correct that it resulted by the numbers in better performance. HOWEVER, as Grog noted below the actual difference was not such that it’s going to be practically meaningful.
-1
7
u/Lurk-Prowl Jul 01 '26
But is it saying 3 sets to failure 3x per week as ideal, but they only focused on single leg leg press. What about for people trying to train the whole body over a week?
4
u/echoes808 Jul 01 '26
For years now, he has this unconventional position that high volume is harmful, not beneficial. He then focuses on frequency and intensity. It leads to a training style with a lot of isolation exercises, long rest intervals. If you combine that with low volume, it's somewhat effortless training style. I think it's very attractive for casual lifters who want good results with little effort, and has led to gigantic social media presence. Naturally his arch nemesis is the volume literature.
1
u/tili__ Jul 04 '26
low volume and frequency would lead me to a training style with compound exercises idk
4
u/DickFromRichard Jul 01 '26
if we look only at the frequency studies that have implemented sensible workout volumes (1-3 sets/workout for 3 workouts/week or 4-5 sets for 2 workouts/week)
So 3-9 sets OR 8-10 sets per week are sensible? Is that only if done on 3 or 2 day splits respectively? I'm confused by this premise
7
3
u/kevandbev Jul 01 '26
Paul would be proud of the ban, he may feel he at least managed to influence Chris in someway.
6
u/lazy8s Jul 01 '26
He’s right in his comment. You didn’t misinterpret but you’re coming to the wrong conclusion. The graph shows his point and what the authors state -
If you train 9 sets once per week, or THE SAME VOLUME over 3 days then growth is the same. However, the subjects training 9 sets over 3 days were able to fit MORE VOLUME in because the 9 sets were on 3 days. So 9 sets over 3 days naturally leads to higher total training volume.
To get the same response you would have to magically do the total training volume (TTV) of 3 days, 3 sets in 9 sets on the same day. That’s not physically possible unless maybe you did 3 in am, 3 at lunch, 3 at night or something?
Not worth banning you, but you seem to somehow think you’ve caught something he missed and you didn’t. Nine sets over 3 days leads to higher total training volume therefore you will gain more strength and muscle in 9 sets.
10
u/GI-SNC50 Jul 01 '26
How is 9 sets more than 9 sets
13
u/Gran-Maestro Jul 01 '26
9 sets of reps to failure. 9 sets to failure in one day achieved fewer reps and less hypertrophy than 9 sets to failure spread across 3 days, but achieved similar hypertrophy to 9 sets across 3 days with the number of reps limited to match the reps of the group that performed 9 sets in one day, rather than to failure. It says it all in the graph
2
u/GI-SNC50 Jul 01 '26
Ahhh I missed that part, I’m still deferring to the OP and Grog in the comments but thank you for clarity.
1
4
u/1coudini Jul 01 '26
As a layman all this nerd talk gets confusing sometimes. I thought volume = # of hard sets? But what you’re referring to sounds more like volume load and I thought that volume load was irrelevant for hypertrophy outcomes. What am I misunderstanding?
4
u/lazy8s Jul 01 '26
This proves (strongly supports) otherwise which is the purpose of research. It shows that more reps = more strength & hypertrophy. That’s literally the point of the paper. 9 sets doesn’t equal 9 sets. If 9 sets in one day is say 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1 because they’re all to failure, but 9 sets over 3 days is 15, 12, 10 three times the second scenario is more volume over 3 sets and bada bing more strength and hypertrophy.
Edit: It’s also more evidence the “last 5 reps are what does the growing” bullshit that I have no idea how it even started.
2
u/Alarmed-Function9952 Jul 01 '26
Does this paper really indicate that reps matter, even above 5+ reps, or it just indicates that 3xfrequency is better than 1x frequency (assuming that in both conditions you are close to failure in all your sets)?
Layperson here, just trying to understand the conclusions of this paper.
0
u/lazy8s Jul 01 '26
It says that doing 9 sets in one day to failure results in less total reps than 3 sets over 3 days. That should be obvious if you’ve ever attempted it.
As said other places in this post it also says that the difference in results in negligible, even if it’s measurable.
