WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.750 --> 00:00:01.998
All right.
2
00:00:01.998 --> 00:00:05.700
So when we talk about volume of stimulus
3
00:00:05.700 --> 00:00:09.060
and the impacts of increasing specific variables,
4
00:00:09.060 --> 00:00:11.730
so let's say like in week one,
5
00:00:11.730 --> 00:00:14.730
we have someone do three sets of eight at two RIR
6
00:00:14.730 --> 00:00:16.620
and 150 pounds,
7
00:00:16.620 --> 00:00:18.480
they end up using about 150 pounds.
8
00:00:18.480 --> 00:00:21.390
And if you do some math based on that chart,
9
00:00:21.390 --> 00:00:24.580
that would result in an estimated one RM
10
00:00:25.595 --> 00:00:26.895
of around like 205 pounds.
11
00:00:27.780 --> 00:00:28.860
So in scenario one,
12
00:00:28.860 --> 00:00:30.660
let's say minimal to no adaptations
13
00:00:30.660 --> 00:00:32.160
have occurred before the next session,
14
00:00:32.160 --> 00:00:34.560
whether that be due to recovery,
15
00:00:34.560 --> 00:00:39.560
whether that be due to really advanced training status,
16
00:00:39.630 --> 00:00:42.947
where it's minimal amounts of adaptations,
17
00:00:42.947 --> 00:00:46.560
we can see that in this case,
18
00:00:46.560 --> 00:00:50.043
increasing sets, increasing reps and increasing load,
19
00:00:51.270 --> 00:00:54.900
whereas for volume of work, increasing sets again
20
00:00:54.900 --> 00:00:57.940
is gonna result in the greatest amount of tonnage.
21
00:01:01.080 --> 00:01:06.080
But it's going to, regardless of approach you take here,
22
00:01:06.810 --> 00:01:09.180
if we're using the effective reps model,
23
00:01:09.180 --> 00:01:12.121
you're gonna have similar amounts of effective reps,
24
00:01:12.121 --> 00:01:17.121
whether you increase sets, reps or load.
25
00:01:17.280 --> 00:01:19.320
If we're looking at hard sets,
26
00:01:19.320 --> 00:01:22.080
obviously this increase in sets
27
00:01:22.080 --> 00:01:25.563
is going to be greater than, four is greater than three.
28
00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:28.980
So there's no perfect way.
29
00:01:28.980 --> 00:01:31.380
Like, I guess there's (indistinct) there's drawbacks
30
00:01:31.380 --> 00:01:33.423
to any of these.
31
00:01:34.890 --> 00:01:38.910
And if you're looking at it on a rep to rep basis,
32
00:01:38.910 --> 00:01:40.650
so the effective reps model,
33
00:01:40.650 --> 00:01:43.216
you can get to the same outcome
34
00:01:43.216 --> 00:01:47.310
with all three approaches or very close to it.
35
00:01:47.310 --> 00:01:49.803
So let's say in scenario two,
36
00:01:50.790 --> 00:01:54.210
the estimated one RM increased to 210 pounds
37
00:01:54.210 --> 00:01:55.620
before the next session.
38
00:01:55.620 --> 00:01:58.320
So, these sets of eight
39
00:01:58.320 --> 00:02:00.170
are gonna be a little bit easier now,
40
00:02:03.080 --> 00:02:04.560
if they're using the same load
41
00:02:04.560 --> 00:02:07.923
and result in about eight to nine effective reps,
42
00:02:08.970 --> 00:02:13.970
increase in reps, they're gonna be performing those reps
43
00:02:16.080 --> 00:02:18.363
but it's gonna be two RIR,
44
00:02:20.730 --> 00:02:22.830
basically the same proximity to failures
45
00:02:22.830 --> 00:02:24.720
as they were before, because they're now stronger
46
00:02:24.720 --> 00:02:26.820
and they're able to do an additional rep.
47
00:02:26.820 --> 00:02:29.880
Increase in load, again,
48
00:02:29.880 --> 00:02:33.690
is going to be about the same, nine effective reps.
