New Rippetoe/Baker/Bradford article on intermediate programming

[mbasic]

How many clients have you successfully trained, @DirtyRed?

including himself? exactly 0

[Murelli]

I think most implementations of RPE and "volume" absolutely suck. For instance, I think the practice of prescribing sets across at a fixed RPE is batshit cray cray (I mean, how the fuck am I supposed to micro-adjust load between sets to accommodate for fatigue to maintain a prescribed RPE? I may as well just pull numbers from my ass)

You suck at programming with RPE.

Seriously now, as someone else has already told, that's not how RPE programming works. On a given day, your 5@8 on a given lift will have a margin of, say, ~2%. So you are benching 300x5@8 on your first set, but you could have done 306x5@8, then you proceed to do two more sets with 300x5, and they are still @8, but you actually couldn't do 306x5@8 anymore. On your fourth set you hit 300x5@9, then on your fifth set you are doing 290x5@8.

Doing one set @9 (or 8.5) won't screw up your session, your recovery or your training. It may mess with some fiber type shit, but that's another subject.

IMO sets across with the same RPE help to autoregulate intrasession fatigue. It's really important for people who can't stabilize their recovery for whatever reason and get to each session with different readiness and energy (i.e. less glycogen stored in the muscles, less mojo, etc.) Remember that TRAC or another tool will get you a big picture of readiness, but will not be able to adjust the little things.

You are overreacting to the RPE bandwagon that has appeared recently, with a lot of people missusing a great programming and training tool.

And some folks just absolutely suck at implementing RPE.

True. Mike T says so and tells clearly to whom RPE is not for.

[Savs]

RPE is imaginary.

The Art of Programming Complexity Minimization is quite subtle and complex.

Thank you, gentlemen! I have finally figured it out! Mr Rippetoe is a genius. We have left the astral plane and are now working in the complex plane. All values are purely imaginary and should be written, for example, as 300x5@[math]i8[/math].

Yes, yes. [steeples fingers]

[cwd]

Excessive simplicity can be seductive too. It's a very appealing thought that everything worth knowing about training can be learned from a single source. In a world of conflicting and confusing ideas on how to train, it's very tempting to allow yourself to disregard anything unfamiliar or hard to understand.

I'm saving this to the quotes sticky.

[tdood]

@Murelli, for a lot of us, 1 set @9 will screw up a training cycle. I can't grind like that or I am fucked. I try to stay below @7.5 until the last few weeks of a cycle where I'll allow up to @8.5. @9 might be the last singles before I taper.

"Heavy" is a ver vague term. Doubles at 80% are not grinders, at all, but will increase my 1rm strength quickly. All my Lifetime PRs have come by doing all my work under 83%, with at least 2 reps in the tank. Is that heavy? Not by the article's standards. But heavy enough for PRs must be heavy.

[cwd]

I feel that there's a lot of hidden complexity in Rippetoe/Baker programs, in the form of the coach himself.

RPE programs tend to take longer to explain, but they are a lot more explicit about rules for choosing weights and how to adjust them. The current "H-units" scheme being experimented with on this site is a (complex) attempt to formalize how much volume to use.

I'm not sure it's fair to call Texas Method simpler, if it only works with an experienced coach picking weights and sets for you based on intuition.

It's like saying the pre-Newton theory of planets moving in ellipses due to angels pushing them is simpler, because it lacks all that messy calculus. All the complexity is hidden in the "angels" black box.

[Savs]

RPE is imaginary.

The Art of Programming Complexity Minimization is quite subtle and complex.

Thank you, gentlemen! I have finally figured it out! Mr Rippetoe is a genius. We have left the astral plane and are now working in the complex plane. All values are purely imaginary and should be written, for example, as 300x5@[math]i8[/math].

Yes, yes. [steeples fingers]

I know this isn't the Off Topic or Sh!tposting forum, but I have a request. Mods, can you please change my title from Registered User to Dream Weaver? I'm serious. Thanks.