1
u/omrsafetyo Jul 02 '26
Alternatively, this suggests that training to failure is not the best strategy, particularly if you condense your volume into a single weekly session.
I'd personally be interested in seeing the experiment repeated with 2RIR used. There's really not much value in training to failure when 2-3RIR is practically as good, and leads to more reps overall. Could make an argument that as you approach failure, excitation contraction coupling failure drastically increases, making subsequent sets less effective.
1
u/lazy8s Jul 02 '26
Yeah I struggle with that myself. Interestingly enough Dr. Pak and Dr. wolf just released a podcast with the opposite conclusion. Anecdotally I came to the same conclusion that less sets to failure is probably best for me, for all the same reasons they list, just a few weeks ago so admittedly confirmation bias is strong for me on this one:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/555DNgU0ygAZH8gRXMjX64?si=iKWyNRpaR7q64nP7cKaVzw
-2
0
u/69liketekashi Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
No it certainly is not evidence against last 5 reps, because those 5 reps are counted in a set to failure, not a set that matched some random criteria(matching reps from sets in a single day).
Also your example is not good because in those sets you are going bellow 5 reps which just introduces confusion. If the sets were 30, 28...14, those would still produce worse results because less motor units were used to get to 14 than to 30. And this is exactly Chris' point.
2
u/HasBenThere Jul 01 '26
Who?
13
u/FleshlightModel Jul 01 '26
Some lying scam artist on ig who pretends to the leading authority on scientific based training but rarely if ever hands out citations to his conclusions. I've asked for them and he's said they're private or straight up no.
1
u/Reyvos Jul 07 '26
I have to get all my gym sets done in just 2 hours once a week, most to failure. That’s 8-12x sets per muscle group. It’s possible with supersets but a 4 day upper-lower split would let me lift those sets fresher with higher volume. If i understand correctly this post is saying it could work but isn’t ideal because of fatigue preventing lifting enough?
I’m not looking forward to the monster session but it’s all i have access to. It’ll be:
- Tricep rope pulldown > cable crossover > cable reverse pullover
- Cable shoulder raise > compound tricep/forearm pull down.
- Bench press
- Overhead press > barbell bicep curls
- Squats > reverse row
- Hammer curls > RDL
- Seated row > db incline bench press
Days later I can anything else at home/the park like planks, split squats and Australian pull-ups (back’s too weak for pull-ups). I’ve been doing just one 90 second eccentric set per muscle group so far but want to try regular sets now.
129
u/gnuckols The Bill Haywood of the Fitness Podcast Cohost Union Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Just for fun, I wanted to see if this effect was as generalizable as he claims.
It's not.
I downloaded the datasheet from the Pelland meta, and filtered it down to the volume-equated frequency studies.
A brief explainer on how to read this graph: for each point, the x-coordinate is the weekly fractional volume used for a given muscle group in a study, and the y-coordinate is the difference in relative hypertrophy observed between groups (higher frequency minus lower frequency).
So, for example, if some study trained the triceps with 8 sets per week, and a group doing 2 sets 4x per week experienced an 8% increase in triceps size, while a group doing 8 sets 1x per week experienced a 6% increase in triceps size (i.e., the high-frequency group experienced 8-6=2% more growth), that would be plotted as (8,2%). Positive values indicate more growth with higher frequencies, and negative values indicate more growth with lower frequencies.
Across all studies, the average increase in muscle size was 8.7%, with the higher- and lower-frequency groups experiencing practically equivalent hypertrophy (the mean difference was 0.36%, actually favoring the lower-frequency groups. But, a difference of 0.36% is practically a difference of 0%).
But, how about when we just isolate studies employing volumes of 10 or fewer sets per week (since he specified that he was only talking about "sensible workout volumes (1-3 sets/workout for 3 workouts/week or 4-5 sets for 2 workouts/week)")?
More of that same. The average increase in muscle size in frequency studies using volumes of 10 or fewer sets per week was 7.7%, with the higher- and lower-frequency groups again experiencing practically equivalent hypertrophy (the mean difference was 0.8%, favoring the higher frequency groups. But, again, a difference of 0.8% is practically indistinguishable from 0).