Things I believe but can't prove...

[quikky]

5@3 is likely useless, 5@5 barely so, 5@8 good, and 5@10 maximal when it comes to growth. To me, this is that simple for a lot of bodybuilding work that's more isolated and stable, and not quite so simple for the big compounds, where I am guessing a lot of your observed inconsistencies come from.

My issue with model is the claim that fatigue-induced velocity loss = increase muscle tension (because [hand wave] force velocity curve. There's a massive explanatory gap there....and I haven't really seen much compelling evidence (you'd think the evidence would be clear as fuck for such a central physiological principle).

I'm genuinely curious if you could expand on that specifically. It doesn't seem to me that there's a massive gap there, so I'd like to know what I might be missing. Basically, what do you think the theory is, and where do you see the big gap?

I started to read this and had to stop and get my shovel to finish. And some muck boots. There's a verb in Spanish for this guy, "Cantinflear", from which the satirical actor Cantinflas derived his stage name. Seriously, that was an awful lot of total bullshit being paraded as fact, and what I gathered is that this guy probably has absolutely nothing of value to offer. Sorry if that is harsh, but it is what it is and a halfwit gym bro that can't tie his own shoes is probably giving better advice.

I would like to note as well that you said " The funny thing is, I think even on this forum there's a good number of people that were stronger back in the SS days than with what they're doing now that is supposedly more enlightened." and then proceeded to post a valueless article about hypertrophy. Entirely different pursuits. Training for strength will yield some hypertrophic gains, training specifically for hypertrophy hopefully gets you a little bigger and should not be expected to be useful for increased strength. And seriously, that Beardsley guy is an idiot.

I like the article, especially since it is generating an interesting discussion. Sorry it is triggering you for some odd reason.

Regarding the strength vs hypertrophy part:

[Hanley]

Double post

[Hanley]

I'm genuinely curious if you could expand on that specifically. It doesn't seem to me that there's a massive gap there, so I'd like to know what I might be missing. Basically, what do you think the theory is, and where do you see the big gap?f

I want to re-ask the question I asked a few days ago:

what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

I can measure (and just about every training session I do measure) the barbell moving with less force as a set progresses.

But -- because of force-velocity curve: profit!!!

^ really?!?

to me, this makes sense if cross-bridges in fiber of high-threshold MUs are compromised (they fatigue super quickly) and there's task-demand pushed back to the slower twitch MUs (increased tension in the fiber of those MUs...but compromised tension in the fiber of the highest threshold MUs).

I think it follows that peak stimulation probably = peak measured force at the barbell. Optimize that over a 30 minute period (something you CAN actually optimize with enough fussing) and (conjecture warning) feel the gains.

[platypus]

what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

The early broscience lore that I remember from my teenage years is that as you get closer to failure, your muscle has to recruit more fibers to keep going. Eventually you run out of fibers to recruit and the bar stops moving.

I probably read this on bodybuilding.com, and cannot say I would be shocked if that's not how it works.

[aurelius]

to me, this makes sense if cross-bridges in fiber of high-threshold MUs are compromised (they fatigue super quickly) and there's task-demand pushed back to the slower twitch MUs (increased tension in the fiber of those MUs...but compromised tension in the fiber of the highest threshold MUs).

All I'm understanding is the flux capacitor needs 2.1 gigawatts.



Question: Does lifting weights work? Or we all just experiencing a placebo effect?

[quikky]

I'm genuinely curious if you could expand on that specifically. It doesn't seem to me that there's a massive gap there, so I'd like to know what I might be missing. Basically, what do you think the theory is, and where do you see the big gap?f

I want to re-ask the question I asked a few days ago:

what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

I can measure (and just about every training session I do measure) the barbell moving with less force as a set progresses.

But -- because of force-velocity curve: profit!!!

^ really?!?

to me, this makes sense if cross-bridges in fiber of high-threshold MUs are compromised (they fatigue super quickly) and there's task-demand pushed back to the slower twitch MUs (increased tension in the fiber of those MUs...but compromised tension in the fiber of the highest threshold MUs).

I think it follows that peak stimulation probably = peak measured force at the barbell. Optimize that over a 30 minute period (something you CAN actually optimize with enough fussing) and (conjecture warning) feel the gains.

