Poll: Session RPE

[AuthenticWacky]

I voted 5. I shoot for 4 to 5 in my post-40 workout sessions.

I think the following is true for most people that will respond: I'm an advanced lifter. I challenge myself in the weight room. The average gym goer would find it difficult to complete the intensity, volume, and rest my programming prescribes. I have difficulty completing all the sets and reps at the weight (I stop near failure). I sweat and my heart rate is elevated for the entirety of my workout.

But having the experience of grinding out near maximal intensity (powerlifting training) from session to session, this is easy street. For sake of argument, in a previous life I trained >8 regularly. I'd have to lie down (back would tighten) for 3+ minutes between sets. Probably not 'optimal'.

I'm loving what I'm reading. I'd love to take these sessions down to 3.

I'm assuming HVLF is High Volume Low Frequency. Google keeps returning High Frequency Low Volume training. Does anyone have a resource to an explanation or example of HVLF?

These ones were my go-tos.

viewtopic.php?t=2422&hilit=HVLF+nonsense

viewtopic.php?t=3409

the HVLF approach might be a smidge less effective at stimulating hypertrophy

I've had better hypertrophy on this program than anything else I've ever done. Maybe there are factors beyond programming that account for this, but I like visibly blew up, especially quads and pecs. And I absolutely sandbagged my 1RMs for quite a while so it was even more submax than it could have been.

[Hanley]

the HVLF approach might be a smidge less effective at stimulating hypertrophy

I've had better hypertrophy on this program than anything else I've ever done. Maybe there are factors beyond programming that account for this, but I like visibly blew up, especially quads and pecs. And I absolutely sandbagged my 1RMs for quite a while so it was even more submax than it could have been.

Huh. That's really cool, and - admittedly - a little surprising.

[alek]

I voted 7 without reading the comments.

My workouts mainly consist of the SBDP or close equivalents: leg press, rdl/deficit dl, etc. I'm doing a DUP scheme where the number of reps per set are 9, 2, or 5 almost exclusively, and my goal is around rpe 7 to 9 on each set. My mentality going into a set is usually, "Okay, this is going to be hard, but it's going to go."

Especially with adding in the resisted, inclined, backwards walking, I'm normally pretty tuckered out after a session, and while I always want to do more, I can't bring myself to do it.

[AlanMackey]

On average, I’d say… ¿3?

My intention is always to end a session feeling invigorated rather than spent.

[aurelius]

Been sussing out HVLF. How does that jive with a lot of the Stronger by Science stuff that is saying taking reps to near failure is the way to go?

Even 1-2 sets to near failure is enough stimulus.

[DanCR]

Been sussing out HVLF. How does that jive with a lot of the Stronger by Science stuff that is saying taking reps to near failure is the way to go?

Even 1-2 sets to near failure is enough stimulus.

I’m not familiar with the SbS stuff, but were they perhaps talking hypertrophy rather than strength?

Incidentally, I think “2RIR is fine for hypertrophy” works provided that one’s sets actually are 2RIR, but what a lot of lifters think is 2RIR really is 4-5RIR. I also think that the further a natural lifter is from being a beginner, the less useful 2RIR is and the more one needs to push harder. If you’re geared then do whatever you want.

[Hanley]

Been sussing out HVLF. How does that jive with a lot of the Stronger by Science stuff that is saying taking reps to near failure is the way to go?

Even 1-2 sets to near failure is enough stimulus.

As far as I can tell the sorts of sessions I program using HVLF (like 9-11 sets of 7 @ 65% (or 15RM) haven’t been studied.

Typical study design usually calls for matched volume (so group A conducting 4 sets of 6 at 10RM while group B conducts 6 sets of 4 @10RM).

And usually (but not always) such studies indicate that Group A has better hypertrophy, while group B has better power and strength gains.

But that forced matched-volume is kinda silly. In the real world, I can do WAY more total tonnage if I keep RPEs around 4-6…so maybe 10 sets of 4 @10RM.

^ in my limited, and not-at-all-statistically-rigorous experience, the 10 sets of 4 group crushes in all training metrics (though, admittedly, HVLF sessions can get tedious…10 sets of one movement is a lot).

[cgeorg]

^ in my limited, and not-at-all-statistically-rigorous experience, the 10 sets of 4 group crushes in all training metrics (though, admittedly, HVLF sessions can get tedious…10 sets of one movement is a lot).

