The BBM general model

[Manveer]

Regarding that lame graphic, what causes the second inflection point on the training complexity curve?

Further, why is this curve smooth? It’s necessarily step. Oh, I know why. Someone doesn’t understand uniform continuity. Where can one learn a brief introduction to functions that display uniform continuity?

Also, the rate of adaptation curve is bullshit. That’s just the derivative of the strength performance curve. It’s a “rate of strength acquisition” curve which is not necessarily a rate of adaptation, at least physiologically speaking.

I have wondered all of these things. 🧡

[stevan]

Regarding that lame graphic, what causes the second inflection point on the training complexity curve?

Further, why is this curve smooth? It’s necessarily step. Oh, I know why. Someone doesn’t understand uniform continuity. Where can one learn a brief introduction to functions that display uniform continuity?

Also, the rate of adaptation curve is bullshit. That’s just the derivative of the strength performance curve. It’s a “rate of strength acquisition” curve which is not necessarily a rate of adaptation, at least physiologically speaking.

You get older or to the point where you can get 0.2 pounds of muscle a year. Is it worth it for you to keep pushing with the exercise variety, developmental blocks and whatnot or hyper-specify and increase training frequency? Until then your training becomes more complex because you're trying to find out what works. Also, I see only 1 inflection point?

Rate of adaptation is just an observation every lifter sees. Adding muscle or weight on the bar or any thing you specify in is going to be harder year to year until you get older and die. But yeah, it seems like you only disagree on semantics.

[convergentsum]

Regarding that lame graphic, what causes the second inflection point on the training complexity curve?

Further, why is this curve smooth? It’s necessarily step. Oh, I know why. Someone doesn’t understand uniform continuity. Where can one learn a brief introduction to functions that display uniform continuity?

I see what you're doing, but it's just a sketch. It couldn't be anything else, because complexity is not well defined.

[chrisd]

- we still cant measure fatigue and strength adaptations on a physiiological level very well. Only by measuring strength - which unfortunately is on a practical time scale during training ...masked by fatigue. Or fatigue ...which is masked by the onset of strength adaptations (see the 2-factor-model of adaptation).

There is the heart rate measurement thing as used by RTS

I have also seen it suggested, on YouTube, possible by Jeff Cavaliere, that grip strength is a good indicator of fatigue state.

Relative grip strength, as opposed to absolute.

Take a set of old style spring bathroom scales, grip in the hands and squeeze. Note the reading.

Check the reading you can produce on training days and take a reduction as an indicator of fatigue.

This does assume many things, but does have the advantage of not depending on workout performance as a fatigue indicator.

I wonder where we could find a group of free thinking people who train regularly who might want to compare this method with the heart rate system on RTS

[perman]

Fatigue metrics?

I don't see why the tap test died out... That was the funniest dick measuring contest I've ever seen. Or is TRAC superior @Manveer?

[mgil]

Regarding that lame graphic, what causes the second inflection point on the training complexity curve?

Further, why is this curve smooth? It’s necessarily step. Oh, I know why. Someone doesn’t understand uniform continuity. Where can one learn a brief introduction to functions that display uniform continuity?

Also, the rate of adaptation curve is bullshit. That’s just the derivative of the strength performance curve. It’s a “rate of strength acquisition” curve which is not necessarily a rate of adaptation, at least physiologically speaking.

You get older or to the point where you can get 0.2 pounds of muscle a year. Is it worth it for you to keep pushing with the exercise variety, developmental blocks and whatnot or hyper-specify and increase training frequency? Until then your training becomes more complex because you're trying to find out what works. Also, I see only 1 inflection point?

Rate of adaptation is just an observation every lifter sees. Adding muscle or weight on the bar or any thing you specify in is going to be harder year to year until you get older and die. But yeah, it seems like you only disagree on semantics.

The semantics matter, I believe, if we’re going to find root causes.

Here are the two inflections I see:

[Manveer]

- we still cant measure fatigue and strength adaptations on a physiiological level very well. Only by measuring strength - which unfortunately is on a practical time scale during training ...masked by fatigue. Or fatigue ...which is masked by the onset of strength adaptations (see the 2-factor-model of adaptation).

There is the heart rate measurement thing as used by RTS

I have also seen it suggested, on YouTube, possible by Jeff Cavaliere, that grip strength is a good indicator of fatigue state.

Relative grip strength, as opposed to absolute.

Take a set of old style spring bathroom scales, grip in the hands and squeeze. Note the reading.

Check the reading you can produce on training days and take a reduction as an indicator of fatigue.