I think there is a difference between force-velocity for any given weight/rep in isolation, and what the force-velocity relationship means in the context of a multi-rep set, and especially when we're trying to talk about growth stimulus. Basically, if you do a single rep, the slower the contractions (involuntarily, of course), the more force is produced. Don't think anyone would really debate that as we know 50% moves a lot faster than a 1RM but certainly does not produce nearly as much force.

If there are multiple reps performed, and for the sake of discussion, let's assume they start at full MU recruitment, so the weight is heavy-ish, then force is maintained but the rep velocity drops as the reps accrue. You wrote that in a given set you observe the force decreasing but I am not sure I would agree with that. If the bar is moving through the same ROM, I would think the force is the same, but the contractile velocity is slower the closer to failure you go, IF all the MUs are already being recruited, AND there is fatigue building up.

I can see how this might sound like a total contradiction to the force-velocity curve, and I think this is your point, i.e. if involuntarily slower contraction = more force, why are clearly slower contractions as the set progresses not resulting in more force. I would explain this as the force staying the same, and all the fibers working, with the high threshold ones displaying the most fatigue, causing their contractions to slow, and to experience mechanical tension (which is what we're after, at least in the context of this discussion). I think there is a big difference between the rate of force production an MU is capable of, vs the amount of force production. High MUs are capable of both, with the former displayed in something like a jump, or sprint, and the latter against a heavy external resistance. As they fatigue, the rate changes, but the force stays the same.

* - I might revisit what I wrote above a bit later, don't have time right now...

[Hanley]

I'm genuinely curious if you could expand on that specifically. It doesn't seem to me that there's a massive gap there, so I'd like to know what I might be missing. Basically, what do you think the theory is, and where do you see the big gap?f

I want to re-ask the question I asked a few days ago:

what are the mechanistic causes of involuntary loss of rep velocity (don't use the word "fatigue") in an RPE 8+ set?

How do those mechanistic causal reductions in voluntary velocity = whole muscle increase in tension?

I can measure (and just about every training session I do measure) the barbell moving with less force as a set progresses.

But -- because of force-velocity curve: profit!!!

^ really?!?

to me, this makes sense if cross-bridges in fiber of high-threshold MUs are compromised (they fatigue super quickly) and there's task-demand pushed back to the slower twitch MUs (increased tension in the fiber of those MUs...but compromised tension in the fiber of the highest threshold MUs).

I think it follows that peak stimulation probably = peak measured force at the barbell. Optimize that over a 30 minute period (something you CAN actually optimize with enough fussing) and (conjecture warning) feel the gains.

I think there is a difference between force-velocity for any given weight/rep in isolation, and what the force-velocity relationship means in the context of a multi-rep set, and especially when we're trying to talk about growth stimulus. Basically, if you do a single rep, the slower the contractions (involuntarily, of course), the more force is produced. Don't think anyone would really debate that as we know 50% moves a lot faster than a 1RM but certainly does not produce nearly as much force.

If there are multiple reps performed, and for the sake of discussion, let's assume they start at full MU recruitment, so the weight is heavy-ish, then force is maintained but the rep velocity drops as the reps accrue. You wrote that in a given set you observe the force decreasing but I am not sure I would agree with that. If the bar is moving through the same ROM, I would think the force is the same, but the contractile velocity is slower the closer to failure you go, IF all the MUs are already being recruited, AND there is fatigue building up.

I can see how this might sound like a total contradiction to the force-velocity curve, and I think this is your point, i.e. if involuntarily slower contraction = more force, why are clearly slower contractions as the set progresses not resulting in more force. I would explain this as the force staying the same, and all the fibers working, with the high threshold ones displaying the most fatigue, causing their contractions to slow, and to experience mechanical tension (which is what we're after, at least in the context of this discussion). I think there is a big difference between the rate of force production an MU is capable of, vs the amount of force production. High MUs are capable of both, with the former displayed in something like a jump, or sprint, and the latter against a heavy external resistance. As they fatigue, the rate changes, but the force stays the same.

* - I might revisit what I wrote above a bit later, don't have time right now...