Yeah but you can use 90s rests instead of 3-4 minutes.

I fucking love(d) 11 sets of 7 @65% and I was done in like 15min. Ok, doing the math, we'll call it 17 minutes. That's faster than a TM volume day bench workout.

[dw]

Been sussing out HVLF. How does that jive with a lot of the Stronger by Science stuff that is saying taking reps to near failure is the way to go?

Even 1-2 sets to near failure is enough stimulus.

I’m not familiar with the SbS stuff, but were they perhaps talking hypertrophy rather than strength?

Incidentally, I think “2RIR is fine for hypertrophy” works provided that one’s sets actually are 2RIR, but what a lot of lifters think is 2RIR really is 4-5RIR. I also think that the further a natural lifter is from being a beginner, the less useful 2RIR is and the more one needs to push harder. If you’re geared then do whatever you want.

I love last set AMRAPs (though I don't know if I would for compounds). It really takes all the uncertainty out of things.

For most movements for me if I were to do 10/10/10 where the last set was an AMRAP that implies the previous sets were likely @8 and @9, more or less.

More commonly I get something like 11/10/9/9 where the last set was an AMRAP. Some movements seem to suffer much bigger drop-offs, especially between first and second sets, which is something I don't have a theory about but I tend to think is not ideal.

[aurelius]

I appreciate the explanations. Advanced programming is something I am not very knowledgeable in.

For Hypertrophy: Andy Baker suggests doing 2-3 sets performing the first set to 1RIR. I translated that to doing sets of 12, 10, 8 with 90 second rests using the same weight. 2-3 rep fall off between sets seems to be typical. I kept upping the weight until I couldn't then changed the set-rep goal to 11, 9, 7 then 10, 8, 6.
I'd say it works but right now I'm rehabbing a cranky shoulder that is definitely strained so maybe too much intensity how I programmed it.

[DanCR]

For Hypertrophy: Andy Baker suggests doing 2-3 sets performing the first set to 1RIR. I translated that to doing sets of 12, 10, 8 with 90 second rests using the same weight. 2-3 rep fall off between sets seems to be typical. I kept upping the weight until I couldn't then changed the set-rep goal to 11, 9, 7 then 10, 8, 6.
I'd say it works

I’m not at all surprised that this worked. I really like this as a means of setting solid intensity expectations with shorter rests. Strongly considering implementing something like this as a way past my usual 3-4 min rests.

Been sussing out HVLF. How does that jive with a lot of the Stronger by Science stuff that is saying taking reps to near failure is the way to go?

Even 1-2 sets to near failure is enough stimulus.

I’m not familiar with the SbS stuff, but were they perhaps talking hypertrophy rather than strength?

Incidentally, I think “2RIR is fine for hypertrophy” works provided that one’s sets actually are 2RIR, but what a lot of lifters think is 2RIR really is 4-5RIR. I also think that the further a natural lifter is from being a beginner, the less useful 2RIR is and the more one needs to push harder. If you’re geared then do whatever you want.

I love last set AMRAPs (though I don't know if I would for compounds). It really takes all the uncertainty out of things.

For most movements for me if I were to do 10/10/10 where the last set was an AMRAP that implies the previous sets were likely @8 and @9, more or less.

More commonly I get something like 11/10/9/9 where the last set was an AMRAP. Some movements seem to suffer much bigger drop-offs, especially between first and second sets, which is something I don't have a theory about but I tend to think is not ideal.

Further to the above, I assume you’re taking pretty decent rests? Saying so because for me, if I don’t rest 3 mins at least, I’m definitely gonna lose more reps if the first set is @8, forget @9. I used to love seeing shit in Flex back in the day, some pro doing four sets of fiteen across with the same weight, saying he takes like one minute rests. Ok so those first sets are 12RIR and you’re on all the drugs. Got it.

[dw]

For Hypertrophy: Andy Baker suggests doing 2-3 sets performing the first set to 1RIR. I translated that to doing sets of 12, 10, 8 with 90 second rests using the same weight. 2-3 rep fall off between sets seems to be typical. I kept upping the weight until I couldn't then changed the set-rep goal to 11, 9, 7 then 10, 8, 6.
I'd say it works

I’m not at all surprised that this worked. I really like this as a means of setting solid intensity expectations with shorter rests. Strongly considering implementing something like this as a way past my usual 3-4 min rests.