49
00:02:33.690 --> 00:02:37.290
So because the proximity to failure is now further away,
50
00:02:37.290 --> 00:02:39.750
the effective reps are lower versus the above.
51
00:02:39.750 --> 00:02:44.750
So you can see here too, for all intents and purposes,
52
00:02:44.790 --> 00:02:46.830
like effective reps are...
53
00:02:46.830 --> 00:02:49.000
The same relationship applies
54
00:02:51.180 --> 00:02:56.180
where there's a disparity between the tonnage,
55
00:02:56.460 --> 00:03:01.460
the volume of stimulus of using it for using effective reps,
56
00:03:02.250 --> 00:03:03.750
as well as the number of sets.
57
00:03:03.750 --> 00:03:06.990
So main takeaway is the same relationship
58
00:03:06.990 --> 00:03:10.920
for the variable for volume of work, adjusting one variable,
59
00:03:10.920 --> 00:03:14.471
it doesn't directly apply to volume of stimulus.
60
00:03:14.471 --> 00:03:17.790
And I think if anything, that's a good thing,
61
00:03:17.790 --> 00:03:20.730
because we know you can reach similar outcomes
62
00:03:20.730 --> 00:03:24.000
with a variety of different progression models
63
00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:26.790
based on the context of the exercise that you're performing.
64
00:03:26.790 --> 00:03:29.590
So, if increasing load
65
00:03:31.320 --> 00:03:35.760
caused a drastically larger increase in effective reps,
66
00:03:35.760 --> 00:03:40.500
then people may lean on that approach over the other two,
67
00:03:40.500 --> 00:03:42.060
and maybe it's not appropriate
68
00:03:42.060 --> 00:03:44.910
for something like a lateral raise or something.
69
00:03:44.910 --> 00:03:48.270
So, big thing is,
70
00:03:48.270 --> 00:03:50.070
I think when it comes to volume of stimulus,
71
00:03:50.070 --> 00:03:54.930
your progression of the variables, it's more forgiving
72
00:03:54.930 --> 00:03:57.630
in reaching the outcome that you're after
73
00:03:57.630 --> 00:04:00.933
than it is if you're talking about volume of work.
74
00:04:02.010 --> 00:04:05.160
Do you have anything additional there, Kas?
75
00:04:05.160 --> 00:04:06.367
Yeah.
76
00:04:06.367 --> 00:04:08.100
I mean, I think that the important thing,
77
00:04:08.100 --> 00:04:11.460
and I think I cover a bunch of these scenarios
78
00:04:11.460 --> 00:04:12.420
in the day two lectures as well,
79
00:04:12.420 --> 00:04:16.500
is that if you look at the efficiency
80
00:04:16.500 --> 00:04:18.360
you're seeing in this instance that,
81
00:04:18.360 --> 00:04:20.070
if we're looking at stimulus
82
00:04:20.070 --> 00:04:21.810
versus how much volume of work
83
00:04:21.810 --> 00:04:23.730
that you do on a tonnage basis
84
00:04:23.730 --> 00:04:24.720
is that you see like, okay,
85
00:04:24.720 --> 00:04:29.720
there's a big difference in the amount of tonnage
86
00:04:30.120 --> 00:04:32.220
you have to do to get that same stimulus.
87
00:04:32.220 --> 00:04:34.920
And if anybody's having kind of trouble comprehending this,
88
00:04:34.920 --> 00:04:38.040
I would say like the teaser to the algorithm
89
00:04:38.040 --> 00:04:38.880
that's going on here
90
00:04:38.880 --> 00:04:41.580
is that effective reps are basically
91
00:04:41.580 --> 00:04:45.300
sets times the RIR, right?
92
00:04:45.300 --> 00:04:49.530
And then tonnage is sets times reps times load.
93
00:04:49.530 --> 00:04:50.572
Right?
94
00:04:50.572 --> 00:04:51.405
So that's the thing
95
00:04:51.405 --> 00:04:52.290
that you're trying to balance out, right?
