Stupid Questions Thread

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

I think the best and most important part of Jordan's response is the fact that people should stop thinking about "effective reps" because it's just not a thing.

More generally there are just so many problems with those "scientific" hypertrophy reccomendations that I think that one is better off just ignoring them altogether:

- the notion of failure itself is ill-defined: is RIR with respect to volitional failure ? postural failure ? actual failure ? For some exercises, change the notion of failure and 0-2 RIR (lots of effective reps !) could become 5-7 RIR (no effective reps ! oh noes !)
- the notion of a set for high reps does not make sense: if I pause 5 seconds between each reps am I still doing 1 set ? what about 10 seconds ? what about 20 seconds ? That could be the difference between 0 RIR and 10 RIR. The whole idea of the super squats program is basically this.
- for high rep sets with low weight close to failure how do you actually estimate RIR ? For low rep sets with high weight (you know, the kind of situation that RIR was actually developed for), RIR is highly correlated with bar speed decay, and experienced powerlifters can undoutably rate RIRs accurately in this setting (even better with a tendo unit and a camera). But for sets of 10 reps with 5 RIR how accurate do you think your rating is going to be ? I don't know.
- for a natural dude who's been training for a long time (the kind of population you probably actually care about), you'd be lucky if you gain 1-2 kgs of actual muscle over an entire year, and that's if you're actually doing things right. Who's going to follow a bunch of lifting bros for 1 year meticulously with a fixed program and then check whether or not they have put on about 1-2% of their bodyweight in actual muscle ?
- also remember that measuring muscle growth accurately is not easy (the most accurate method is cadaver dissection, which is of course out of the question.

And on and on and on.

If you want to make your muscles larger lift heavy things many times while eating enough food. As silly as it sounds it's probably a good recommendation, and it's supported by all available evidence.

[dw]

Hardartery is describing the effective reps theory above (where the reps before RPE 5 or whatever are in themselves worthless for hypertrophy).

You correctly identify a contradiction in your post quoting Jordan above. 4x15 should be more hypertrophically stimulating than 6x10, in both cases using your 20 RM weight, assuming we believe in the metabolic stress threshold for maximum stimulus (and we do).

[dw]

@CheekiBreekiFitness

I think ExSci research, at least in the filtered form I receive it through podcast gurus, is useful for giving you ideas to test in your own training. Especially ideas that seem counterintuitive.

I've switched over to relatively low RPE hypertrophy training and I think the results have been superior to what I was doing before. I've also been influenced in exercise selection by some things Greg Nuckols has said about working through a stretched muscle length.

[Hardartery]

Yeah, that's what my point above was, which goes hand in hand with the effective reps theory. However, this part from Jordan contradicts that:

Poster: So, like, 4x15 with 5RIR/at 20RM vs. 6x10 with 10RIR/at 20RM -- intensity and total volume are equal; what differs is proximity to failure of the sets...

Jordan: For your example, all the reps are equally as effective for hypertrophy, provided some threshold of fatigue products, tension, etc. are generated. There are likely other mechanisms we don't know about as well.

FWIW, I don't think there would be a difference in hypertrophy between those two products.

I don't understand how reps at 10RIR or easier can be as effective, or frankly, effective at all, as reps at 5RIR, and also how in the same thread he can say sets need to get to 4-5 RIR to get a hypertrophy stimulus.

Then there is this part, which @ChasingCurls69 was mentioning in terms of effectiveness vs proximity to failure:

Poster: My belief was based on the notion that all reps at ~70% 1RM or higher cause more or less equal motor unit recruitment, from pretty much the first rep in the set onward. Perhaps that part is true, but from what I've recently read it still seems as if ~4-5 RIR is best for hypertrophy.

Jordan: It's not that it's best, it's just likely equivalent to going to failure, but without the cost of doing so.

This part might mean different things. If Jordan means a single rep at RIR 4-5 is as effective as a single rep at 0-2 RIR, then that's reasonable. However, if he means a set done at 4-5 RIR is equivalent to a set done to 0-2 RIR from a hypertrophy stimulus standpoint, then that makes no sense to me.

I felt like Jordan simply ignored the 10 RIR part, as it didn't appear anywhere else in the thread and he didn't say anything specific about it. Like he didn't look closely enough to see that divergent RIR. I might be wrong there, but that was my take when I read the thread. I thinkg he is saying that the reps from 5 RIR to 0-2 RIR are all equal in effect, but again that may be me deciding that's what he said and not what he meant. I think that 10 RIR is obviously not useful, and I also believe that from the hypertrophy standpoint that it is not quite as good as going to failure. But the difference may be marginal. This may in fact be different than BBM's opinion.

