-: All right.
So when we talk about volume of stimulus
and the impacts of increasing specific variables,
so let's say like in week one,
we have someone do three sets of eight at two RIR
and 150 pounds,
they end up using about 150 pounds.
And if you do some math based on that chart,
that would result in an estimated one RM
of around like 205 pounds.
So in scenario one,
let's say minimal to no adaptations
have occurred before the next session,
whether that be due to recovery,
whether that be due to really advanced training status,
where it's minimal amounts of adaptations,
we can see that in this case,
increasing sets, increasing reps and increasing load,
whereas for volume of work, increasing sets again
is gonna result in the greatest amount of tonnage.
But it's going to, regardless of approach you take here,
if we're using the effective reps model,
you're gonna have similar amounts of effective reps,
whether you increase sets, reps or load.
If we're looking at hard sets,
obviously this increase in sets
is going to be greater than, four is greater than three.
So there's no perfect way.
Like, I guess there's (indistinct) there's drawbacks
to any of these.
And if you're looking at it on a rep to rep basis,
so the effective reps model,
you can get to the same outcome
with all three approaches or very close to it.
So let's say in scenario two,
the estimated one RM increased to 210 pounds
before the next session.
So, these sets of eight
are gonna be a little bit easier now,
if they're using the same load
and result in about eight to nine effective reps,
increase in reps, they're gonna be performing those reps
but it's gonna be two RIR,
basically the same proximity to failures
as they were before, because they're now stronger
and they're able to do an additional rep.
Increase in load, again,
is going to be about the same, nine effective reps.
So because the proximity to failure is now further away,
the effective reps are lower versus the above.
So you can see here too, for all intents and purposes,
like effective reps are...
The same relationship applies
where there's a disparity between the tonnage,
the volume of stimulus of using it for using effective reps,
as well as the number of sets.
So main takeaway is the same relationship
for the variable for volume of work, adjusting one variable,
it doesn't directly apply to volume of stimulus.
And I think if anything, that's a good thing,
because we know you can reach similar outcomes
with a variety of different progression models
based on the context of the exercise that you're performing.
So, if increasing load
caused a drastically larger increase in effective reps,
then people may lean on that approach over the other two,
and maybe it's not appropriate
for something like a lateral raise or something.
So, big thing is,
I think when it comes to volume of stimulus,
your progression of the variables, it's more forgiving
in reaching the outcome that you're after
than it is if you're talking about volume of work.
Do you have anything additional there, Kas?
-: Yeah.
I mean, I think that the important thing,
and I think I cover a bunch of these scenarios
in the day two lectures as well,
is that if you look at the efficiency
you're seeing in this instance that,
if we're looking at stimulus
versus how much volume of work
that you do on a tonnage basis
is that you see like, okay,
there's a big difference in the amount of tonnage
you have to do to get that same stimulus.
And if anybody's having kind of trouble comprehending this,
I would say like the teaser to the algorithm
that's going on here
is that effective reps are basically
sets times the RIR, right?
And then tonnage is sets times reps times load.
Right?
So that's the thing
that you're trying to balance out, right?
Is you're trying to balance out sets a effort
versus how do you maintain or progress that effort?
Do you use reps, sets or do you use reps or load
versus just adding sets?
-: Good points.
One thing you mentioned, Kas, in terms of people,
if they're confused about this,
that I just wanted to maybe clear up,
like the number of sets times the RIR,
that would technically not be effective reps,
because if we're looking at it from like five RIR within,
like a two RIR or a one RIR would be four effective reps.
I understand the point you were trying to make,
but technically, it is a little bit,
like it can be misleading.
It's sort of the opposite of that to some degree.
-: You have to inverse the RIR.
-: Yeah, yeah.
-: So it's to do it as a physical math thing, right?
-: Yeah.
And the goal here isn't...
And I mean we joked this before,
like the goal here is not
for people to be bringing calculators into the gym,
trying to manage their stimulus.
Like understand the concept here
and how manipulating these training variables
steers your volume of stimulus for better or worse,
or maybe not much at all.
Like in this case, it may make a negligible difference.
-: So conceptually, effective reps is sets times effort,
is probably a better way.
-: That's probably a good way to put.
-: Right. Yeah, right.
So we're using the RIR to get a number out of it,
but it says times effort, right?
-: I mean, that's probably the best way to think about it.
I think people, when they come
from a background of using tonnage,
people want like a firm calculation of how to like,
okay, I need this to...
And I think part of that is just,
can be the personality trait of the individual,
or like, how do I graph this on a spreadsheet?