96
00:04:52.290 --> 00:04:55.770
Is you're trying to balance out sets a effort
97
00:04:55.770 --> 00:04:59.130
versus how do you maintain or progress that effort?
98
00:04:59.130 --> 00:05:03.390
Do you use reps, sets or do you use reps or load
99
00:05:03.390 --> 00:05:04.893
versus just adding sets?
100
00:05:06.300 --> 00:05:07.133
Good points.
101
00:05:07.133 --> 00:05:11.700
One thing you mentioned, Kas, in terms of people,
102
00:05:11.700 --> 00:05:13.866
if they're confused about this,
103
00:05:13.866 --> 00:05:15.690
that I just wanted to maybe clear up,
104
00:05:15.690 --> 00:05:18.480
like the number of sets times the RIR,
105
00:05:18.480 --> 00:05:22.230
that would technically not be effective reps,
106
00:05:22.230 --> 00:05:27.230
because if we're looking at it from like five RIR within,
107
00:05:30.030 --> 00:05:34.143
like a two RIR or a one RIR would be four effective reps.
108
00:05:39.540 --> 00:05:41.850
I understand the point you were trying to make,
109
00:05:41.850 --> 00:05:44.370
but technically, it is a little bit,
110
00:05:44.370 --> 00:05:46.440
like it can be misleading.
111
00:05:46.440 --> 00:05:49.146
It's sort of the opposite of that to some degree.
112
00:05:49.146 --> 00:05:50.696
You have to inverse the RIR.
113
00:05:50.696 --> 00:05:51.667
Yeah, yeah.
114
00:05:51.667 --> 00:05:53.850
So it's to do it as a physical math thing, right?
115
00:05:53.850 --> 00:05:54.683
Yeah.
116
00:05:54.683 --> 00:05:56.642
And the goal here isn't...
117
00:05:56.642 --> 00:05:58.140
And I mean we joked this before,
118
00:05:58.140 --> 00:05:59.400
like the goal here is not
119
00:05:59.400 --> 00:06:02.460
for people to be bringing calculators into the gym,
120
00:06:02.460 --> 00:06:03.960
trying to manage their stimulus.
121
00:06:03.960 --> 00:06:06.396
Like understand the concept here
122
00:06:06.396 --> 00:06:09.450
and how manipulating these training variables
123
00:06:09.450 --> 00:06:12.660
steers your volume of stimulus for better or worse,
124
00:06:12.660 --> 00:06:13.680
or maybe not much at all.
125
00:06:13.680 --> 00:06:18.680
Like in this case, it may make a negligible difference.
126
00:06:21.535 --> 00:06:25.380
So conceptually, effective reps is sets times effort,
127
00:06:25.380 --> 00:06:26.580
is probably a better way.
128
00:06:26.580 --> 00:06:28.110
That's probably a good way to put.
129
00:06:28.110 --> 00:06:29.790
Right.
Yeah, right.
130
00:06:29.790 --> 00:06:33.210
So we're using the RIR to get a number out of it,
131
00:06:33.210 --> 00:06:36.182
but it says times effort, right?
132
00:06:36.182 --> 00:06:38.670
I mean, that's probably the best way to think about it.
133
00:06:38.670 --> 00:06:42.300
I think people, when they come
134
00:06:42.300 --> 00:06:44.160
from a background of using tonnage,
135
00:06:44.160 --> 00:06:47.730
people want like a firm calculation of how to like,
136
00:06:47.730 --> 00:06:48.690
okay, I need this to...
137
00:06:48.690 --> 00:06:50.370
And I think part of that is just,
138
00:06:50.370 --> 00:06:52.720
can be the personality trait of the individual,
139
00:06:53.580 --> 00:06:56.408
or like, how do I graph this on a spreadsheet?
140
00:06:56.408 --> 00:06:58.710
It's like if you're a coach, and you don't have to,
141
00:06:58.710 --> 00:07:01.900
like understand the direction that you're going
142
00:07:02.940 --> 00:07:04.710
and how these relationships work
143
00:07:04.710 --> 00:07:07.100
and you don't need like the fancy...