[DCR]

@CheekiBreekiFitness

I think ExSci research, at least in the filtered form I receive it through podcast gurus, is useful for giving you ideas to test in your own training. Especially ideas that seem counterintuitive.

I've switched over to relatively low RPE hypertrophy training and I think the results have been superior to what I was doing before. I've also been influenced in exercise selection by some things Greg Nuckols has said about working through a stretched muscle length.

I was going to say something similar. The fact that determining what are and are not effective reps can be more than a bit squirrely is not the same as effective reps not being a thing, or that it’s not worth an effort at determining what they are in one’s training.

That said, yes, just lifting heavy weights a lot of times (h/t Dan John) has worked for a lot of people.

[janoycresva]

- for high rep sets with low weight close to failure how do you actually estimate RIR ? For low rep sets with high weight (you know, the kind of situation that RIR was actually developed for), RIR is highly correlated with bar speed decay, and experienced powerlifters can undoutably rate RIRs accurately in this setting (even better with a tendo unit and a camera). But for sets of 10 reps with 5 RIR how accurate do you think your rating is going to be ? I don't know.

Anytime I see a low-ish RPE prescribed for high reps (especially for exercises where waiting between reps and contemplating life will allow you to squeeze another few reps) I just write that part of the program off entirely tbh, shit makes no sense to me.

Also I think any real answer about high RIR vs low RIR being superior for hypertrophy would probably need to follow lifters for multiple years. I imagine the injury risk associated with low RIR sets is significantly larger on a per-set basis, so maybe even if a low RIR set is more stimulative in the moment things would average out once injury rates were factored in.

[OverheadDeadlifts]

Does training your grip have upside, besides closing grippers? Kinda want to jump in, but I’m afraid of hurting my hands and not being able to play instruments and whatnot. Note that playing instruments is kind of in my dayjob description.

For sure. BJJ, bouldering, ninja warrior, doing pull-ups in odd places, carrying things in general, turning twisty things that are stuck. Basically anything where you have to haul your body weight around or haul someone/something else around is helped by strong grip. Jacked forearms are the biggest upside of course.

@dw I have the bench setup behind me and walk the bar back over it rather than starting with the bench under me. I don’t want the bar anywhere near the uprights because hitting them on the way down would really suck.

[quikky]

The fact that determining what are and are not effective reps can be more than a bit squirrely is not the same as effective reps not being a thing, or that it’s not worth an effort at determining what they are in one’s training.

+1.

I imagine the injury risk associated with low RIR sets is significantly larger on a per-set basis, so maybe even if a low RIR set is more stimulative in the moment things would average out once injury rates were factored in.

I think injury risk largely comes from poor fatigue management, and not from training intensity. On lifts like squats and deads, intensity is almost always submaximal simply because of the fatigue aspects. You cannot train many sets across on squats at RPE 9+ productively on a regular basis unless you're an idiot doing classic Texas Method. On most other movements, going to failure is perfectly safe provided recovery and overall sessions are structured appropriately.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@dw @DCR Oh, I completely agree with you guys that research in ExPhys is both useful and necessary. My main gripe is with the overconcluding that often happens, especially after the studies are regurgitated by fitness industry people i.e. saying things like "oh we've done the studies, and we know that for hypertrophy you should train between 3 and 0 RIR" when those studies just have so many shortcomings and limitations that everything should come with a list of 50 caveats. The problem with overconcluding is that it limits your horizon. For instance say you become interested in trying HVLF stuff, but then you listen to some podcast by some dude who read a bunch of studies and convinces you that if you don't train between 3 and 0 RIR you"re just not going to get bigger because science. This kind of situation is not desirable.

Now I'm a bit more cynical with how research can inspire new ways of training, in the sense that most of the time hypertrophy research does not involve new ideas, it mostly involves testing things that have been known to work for several decades by broscientists (like it's nice to know that stretching under load and metabolic strees are important hypertrophic stimulus, but Vince Gironda knew that in the 50's) . I'm not saying it's useless (it's always reassuring to know that the broscience can actually somehow be verified using a scientific methodology) but I don't think the researchers are innovating, it's the bros who are innovating.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

The fact that determining what are and are not effective reps can be more than a bit squirrely is not the same as effective reps not being a thing, or that it’s not worth an effort at determining what they are in one’s training.