Been sussing out HVLF. How does that jive with a lot of the Stronger by Science stuff that is saying taking reps to near failure is the way to go?

Even 1-2 sets to near failure is enough stimulus.

I’m not familiar with the SbS stuff, but were they perhaps talking hypertrophy rather than strength?

Incidentally, I think “2RIR is fine for hypertrophy” works provided that one’s sets actually are 2RIR, but what a lot of lifters think is 2RIR really is 4-5RIR. I also think that the further a natural lifter is from being a beginner, the less useful 2RIR is and the more one needs to push harder. If you’re geared then do whatever you want.

I love last set AMRAPs (though I don't know if I would for compounds). It really takes all the uncertainty out of things.

For most movements for me if I were to do 10/10/10 where the last set was an AMRAP that implies the previous sets were likely @8 and @9, more or less.

More commonly I get something like 11/10/9/9 where the last set was an AMRAP. Some movements seem to suffer much bigger drop-offs, especially between first and second sets, which is something I don't have a theory about but I tend to think is not ideal.

Further to the above, I assume you’re taking pretty decent rests? Saying so because for me, if I don’t rest 3 mins at least, I’m definitely gonna lose more reps if the first set is @8, forget @9. I used to love seeing shit in Flex back in the day, some pro doing four sets of fiteen across with the same weight, saying he takes like one minute rests. Ok so those first sets are 12RIR and you’re on all the drugs. Got it.

Well rest time seemingly has to do with energy cost (something I learned from SBS) which relates to the absolute amount of work you do. (So for example a squat set should take longer to recover from than some kind of wrist exercise).

In general all my stuff is easy to recover from, also I have good cardio. These days I use a 2 minute timer for bilateral movements and either 1.5 m or 2 m for unilateral movements. But I'm not strict about compliance so probably closer to +30 seconds.

But anyway if I were doing squats I think I would rest longer.

[Hanley]

I appreciate the explanations. Advanced programming is something I am not very knowledgeable in.

For Hypertrophy: Andy Baker suggests doing 2-3 sets performing the first set to 1RIR. I translated that to doing sets of 12, 10, 8 with 90 second rests using the same weight. 2-3 rep fall off between sets seems to be typical. I kept upping the weight until I couldn't then changed the set-rep goal to 11, 9, 7 then 10, 8, 6.
I'd say it works but right now I'm rehabbing a cranky shoulder that is definitely strained so maybe too much intensity how I programmed it.

That would definitely work really well for hypertrophy.

No need to drive load so aggressively though. Just increase volume as you can over time. When you eventually get to 16, 14, 12 (or something like), add 5% load and restart the 12,10,8 thing. A double-progression like that is usually a little friendlier to joints.

[aurelius]

That would definitely work really well for hypertrophy.

No need to drive load so aggressively though. Just increase volume as you can over time. When you eventually get to 16, 14, 12 (or something like), add 5% load and restart the 12,10,8 thing. A double-progression like that is usually a little friendlier to joints.

Thanks. I like that adjustment. Easier on the joints is what I'm looking for.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

the HVLF approach might be a smidge less effective at stimulating hypertrophy

I've had better hypertrophy on this program than anything else I've ever done. Maybe there are factors beyond programming that account for this, but I like visibly blew up, especially quads and pecs. And I absolutely sandbagged my 1RMs for quite a while so it was even more submax than it could have been.

Huh. That's really cool, and - admittedly - a little surprising.

My broscience is that when you do say a set of 5 on squats or bench with 70% mostly the prime movers (quads and pecs here) produce the work and are close to maximally activated. When you get closer to failure then the secondary muscles (glutes, triceps, shoulders and so on) will pick up the slack, but you're not really adding more stimulus to the quads and pecs. So this makes sense. Now obviously, if you're only benching in this low fatigue style then triceps and shoulders will not get adequate stimulation, but the answer is simple: just do isolation exercises for those muscles. And since the fatigue generated by those is close to 0, you can take them to failure if you want to. This is also consistent with the idea that "above 70% (or some threshold) a rep is a rep".

Anecdotally, low fatigue compounds followed by isolation exercises close to failure is what has given me the best results so far but I'm weak so who knows.

[Hanley]

Now obviously, if you're only benching in this low fatigue style then triceps and shoulders will not get adequate stimulation, but the answer is simple: just do isolation exercises for those muscles.

I think this is the case.