I should have clarified that peak force drops as fatigue builds. It’s transient, but very real.

^ Also: I’m not challenging the force-velocity curve. I’m challenging the idea that fatigued IIx fibers still produce high tension. It’s been a while since I went down the rabbit-hole of fatigue, but metabolite accrual definitely fucks up cross-bridging.

The use of the force-velocity curve in the stimulating reps conjecture feels like one huge modus ponens fuck-up (affirming the consequent):

- high muscular tension requires slow contractile velocity

- the contractile velocity in the final reps in a set to failure is slow

- therefore: whole muscle muscular tension is peaked on the final reps in a set to failure.

^ I think that's at the heart of what I'm calling the explanatory gap: an invalid affirmation about muscular tension based on the force-velocity curve

###

I don’t think what you wrote about high threshold MUs is true. Rate coding definitely affects absolute tension, not just rate of force production.

We could probably go back and forth endlessly. I look forward to any actual evidence in the coming years that might support the stimulating reps conjecture.

[quikky]

Also: I’m not challenging the force-velocity curve. I’m challenging the idea that fatigued IIx fibers still produce high tension. It’s been a while since I went down the rabbit-hole of fatigue, but metabolite accrual definitely fucks up cross-bridging.

This is an excellent point, actually, and one that I had not considered or seen mentioned before. I'm really curious now as to how this idea could play out. If the crossbridging is affected and tension actually drops for the highest threshold MUs, and consequently force production as well, yet reps still get completed, what compensates for that drop-off? I always thought MUs get cycled upward by levels of threshold, with lower threshold MUs essentially experiencing what you have described happening to the IIx types. Do the lower threshold MUs now get even more cross-bridging? That would seem counter to what I think would happen. Do you have any thoughts on that?

This is really good btw, so thanks. That point is one of the only ones I've read that really is making me go "hmmm..." when it comes to the effective reps theory.

[Hanley]

what compensates for that drop-off? I always thought MUs get cycled upward by levels of threshold, with lower threshold MUs essentially experiencing what you have described happening to the IIx types. Do the lower threshold MUs now get even more cross-bridging? That would seem counter to what I think would happen. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I have no idea what happens. But - my from the ass guess: the lower-threshold MUs actually experience decreased firing rates during recruitment/excitation of of higher-threshold MUs. As the higher-threshold MUs fatigue, the lower-threshold MUs - in turn - increase firing rate.

This is really good btw, so thanks.

And - thank you. It's great to hash this shit out with someone who shares a genuine curiosity.

[quikky]

what compensates for that drop-off? I always thought MUs get cycled upward by levels of threshold, with lower threshold MUs essentially experiencing what you have described happening to the IIx types. Do the lower threshold MUs now get even more cross-bridging? That would seem counter to what I think would happen. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I have no idea what happens. But - my from the ass guess: the lower-threshold MUs actually experience decreased firing rates during recruitment/excitation of of higher-threshold MUs. As the higher-threshold MUs fatigue, the lower-threshold MUs - in turn - increase firing rate.

I think some of the research from the DDS guys might hint at a similar phenomenon:

Seems from their findings strength with heavy loads benefits more from submax RIR, which could potentially be explained by the above. While hypertrophy work benefits most from 0 RIR.

Guessing maybe the fatigue is what could affect better strength outcomes if that's true? While the downcycling of MUs could explain it, it still means highest threshold MUs get full tension before the drop off, then if you keep going, lower threshold MUs get more as well. Maybe that's less beneficial for a 1RM task and thus just causes a worse stimulus to fatigue ratio?

[Hardartery]

what compensates for that drop-off? I always thought MUs get cycled upward by levels of threshold, with lower threshold MUs essentially experiencing what you have described happening to the IIx types. Do the lower threshold MUs now get even more cross-bridging? That would seem counter to what I think would happen. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I have no idea what happens. But - my from the ass guess: the lower-threshold MUs actually experience decreased firing rates during recruitment/excitation of of higher-threshold MUs. As the higher-threshold MUs fatigue, the lower-threshold MUs - in turn - increase firing rate.

I think some of the research from the DDS guys might hint at a similar phenomenon:

Seems from their findings strength with heavy loads benefits more from submax RIR, which could potentially be explained by the above. While hypertrophy work benefits most from 0 RIR.