+1.

I imagine the injury risk associated with low RIR sets is significantly larger on a per-set basis, so maybe even if a low RIR set is more stimulative in the moment things would average out once injury rates were factored in.

I think injury risk largely comes from poor fatigue management, and not from training intensity. On lifts like squats and deads, intensity is almost always submaximal simply because of the fatigue aspects. You cannot train many sets across on squats at RPE 9+ productively on a regular basis unless you're an idiot doing classic Texas Method. On most other movements, going to failure is perfectly safe provided recovery and overall sessions are structured appropriately.

I think the problem with the Texas Method is that you don't lift heavy weights many times.

[quikky]

The fact that determining what are and are not effective reps can be more than a bit squirrely is not the same as effective reps not being a thing, or that it’s not worth an effort at determining what they are in one’s training.

+1.

I imagine the injury risk associated with low RIR sets is significantly larger on a per-set basis, so maybe even if a low RIR set is more stimulative in the moment things would average out once injury rates were factored in.

I think injury risk largely comes from poor fatigue management, and not from training intensity. On lifts like squats and deads, intensity is almost always submaximal simply because of the fatigue aspects. You cannot train many sets across on squats at RPE 9+ productively on a regular basis unless you're an idiot doing classic Texas Method. On most other movements, going to failure is perfectly safe provided recovery and overall sessions are structured appropriately.

I think the problem with the Texas Method is that you don't lift heavy weights many times.

Not sure I follow.

[DCR]

@dw @DCR Oh, I completely agree with you guys that research in ExPhys is both useful and necessary. My main gripe is with the overconcluding that often happens, especially after the studies are regurgitated by fitness industry people i.e. saying things like "oh we've done the studies, and we know that for hypertrophy you should train between 3 and 0 RIR" when those studies just have so many shortcomings and limitations that everything should come with a list of 50 caveats. The problem with overconcluding is that it limits your horizon. For instance say you become interested in trying HVLF stuff, but then you listen to some podcast by some dude who read a bunch of studies and convinces you that if you don't train between 3 and 0 RIR you"re just not going to get bigger because science. This kind of situation is not desirable.

Now I'm a bit more cynical with how research can inspire new ways of training, in the sense that most of the time hypertrophy research does not involve new ideas, it mostly involves testing things that have been known to work for several decades by broscientists (like it's nice to know that stretching under load and metabolic strees are important hypertrophic stimulus, but Vince Gironda knew that in the 50's) . I'm not saying it's useless (it's always reassuring to know that the broscience can actually somehow be verified using a scientific methodology) but I don't think the researchers are innovating, it's the bros who are innovating.

By saying that I think effective reps are a thing to be explored, I wasn't necessarily supporting the application of ExPhys. I'm not against it where it's useful, but I am the firmest believer in broscience and broknowledge.

[mbasic]

I think the problem with the Texas Method is that you don't lift heavy weights many times.

Don't see it. Explain.

IIRC, Loads are typically 82% to 98% typically on the main lifts.

A 5RM (int.day) is around 87%.
5x1's (int.day) is probably 95%.
Volume day would be around 80-82% of 1RM for 5x5 or something like that.

[mbasic]

@dw @DCR Oh, I completely agree with you guys that research in ExPhys is both useful and necessary. My main gripe is with the overconcluding that often happens, especially after the studies are regurgitated by fitness industry people i.e. saying things like "oh we've done the studies, and we know that for hypertrophy you should train between 3 and 0 RIR" when those studies just have so many shortcomings and limitations that everything should come with a list of 50 caveats. The problem with overconcluding is that it limits your horizon. For instance say you become interested in trying HVLF stuff, but then you listen to some podcast by some dude who read a bunch of studies and convinces you that if you don't train between 3 and 0 RIR you"re just not going to get bigger because science. This kind of situation is not desirable.

Now I'm a bit more cynical with how research can inspire new ways of training, in the sense that most of the time hypertrophy research does not involve new ideas, it mostly involves testing things that have been known to work for several decades by broscientists (like it's nice to know that stretching under load and metabolic stress are important hypertrophic stimulus, but Vince Gironda knew that in the 50's) . I'm not saying it's useless (it's always reassuring to know that the broscience can actually somehow be verified using a scientific methodology) but I don't think the researchers are innovating, it's the bros who are innovating.