It's like if you're a coach, and you don't have to,
like understand the direction that you're going
and how these relationships work
and you don't need like the fancy...
You don't need to track things down to the pound.
And it's kind of like tracking macros for people,
it's like hitting macros right on the head,
or it's like, okay, well, you realize there's a range here
you can fall within and still be steered towards your goals.
Let's see, what else do we have here? Okay.
So we talked about like efficiency
and ultimately like the question becomes
like should we always aim
to maximize the stimulus to work ratio?
And it's a similar concept, like return on investment.
But in a practical sense, someone's investment
extends beyond just the volume of work
that they're performing.
So, some of this can be related to prior injuries,
time efficiency,
but it needs to consider the goals,
the residual effects and consequences
and then the practicality of a protocol for given exercise,
which I think is probably the biggest thing.
And we know, like we discussed tire tonnage, volume of work.
It doesn't necessarily mean
there's a greater demand because you are doing more work.
But when you look at the different elements of fatigue,
it doesn't necessarily mean
there's going to be a greater recovery debt
on the physiological level.
Like when you look at something like muscle damage,
you can have a very high volume of work
with it's very far from failure with each set
and have minimal, if any muscle damage,
whereas you can have a small amount of volume of work,
with the right movement,
push close to failure and have significantly more.
So in and of itself,
like it doesn't account for
big drawback volume of work, tonnage,
it doesn't account for proximity to failure.
What it does do is gives you a decent idea
of like expenditure, not necessarily quantifiable,
but higher volumes of work are going to...
You're gonna be burning more calories.
So like, just as an example here,
like lateral raises,
not that you can't do sets of six with lateral raises,
but generally it's performed more
in like moderate to higher rep ranges.
So in that case, like, yeah,
like picking a higher volume of work there,
for a given stimulus,
both of these would technically be
the same number of parts, that same amount of,
quote, unquote, effective reps,
if we're using that five threshold, which isn't perfect.
But you can see in this case,
it could look less efficient than doing the sets of six.
That ratio is going to be smaller.
So, with the back squats, for example,
multi-joint movement,
a lot of cardiovascular demand in that,
doing high rep sets, doing sets of 15,
again, versus sets of six,
in this case, the opposite might be true.
You might be doing less volume of work,
this might look more efficient
from a stimulus to work ratio than doing the sets of 15.
So, the protocol of the exercise being performed,
the exercise itself, how fatiguing it is
for a given amount of, given proximity to failure,
like doing set 15 at a one RIR on lateral raises,
like you're gonna be fine if you come back in a few minutes,
whereas back squats,
like you could be wrecked for 20 minutes.
(laughing)
So there's that disparity.
So like when we talk about efficiency,
it's not necessarily just the stimulus to work ratio.
It needs to consider
all of those other things in conjunction.
Let's see here.
Okay.
So I think that is my ending point for this.
Did you have anything to add on stimulus to work stuff?
-: Well, so, to recap here guys,
like if we think back to the bell curves and whatnot,
it's just like looking at okay,
if we're trying to be optimal,
you essentially have three ways to push yourself
onto the right side of the curve.
You can either do too many sets,
your work can be very inefficient
so that you're just doing a ton of extra
non-contributing work, right?
So you have extra stuff to recover from
that isn't stimulatory,
or you can be working at too high of an effort
and so that you're getting excess fatigue
in the amount of work.
So those are the three things
that you're trying to balance
when you're like trying to optimize this,
and then you have to layer that on top
of the practical things for the individual,
the exercise, et cetera.
Right?
So that's what you're trying to do
is you're trying to figure out for
this given individual for this exercise
and where it is in the program,
how do I make sure
that I'm working at an appropriate effort,
that I'm being fairly efficient
and I'm using a relative amount of set volume
and you're just trying to find that sweet spot for them,
without focusing on any one of those two things
like too aggressively
or getting too neurotic about a single variable.
So as you guys are going into progressions,
what I would look at is like
kind of take like a mental inventory of like,
if you happen to be making progressions
that are on the low efficiency side,
that might be fine for a week or a two,
but if that's the approach that you take
consistently throughout the meso,
you might be drastically decreasing
your efficiency that way.
And then the same thing,
if you are consistently pushing the effort
and you're doing that week after week after week,
you're just likely gonna have to use a combination
of these variables, right?
Depending on what you're trying to accomplish
and the feedback that you're getting
so that you can kind of stay in that sweet spot
and not go too far in any direction of too many sets,
too much effort or becoming too inefficient.
You're trying to balance effort, efficiency
and set volume across the meso,
and that's why knowing
how each of these things is gonna impact that
is what's going to basically give you the ability
to like make the best decisions.