Guessing maybe the fatigue is what could affect better strength outcomes if that's true? While the downcycling of MUs could explain it, it still means highest threshold MUs get full tension before the drop off, then if you keep going, lower threshold MUs get more as well. Maybe that's less beneficial for a 1RM task and thus just causes a worse stimulus to fatigue ratio?

It is arguable that RIR means less complete utilization/fibre recruitment. Failure would indicate that you stimulated everything and therefore have a greater chance at hypertrophy across a broader spectrum of fibres whereas RIR stimulates only the type llx fibres.

[Hanley]

Guessing maybe the fatigue is what could affect better strength outcomes if that's true? While the downcycling of MUs could explain it, it still means highest threshold MUs get full tension before the drop off, then if you keep going, lower threshold MUs get more as well. Maybe that's less beneficial for a 1RM task and thus just causes a worse stimulus to fatigue ratio?

I think that's probably the case ^

###

But I'd game hypertrophy by doing 1-2 sets of a compound lift to RPE 7-8, then doing a bunch of cluster sets to RPE 5-6, then wrapping up with isolation movements of the primary movers associated with the compound movement to 2-5 x 10-15 to RPE 8-9.

^ not novel at all

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

As far as strength outcomes are concerned of the DDS study are concerned, isn't it simply that, since strength is essentially neural (optimizing the movement pattern, rate coding etc.), what matters is only the weight on the bar and how many total repetitions in a session you do with that weight ? I mean whether you're doing 3x5 or 5x3 with 80% you're still teaching your nervous system how to move an 80% load, and you gave it 15 learning opportunities ?

PS: I do understand that hypertrophy contributes to strength (so that you could advocate that high RPE will make you bigger which will then make you stronger), but this contribution is in the long run, not in the short term. Say you gained 5-10 kgs on your squat after 6 weeks of following some (well designed) strength program, I highly doubt that the gains can be explained by your legs gaining size. If you've been lifting for a while, the amount of leg size you'll gain in 6 weeks is probably minuscule anyways.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

On the topic of the effective reps model, isn't it simple to design a study that would disprove it ? Say you gather 20 lifters, and make them do something like 10 sets of 5 at 70% a few times a week for an extended period of time, and subsequently measure their leg size ? If they experience any growth at all it would pretty much bury the model, since they'd have gained muscle while performing zero "effective reps".

[quikky]

On the topic of the effective reps model, isn't it simple to design a study that would disprove it ? Say you gather 20 lifters, and make them do something like 10 sets of 5 at 70% a few times a week for an extended period of time, and subsequently measure their leg size ? If they experience any growth at all it would pretty much bury the model, since they'd have gained muscle while performing zero "effective reps".

It's not quite that simple, i.e. "only last 5 reps matter". As mentioned earlier, compound lifts make it fuzzy because the idea is for an individual muscle, so depending on what compound you use, and what muscle you measure, the effect may vary. Also, I consider the last 5 to be effective in a practical sense, i.e. you would do a reasonable number of sets, like say 2-6. It is possible sub 5 RPE sets produce some tension, and frankly I don't think it's a number set in stone per se, and can vary from person to person, and likely be a spectrum where @5 is where there's generally a sharper increase in tension, and lower RPEs have such low tension that it might only be realized in effectiveness if you do a boatload of them.

That said, if you had people do 3 sets of leg extensions @3, I think you'd see zero gains. If they did 25 sets of leg extensions @3... I don't know. It's possible some tiny amounts of tension would add up to something, but who would train that way in practice? If you'd have three groups do @3, @7, @10 on leg extensions, I think you'd see a pretty solid increase in hypertrophy from group to group with decreasing proximity to failure. I think that's what the studies actually show anyways, including the DDS one above.