By saying that I think effective reps are a thing to be explored, I wasn't necessarily supporting the application of ExPhys. I'm not against it where it's useful, but I am the firmest believer in broscience and broknowledge.

Broscience was also wrong on (maybe alot) of stuff.

I think its quite understood now (thru "science") minimal rest periods over multiple sets, say 30 seconds and less .... "burnout" shit and whatnot, aren't nearly as effective as resting longer. TL;DR: you get incredibly tired, very fast, the loads get lowered to a point tension is very low.

Also, I thought it was pretty universally understood now that metabolic stress doesn't cause much hypertrophy at all.
("feel the burn" and/or "pumps"). If load and tension is high enough, sure. But metabolic type schemes, no.

[Hardartery]

@dw @DCR Oh, I completely agree with you guys that research in ExPhys is both useful and necessary. My main gripe is with the overconcluding that often happens, especially after the studies are regurgitated by fitness industry people i.e. saying things like "oh we've done the studies, and we know that for hypertrophy you should train between 3 and 0 RIR" when those studies just have so many shortcomings and limitations that everything should come with a list of 50 caveats. The problem with overconcluding is that it limits your horizon. For instance say you become interested in trying HVLF stuff, but then you listen to some podcast by some dude who read a bunch of studies and convinces you that if you don't train between 3 and 0 RIR you"re just not going to get bigger because science. This kind of situation is not desirable.

Now I'm a bit more cynical with how research can inspire new ways of training, in the sense that most of the time hypertrophy research does not involve new ideas, it mostly involves testing things that have been known to work for several decades by broscientists (like it's nice to know that stretching under load and metabolic strees are important hypertrophic stimulus, but Vince Gironda knew that in the 50's) . I'm not saying it's useless (it's always reassuring to know that the broscience can actually somehow be verified using a scientific methodology) but I don't think the researchers are innovating, it's the bros who are innovating.

This is the honest truth about all of the "Science" and research. The guys in the gym do things, and then the white coats do the study to see if they know what they're doing. There is certainly a ton of stupid Broscience stuff that is out there, but in there is also the "New thing" that works and simoly hasn't been bestowed the sanctimonious approval of Science. Science is fickle anyway, what's right this year will almost certainly be wrong soon enough, like RICE as an example.

[DCR]

@dw @DCR Oh, I completely agree with you guys that research in ExPhys is both useful and necessary. My main gripe is with the overconcluding that often happens, especially after the studies are regurgitated by fitness industry people i.e. saying things like "oh we've done the studies, and we know that for hypertrophy you should train between 3 and 0 RIR" when those studies just have so many shortcomings and limitations that everything should come with a list of 50 caveats. The problem with overconcluding is that it limits your horizon. For instance say you become interested in trying HVLF stuff, but then you listen to some podcast by some dude who read a bunch of studies and convinces you that if you don't train between 3 and 0 RIR you"re just not going to get bigger because science. This kind of situation is not desirable.

Now I'm a bit more cynical with how research can inspire new ways of training, in the sense that most of the time hypertrophy research does not involve new ideas, it mostly involves testing things that have been known to work for several decades by broscientists (like it's nice to know that stretching under load and metabolic stress are important hypertrophic stimulus, but Vince Gironda knew that in the 50's) . I'm not saying it's useless (it's always reassuring to know that the broscience can actually somehow be verified using a scientific methodology) but I don't think the researchers are innovating, it's the bros who are innovating.

By saying that I think effective reps are a thing to be explored, I wasn't necessarily supporting the application of ExPhys. I'm not against it where it's useful, but I am the firmest believer in broscience and broknowledge.

Broscience was also wrong on (maybe alot) of stuff.

I think its quite understood now (thru "science") minimal rest periods over multiple sets, say 30 seconds and less .... "burnout" shit and whatnot, aren't nearly as effective as resting longer. TL;DR: you get incredibly tired, very fast, the loads get lowered to a point tension is very low.

Also, I thought it was pretty universally understood now that metabolic stress doesn't cause much hypertrophy at all.
("feel the burn" and/or "pumps"). If load and tension is high enough, sure. But metabolic type schemes, no.

Well yeah, I could name a host of bro shit that’s questionable to be generous, but on the whole when it comes to the getting swole, I’m generally good with experience over “science.”