This does assume many things, but does have the advantage of not depending on workout performance as a fatigue indicator.

I wonder where we could find a group of free thinking people who train regularly who might want to compare this method with the heart rate system on RTS

RTS doesn’t really use heart rate. Mike’s own advice is to skip the HR test. It’s a subjective questionnaire in TRAC.

[mgil]

Regarding that lame graphic, what causes the second inflection point on the training complexity curve?

Further, why is this curve smooth? It’s necessarily step. Oh, I know why. Someone doesn’t understand uniform continuity. Where can one learn a brief introduction to functions that display uniform continuity?

I see what you're doing, but it's just a sketch. It couldn't be anything else, because complexity is not well defined.

Agreed absolutely.

I’m basically hung up on the bullshit curve for training complexity. One could separate some terms, say programming “complexity” and lift selection and plot those separately.

Problem is that these things are not even close to general descriptions of the data. Some folks thrive on specificity and do “complex” programming schemes, some thrive on rotating lift selection and accessories but can LP those through some lift cycling, and some use a mixture of both. Basically plotting that curve is just confusing when confronted with reality.

[stevan]

The semantics matter, I believe, if we’re going to find root causes.

Here are the two inflections I see:

The way you get to the strongest, biggest version of yourself is likely through that curve (unless you do TM) if we assume you're doing everything right. You can add 250 pounds to your squat in the first year but the progress in the 2nd year will be drastically attenuated. You are getting exponentially resistant to training so your progress is logarithmic, all things being equal.

The way we defined inflection points is when a function goes from concave to convex or vice versa.

[Hanley]

I’m basically hung up on the bullshit curve for training complexity

I think it's simply a from-the-ass sketch that gives a meaningless veneer of sophistication (ala beardsley),

But these curves -- and their faux-rates -- present a wonderful opportunity for parody.

[Hanley]

The way we defined inflection points is when a function goes from concave to convex or vice versa.

That's exactly what he circled.

#AinCalcI

[stevan]

The way we defined inflection points is when a function goes from concave to convex or vice versa.

That's exactly what he circled.

#AinCalcI

mgil circled the green ones. Maybe it's time to refresh your calc skills.

[Hanley]

The way we defined inflection points is when a function goes from concave to convex or vice versa.

That's exactly what he circled.

#AinCalcI

mgil circled the green ones. Maybe it's time to refresh your calc skills.

Oh snap. You're right. The inflection point is around year 3.

[stevan]

If I were to draw The Curve it would be something like this:

[Hanley]

If I were to draw The Curve it would be something like this:

You've underestimated how long patellar tendinitis can derail Teh Gains

[mgil]

The semantics matter, I believe, if we’re going to find root causes.

Here are the two inflections I see:

The way you get to the strongest, biggest version of yourself is likely through that curve (unless you do TM) if we assume you're doing everything right. You can add 250 pounds to your squat in the first year but the progress in the 2nd year will be drastically attenuated. You are getting exponentially resistant to training so your progress is logarithmic, all things being equal.

The way we defined inflection points is when a function goes from concave to convex or vice versa.

Dammit.

Okay, so the training complexity curve can be approximated as a CDF. Take its derivative and you have a Gaussian PDF (approximately). Take another derivative and those points I circled are critical points where the second derivative is stationary, that is, the rate of change has changed.

I’m old. Give me a break.

What’s your best OHP?

[mgil]

Also, since @JordanFeigenbaum was live on instagram, I asked the question about training necessarily increasing during a lifter’s career. He argued that it shouldn’t and furthermore that novices might do better being exposed to more movements early on for learning movement patterns and then increasing specificity (decreasing complexity) over time.

Then he pointed out that when logs were culled that less than 2% of lifters were able to execute “the program” successfully. So the evidence doesn’t reinforce (even after selection bias) that simplicity is best.

[Hanley]

Then he pointed out that when logs were culled that less than 2% of lifters were able to execute “the program” successfully. So the evidence doesn’t reinforce (even after selection bias) that simplicity is best.

Interesting & terribly astute point.

[Manveer]

Then he pointed out that when logs were culled that less than 2% of lifters were able to execute “the program” successfully. So the evidence doesn’t reinforce (even after selection bias) that simplicity is best.

Interesting & terribly astute point.

FTFY

[stevan]

You've underestimated how long patellar tendinitis can derail Teh Gains

Sometimes, I don't get you. Is this a Rip joke? Sorry Im kinda new.

@mgil I'm weak. 130x4x5 my last session.

I wonder what Jordan means when he says that. Does that general development include paused and tempo squats?