[Philbert]

For a given weight, from rep to rep, muscle tension by definition has decreased at any point in the rep where acceleration decreases. However, muscle tension may be higher later in a rep where initial muscle tension (and therefore acceleration) is low. For a fast, early in the set rep, muscle tension peaks early, and drops in the later part of the rep as the net acceleration becomes negative. For example, for a fast rep, gross force might be massx1.2xgravity (m1.2g) early in the rep, m0.81g later in the rep, and then m1g at lockout. For a grindy rep, gross force is very close to m1g throughout, and if it drops below m1g for any significant time or distance the rep is failed. Hanley has actual values for these forces from acceleration data, I would welcome more accurate numbers. So a grindy rep places the muscle under high tension through a wider range of motion, which may be more stimulating for hypertrophy, and may translate better to success in lifting a grindy maximal weight. If this effect is desired, adding bands to smooth fast reps will result in more uniform force requirements through the rep, without the fatigue cost of grinding. . There is a plausible mechanism for tension on specific fiber types to be higher if other types fatigue out, but as long as the rep is heavy enough to exceed the force available from fatigue resistant fibers , since those fire first, then all fibers will be exposed to tension. Continuing the set as the high threshold/high force fibers fatigue out should be expected to result in rapidly worsening strength stimulus/fatigue ratios.

[Hanley]

For a given weight, from rep to rep, muscle tension by definition has decreased at any point in the rep where acceleration decreases. However, muscle tension may be higher later in a rep where initial muscle tension (and therefore acceleration) is low. For a fast, early in the set rep, muscle tension peaks early, and drops in the later part of the rep as the net acceleration becomes negative. For example, for a fast rep, gross force might be massx1.2xgravity (m1.2g) early in the rep, m0.81g later in the rep, and then m1g at lockout. For a grindy rep, gross force is very close to m1g throughout, and if it drops below m1g for any significant time or distance the rep is failed. Hanley has actual values for these forces from acceleration data, I would welcome more accurate numbers.

^ very well put. And accurate, I think.

I have a tendo unit. I'm not sure the data is terribly useful or supportive of any position really. That said, -- on bench today -- I did 25 reps in sets of 2-4 @ 315 with peak force ranging from 1684N to 1797N (1.2-1.28mg?**) with no significant loss of force in any given set (the low peak-force reps felt like mis-grooves). If I start seeing a bunch of reps at/below 90% of my highest peak-force, I move on to another movement. *shrug*.

Edit: everything was below RPE 7.

I think my triceps probably were under-stimulated. Meh.

** It's curious to note that this transient peak force is probably just shy of my 1RM right now (1.28-1.29 x workload).

[Zak]

"Neuroplasticity loves a non-negotiable contract." -Andrew Huberman

Say what you will about the guy, there is plenty to criticize, but this is an awesome quote. I believe, but can't prove, that for most lifters, having too many choices in programming is unhelpful. Having something simple, hard-coded, and challenging frees you to just attack and allows your brain to do all the subconscious shit required to get stronger instead of tying it up making decisions in and around the training day.

With all we "know" at this point about exercise physiology, biomechanics, different training approaches, etc., you'd think it would be pretty straightforward for a guy to get from a 315 squat to a 500 squat in 2-3 years, but almost NO ONE actually does it, even among people for whom training is a top 2 or 3 priority in their life.

I have seen some of the dumbest motherfuckers you will ever meet, with no obvious genetic gifts, make pretty staggering progress on 5/3/1 or old school linear periodization-type programs because they didn't know it wasn't supposed to work. They hit whatever number was on their sheet and wasted no time thinking about programming or making in-session decisions. They attacked the bar like it was responsible for all the heartbreak and disappointment in their lives. This worked well.

I think most people who cannot say without a doubt that they are highly advanced lifters, (i.e., very near their genetic ceiling for strength,) should take a basic 5/3/1 program or similar that requires no thought or decision-making on their part and attack that for at least half a year. The BBB thread above motivated this line of thinking. I don't love the idea of 5x10 deadlifts at this point (I have done the BBB training extensively in my past,) but still I think that program or something very like it is 1000000 times better than what most people are doing.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

"Neuroplasticity loves a non-negotiable contract." -Andrew Huberman
Say what you will about the guy, there is plenty to criticize, but this is an awesome quote. I believe, but can't prove, that for most lifters, having too many choices in programming is unhelpful. Having something simple, hard-coded, and challenging frees you to just attack and allows your brain to do all the subconscious shit required to get stronger instead of tying it up making decisions in and around the training day.