That said, the particular example that you provided needs some context. What you’ve got there could as easily describe a volume routine out of Flex circa 1999, or a rest pause set up.

[Hanley]

I think the best and most important part of Jordan's response is the fact that people should stop thinking about "effective reps" because it's just not a thing.

More generally there are just so many problems with those "scientific" hypertrophy reccomendations that I think that one is better off just ignoring them altogether

Strong emphasis on the scare quotes around scientific. The "effective reps" theory was just a fitness biz influencer pulling a somewhat internally consistent explanation out of his ass.

I still find it ridiculous that anyone thinks a rep at 70% of max absent fatigue is "too fast" and therefore compromises cross-bridging (which - in turn - compromises hypertrophy). My 70% bench is something like 10% max contractile velocity of my "bench".

Also, the motor unit recruitment/derecruitment model of "effective reps" is just...made up.

[xuerebx]

I think the best and most important part of Jordan's response is the fact that people should stop thinking about "effective reps" because it's just not a thing.

More generally there are just so many problems with those "scientific" hypertrophy reccomendations that I think that one is better off just ignoring them altogether

Strong emphasis on the scare quotes around scientific. The "effective reps" theory was just a fitness biz influencer pulling a somewhat internally consistent explanation out of his ass.

I still find it ridiculous that anyone thinks a rep at 70% of max absent fatigue is "too fast" and therefore compromises cross-bridging (which - in turn - compromises hypertrophy). My 70% bench is something like 10% max contractile velocity of my "bench".

Also, the motor unit recruitment/derecruitment model of "effective reps" is just...made up.

I assume you're referring to Chris Beardsley? I read his book (Hypertrophy: Muscle fiber growth caused by mechanical tension) which introduces and explains the concepts you outlined. The thing is, to a non-science person like myself, his explanations made sense to me (that is, where I managed to understand). I think I should just stick to Greg and both Erics

[olekto]

I think the problem with the Texas Method is that you don't lift heavy weights many times.

Don't see it. Explain.

IIRC, Loads are typically 82% to 98% typically on the main lifts.

A 5RM (int.day) is around 87%.
5x1's (int.day) is probably 95%.
Volume day would be around 80-82% of 1RM for 5x5 or something like that.

You'll lift a heavy weight few times, and not many with Texas Method.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@dw @DCR Oh, I completely agree with you guys that research in ExPhys is both useful and necessary. My main gripe is with the overconcluding that often happens, especially after the studies are regurgitated by fitness industry people i.e. saying things like "oh we've done the studies, and we know that for hypertrophy you should train between 3 and 0 RIR" when those studies just have so many shortcomings and limitations that everything should come with a list of 50 caveats. The problem with overconcluding is that it limits your horizon. For instance say you become interested in trying HVLF stuff, but then you listen to some podcast by some dude who read a bunch of studies and convinces you that if you don't train between 3 and 0 RIR you"re just not going to get bigger because science. This kind of situation is not desirable.

Now I'm a bit more cynical with how research can inspire new ways of training, in the sense that most of the time hypertrophy research does not involve new ideas, it mostly involves testing things that have been known to work for several decades by broscientists (like it's nice to know that stretching under load and metabolic stress are important hypertrophic stimulus, but Vince Gironda knew that in the 50's) . I'm not saying it's useless (it's always reassuring to know that the broscience can actually somehow be verified using a scientific methodology) but I don't think the researchers are innovating, it's the bros who are innovating.

By saying that I think effective reps are a thing to be explored, I wasn't necessarily supporting the application of ExPhys. I'm not against it where it's useful, but I am the firmest believer in broscience and broknowledge.

Broscience was also wrong on (maybe alot) of stuff.

I think its quite understood now (thru "science") minimal rest periods over multiple sets, say 30 seconds and less .... "burnout" shit and whatnot, aren't nearly as effective as resting longer. TL;DR: you get incredibly tired, very fast, the loads get lowered to a point tension is very low.

Also, I thought it was pretty universally understood now that metabolic stress doesn't cause much hypertrophy at all.
("feel the burn" and/or "pumps"). If load and tension is high enough, sure. But metabolic type schemes, no.

What I meant by metabolic stress was the accumulation of waste products that happens when you do high reps set. I might be wrong but I thought that the the science dudes believed it to be one of the hypertrophy factors (the most important factor being, of course, mechanical tension). For instance Mike Israetel's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcru4GZFZGM talks about this.