144
00:07:08.255 --> 00:07:11.223
You don't need to track things down to the pound.
145
00:07:12.900 --> 00:07:16.110
And it's kind of like tracking macros for people,
146
00:07:16.110 --> 00:07:18.090
it's like hitting macros right on the head,
147
00:07:18.090 --> 00:07:20.460
or it's like, okay, well, you realize there's a range here
148
00:07:20.460 --> 00:07:24.363
you can fall within and still be steered towards your goals.
149
00:07:26.413 --> 00:07:29.023
Let's see, what else do we have here? Okay.
150
00:07:29.023 --> 00:07:31.240
So we talked about like efficiency
151
00:07:32.640 --> 00:07:37.640
and ultimately like the question becomes
152
00:07:38.100 --> 00:07:39.120
like should we always aim
153
00:07:39.120 --> 00:07:41.733
to maximize the stimulus to work ratio?
154
00:07:44.610 --> 00:07:47.850
And it's a similar concept, like return on investment.
155
00:07:47.850 --> 00:07:51.955
But in a practical sense, someone's investment
156
00:07:51.955 --> 00:07:55.920
extends beyond just the volume of work
157
00:07:55.920 --> 00:07:56.753
that they're performing.
158
00:07:56.753 --> 00:08:01.730
So, some of this can be related to prior injuries,
159
00:08:05.370 --> 00:08:07.380
time efficiency,
160
00:08:07.380 --> 00:08:08.730
but it needs to consider the goals,
161
00:08:08.730 --> 00:08:10.770
the residual effects and consequences
162
00:08:10.770 --> 00:08:13.590
and then the practicality of a protocol for given exercise,
163
00:08:13.590 --> 00:08:16.173
which I think is probably the biggest thing.
164
00:08:17.550 --> 00:08:20.160
And we know, like we discussed tire tonnage, volume of work.
165
00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:21.510
It doesn't necessarily mean
166
00:08:22.710 --> 00:08:25.380
there's a greater demand because you are doing more work.
167
00:08:25.380 --> 00:08:28.860
But when you look at the different elements of fatigue,
168
00:08:28.860 --> 00:08:30.030
it doesn't necessarily mean
169
00:08:30.030 --> 00:08:33.240
there's going to be a greater recovery debt
170
00:08:33.240 --> 00:08:34.740
on the physiological level.
171
00:08:34.740 --> 00:08:38.100
Like when you look at something like muscle damage,
172
00:08:38.100 --> 00:08:40.770
you can have a very high volume of work
173
00:08:40.770 --> 00:08:44.010
with it's very far from failure with each set
174
00:08:44.010 --> 00:08:47.250
and have minimal, if any muscle damage,
175
00:08:47.250 --> 00:08:50.193
whereas you can have a small amount of volume of work,
176
00:08:52.620 --> 00:08:54.000
with the right movement,
177
00:08:54.000 --> 00:08:57.330
push close to failure and have significantly more.
178
00:08:57.330 --> 00:08:58.320
So in and of itself,
179
00:08:58.320 --> 00:09:00.660
like it doesn't account for
180
00:09:00.660 --> 00:09:03.210
big drawback volume of work, tonnage,
181
00:09:03.210 --> 00:09:05.880
it doesn't account for proximity to failure.
182
00:09:05.880 --> 00:09:09.720
What it does do is gives you a decent idea
183
00:09:09.720 --> 00:09:14.400
of like expenditure, not necessarily quantifiable,
184
00:09:14.400 --> 00:09:17.610
but higher volumes of work are going to...
185
00:09:17.610 --> 00:09:19.683
You're gonna be burning more calories.
186
00:09:21.840 --> 00:09:24.930
So like, just as an example here,
187
00:09:24.930 --> 00:09:26.193
like lateral raises,
188
00:09:28.890 --> 00:09:32.151
not that you can't do sets of six with lateral raises,
189
00:09:32.151 --> 00:09:36.300
but generally it's performed more
190
00:09:36.300 --> 00:09:39.063
in like moderate to higher rep ranges.