I think this is a great point, and one of the reasons why I like percentage programs. There's a number on the excel and you have to hit that number. So there's no mental energy devoted to "what I am going to hit today ?". On top of that, if you're a moron like me who likes to overshoot, then percentages do not allow your inner meathead to just put more on the bar because reasons.

With all we "know" at this point about exercise physiology, biomechanics, different training approaches, etc., you'd think it would be pretty straightforward for a guy to get from a 315 squat to a 500 squat in 2-3 years, but almost NO ONE actually does it, even among people for whom training is a top 2 or 3 priority in their life.

I have seen some of the dumbest motherfuckers you will ever meet, with no obvious genetic gifts, make pretty staggering progress on 5/3/1 or old school linear periodization-type programs because they didn't know it wasn't supposed to work. They hit whatever number was on their sheet and wasted no time thinking about programming or making in-session decisions. They attacked the bar like it was responsible for all the heartbreak and disappointment in their lives. This worked well.

Then by this logic wouldn't everyone squat 500 after running Texas Method ? I mean it wouldn't work now because the internet is full of "all the reasons why TM cannot work", but back in the days where people believed that it was "the best intermediate program" (lol): lots of highly committed, kool aid drinking enthusiasts bought into it with the mentality that you have to follow the spreadsheet, but then where are all the strong people ?

Now I agree with you that belief is very important for success: if you don't believe that you're going to get strong on your current program, you probably won't. Also that program "complexity" (I don't like that term because to me there are no complex program, at least if you can read and perform multiplication and division but I digress) is overrated compared to how you execute it: sleep, nutrition, training with intent etc. probably matter a lot more than most minutia discussed in your typical RTS podcast.

I think most people who cannot say without a doubt that they are highly advanced lifters, (i.e., very near their genetic ceiling for strength,) should take a basic 5/3/1 program or similar that requires no thought or decision-making on their part and attack that for at least half a year. The BBB thread above motivated this line of thinking. I don't love the idea of 5x10 deadlifts at this point (I have done the BBB training extensively in my past,) but still I think that program or something very like it is 1000000 times better than what most people are doing.

Most people as in most people on this forum or most people in a commercial gym ? Now i'm kind of curious about what you think about my program ...

[Zak]

Then by this logic wouldn't everyone squat 500 after running Texas Method ? I mean it wouldn't work now because the internet is full of "all the reasons why TM cannot work", but back in the days where people believed that it was "the best intermediate program" (lol): lots of highly committed, kool aid drinking enthusiasts bought into it with the mentality that you have to follow the spreadsheet, but then where are all the strong people ?

Now I agree with you that belief is very important for success: if you don't believe that you're going to get strong on your current program, you probably won't. Also that program "complexity" (I don't like that term because to me there are no complex program, at least if you can read and perform multiplication and division but I digress) is overrated compared to how you execute it: sleep, nutrition, training with intent etc. probably matter a lot more than most minutia discussed in your typical RTS podcast.
...

Idk, before I knew better I gave my wife a very Texas Method-esque program and in less than a year she went from barely squatting and benching 100 lbs to squatting 225, benching 165 and deadlifting 315 weighing like 125. She could give two shits about programming or training theory, she'd get annoyed if I didn't prescribe exact weights for everything. She just did exactly what was on her sheet.

For my part, some of my best progress came from the BBB program. Like stupid good progress. Don't recall exact numbers but it was something like going from a 275x8 squat to 325x12 in a couple months gaining no more than a couple pounds and ending up leaner. Pressing and squatting in particular just exploded doing that - each lift once a week, hit a huge PR set then 5x10 with whatever. The 5x10 gets obnoxious after awhile and as you might guess did not work great for deadlifts.

Regarding why that worked, I think a program like that that you look at and just say "FUCK" makes you actually do the little things better. Like if you're not eating enough, staying hydrated, going to bed on time, keeping stress down, focusing on/visualizing the training day, simply completing the training becomes so miserable as to be more or less impossible. So instead of trying to mold the training to your unique physiology and psychology as is so in vogue these days, you mold yourself to the ridiculous demands of the program and thereby actually check the out-of-the-gym boxes that matter.