191
00:09:40.620 --> 00:09:42.663
So in that case, like, yeah,
192
00:09:44.430 --> 00:09:47.103
like picking a higher volume of work there,
193
00:09:48.360 --> 00:09:50.160
for a given stimulus,
194
00:09:50.160 --> 00:09:51.750
both of these would technically be
195
00:09:51.750 --> 00:09:55.500
the same number of parts, that same amount of,
196
00:09:55.500 --> 00:09:56.730
quote, unquote, effective reps,
197
00:09:56.730 --> 00:10:00.630
if we're using that five threshold, which isn't perfect.
198
00:10:00.630 --> 00:10:02.343
But you can see in this case,
199
00:10:03.750 --> 00:10:08.640
it could look less efficient than doing the sets of six.
200
00:10:08.640 --> 00:10:11.450
That ratio is going to be smaller.
201
00:10:18.150 --> 00:10:21.453
So, with the back squats, for example,
202
00:10:22.620 --> 00:10:24.003
multi-joint movement,
203
00:10:25.410 --> 00:10:30.090
a lot of cardiovascular demand in that,
204
00:10:30.090 --> 00:10:34.623
doing high rep sets, doing sets of 15,
205
00:10:35.550 --> 00:10:37.410
again, versus sets of six,
206
00:10:37.410 --> 00:10:40.140
in this case, the opposite might be true.
207
00:10:40.140 --> 00:10:43.440
You might be doing less volume of work,
208
00:10:43.440 --> 00:10:45.560
this might look more efficient
209
00:10:45.560 --> 00:10:49.500
from a stimulus to work ratio than doing the sets of 15.
210
00:10:49.500 --> 00:10:54.450
So, the protocol of the exercise being performed,
211
00:10:54.450 --> 00:10:57.970
the exercise itself, how fatiguing it is
212
00:10:59.070 --> 00:11:02.040
for a given amount of, given proximity to failure,
213
00:11:02.040 --> 00:11:07.040
like doing set 15 at a one RIR on lateral raises,
214
00:11:09.619 --> 00:11:12.390
like you're gonna be fine if you come back in a few minutes,
215
00:11:12.390 --> 00:11:13.500
whereas back squats,
216
00:11:13.500 --> 00:11:16.739
like you could be wrecked for 20 minutes.
217
00:11:16.739 --> 00:11:18.660
(laughing)
218
00:11:18.660 --> 00:11:20.430
So there's that disparity.
219
00:11:20.430 --> 00:11:22.440
So like when we talk about efficiency,
220
00:11:22.440 --> 00:11:27.360
it's not necessarily just the stimulus to work ratio.
221
00:11:27.360 --> 00:11:29.400
It needs to consider
222
00:11:29.400 --> 00:11:32.013
all of those other things in conjunction.
223
00:11:34.260 --> 00:11:35.640
Let's see here.
224
00:11:35.640 --> 00:11:36.907
Okay.
225
00:11:36.907 --> 00:11:41.160
So I think that is my ending point for this.
226
00:11:41.160 --> 00:11:44.670
Did you have anything to add on stimulus to work stuff?
227
00:11:44.670 --> 00:11:46.680
Well, so, to recap here guys,
228
00:11:46.680 --> 00:11:51.270
like if we think back to the bell curves and whatnot,
229
00:11:51.270 --> 00:11:53.640
it's just like looking at okay,
230
00:11:53.640 --> 00:11:55.230
if we're trying to be optimal,
231
00:11:55.230 --> 00:11:57.090
you essentially have three ways to push yourself
232
00:11:57.090 --> 00:11:58.920
onto the right side of the curve.
233
00:11:58.920 --> 00:12:00.543
You can either do too many sets,
234
00:12:01.560 --> 00:12:04.680
your work can be very inefficient
235
00:12:04.680 --> 00:12:06.480
so that you're just doing a ton of extra
236
00:12:06.480 --> 00:12:08.310
non-contributing work, right?
237
00:12:08.310 --> 00:12:10.200
So you have extra stuff to recover from
238
00:12:10.200 --> 00:12:11.790
that isn't stimulatory,
239
00:12:11.790 --> 00:12:15.270
or you can be working at too high of an effort
240
00:12:15.270 --> 00:12:17.190
and so that you're getting excess fatigue
241
00:12:17.190 --> 00:12:18.150
in the amount of work.
242
00:12:18.150 --> 00:12:20.040
So those are the three things
243
00:12:20.040 --> 00:12:21.120
that you're trying to balance
244
00:12:21.120 --> 00:12:22.830
when you're like trying to optimize this,
245
00:12:22.830 --> 00:12:24.510
and then you have to layer that on top
246
00:12:24.510 --> 00:12:26.970
of the practical things for the individual,
247
00:12:26.970 --> 00:12:29.070
the exercise, et cetera.
248
00:12:29.070 --> 00:12:29.903
Right?
249
00:12:29.903 --> 00:12:31.740
So that's what you're trying to do
250
00:12:31.740 --> 00:12:33.780
is you're trying to figure out for
251
00:12:33.780 --> 00:12:36.120
this given individual for this exercise
252
00:12:36.120 --> 00:12:38.460
and where it is in the program,
253
00:12:38.460 --> 00:12:39.390
how do I make sure
254
00:12:39.390 --> 00:12:41.700
that I'm working at an appropriate effort,
255
00:12:41.700 --> 00:12:43.470
that I'm being fairly efficient
256
00:12:43.470 --> 00:12:48.470
and I'm using a relative amount of set volume
257
00:12:48.480 --> 00:12:51.393
and you're just trying to find that sweet spot for them,
258
00:12:52.460 --> 00:12:56.650
without focusing on any one of those two things
259
00:12:57.870 --> 00:12:59.580
like too aggressively
260
00:12:59.580 --> 00:13:02.310
or getting too neurotic about a single variable.
261
00:13:02.310 --> 00:13:04.170
So as you guys are going into progressions,
262
00:13:04.170 --> 00:13:05.460
what I would look at is like
263
00:13:05.460 --> 00:13:08.160
kind of take like a mental inventory of like,
264
00:13:08.160 --> 00:13:10.170
if you happen to be making progressions
265
00:13:10.170 --> 00:13:12.390
that are on the low efficiency side,
266
00:13:12.390 --> 00:13:14.700
that might be fine for a week or a two,
267
00:13:14.700 --> 00:13:17.250
but if that's the approach that you take
268
00:13:17.250 --> 00:13:19.110
consistently throughout the meso,
269
00:13:19.110 --> 00:13:20.790
you might be drastically decreasing
270
00:13:20.790 --> 00:13:23.618
your efficiency that way.
271
00:13:23.618 --> 00:13:25.230
And then the same thing,
272
00:13:25.230 --> 00:13:27.327
if you are consistently pushing the effort
273
00:13:27.327 --> 00:13:29.670
and you're doing that week after week after week,
274
00:13:29.670 --> 00:13:32.010
you're just likely gonna have to use a combination
275
00:13:32.010 --> 00:13:33.930
of these variables, right?
276
00:13:33.930 --> 00:13:37.110
Depending on what you're trying to accomplish
277
00:13:37.110 --> 00:13:39.210
and the feedback that you're getting
278
00:13:39.210 --> 00:13:41.820
so that you can kind of stay in that sweet spot
279
00:13:41.820 --> 00:13:45.870
and not go too far in any direction of too many sets,
280
00:13:45.870 --> 00:13:48.330
too much effort or becoming too inefficient.
281
00:13:48.330 --> 00:13:50.790
You're trying to balance effort, efficiency
282
00:13:50.790 --> 00:13:53.610
and set volume across the meso,
283
00:13:53.610 --> 00:13:55.140
and that's why knowing
284
00:13:55.140 --> 00:13:58.170
how each of these things is gonna impact that
285
00:13:58.170 --> 00:14:01.620
is what's going to basically give you the ability
286
00:14:01.620 --> 00:14:03.693
to like make the best decisions.