[Murelli]

Murelli, for a lot of us, 1 set @9 will screw up a training cycle. I can't grind like that or I am fucked. I try to stay below @7.5 until the last few weeks of a cycle where I'll allow up to @8.5. @9 might be the last singles before I taper.

"Heavy" is a ver vague term. Doubles at 80% are not grinders, at all, but will increase my 1rm strength quickly. All my Lifetime PRs have come by doing all my work under 83%, with at least 2 reps in the tank. Is that heavy? Not by the article's standards. But heavy enough for PRs must be heavy.

Dood, I guess you are the best example of what Mike told in one of his podcasts, that some people fizzle out if they hit higher intensity often.

Someone also said something somewhere about how the stronger you are the more it costs to hit heavier loads. I guess what I've said does not cover a wide enough population. Crap.

[mgil]

RPE is imaginary.

The Art of Programming Complexity Minimization is quite subtle and complex.

Thank you, gentlemen! I have finally figured it out! Mr Rippetoe is a genius. We have left the astral plane and are now working in the complex plane. All values are purely imaginary and should be written, for example, as 300x5@[math]i8[/math].

Yes, yes. [steeples fingers]

I know this isn't the Off Topic or Sh!tposting forum, but I have a request. Mods, can you please change my title from Registered User to Dream Weaver? I'm serious. Thanks.

I’ll put that in the queue

[michael]

So, this person has an e1RM around 450 (3 sets of 5 with the last set at an absolute bone-on-bone RPE 10 should be around 83% of 1RM for most people.

False. You can use 84% of 1RM if you rest twenty minutes between sets.

[tdood]

So, this person has an e1RM around 450 (3 sets of 5 with the last set at an absolute bone-on-bone RPE 10 should be around 83% of 1RM for most people.

I doubt someone who has only done 5s across has the strengthskill to make that single happen, they also will probably hit the fatigue wall and strength will tank.

[mgil]

RPE is imaginary.

The Art of Programming Complexity Minimization is quite subtle and complex.

Thank you, gentlemen! I have finally figured it out! Mr Rippetoe is a genius. We have left the astral plane and are now working in the complex plane. All values are purely imaginary and should be written, for example, as 300x5@[math]i8[/math].

Yes, yes. [steeples fingers]

I know this isn't the Off Topic or Sh!tposting forum, but I have a request. Mods, can you please change my title from Registered User to Dream Weaver? I'm serious. Thanks.

I’ll put that in the queue

All set.

[mgil]

How many clients have you successfully trained, @DirtyRed?

including himself? exactly 0

That’s a good one.

[Savs]

I know this isn't the Off Topic or Sh!tposting forum, but I have a request. Mods, can you please change my title from Registered User to Dream Weaver? I'm serious. Thanks.

All set.

?? Seriously?

I think the premise of this thread is so stupid, and I'm getting angry just thinking about it. Now I'm even angrier.

[Hanley]

Seriously now, as someone else has already told, that's not how RPE programming works. On a given day, your 5@8 on a given lift will have a margin of, say, ~2%. So you are benching 300x5@8 on your first set, but you could have done 306x5@8, then you proceed to do two more sets with 300x5, and they are still @8, but you actually couldn't do 306x5@8 anymore. On your fourth set you hit 300x5@9, then on your fifth set you are doing 290x5@8.

I'm eyerolling so hard right now

But, thank you for teaching me the subtle ways of The RPE

[anelson]

So, this person has an e1RM around 450 (3 sets of 5 with the last set at an absolute bone-on-bone RPE 10 should be around 83% of 1RM for most people.

False. You can use 84% of 1RM if you rest twenty minutes between sets.

#firstthreequestions

[Murelli]

Seriously now, as someone else has already told, that's not how RPE programming works. On a given day, your 5@8 on a given lift will have a margin of, say, ~2%. So you are benching 300x5@8 on your first set, but you could have done 306x5@8, then you proceed to do two more sets with 300x5, and they are still @8, but you actually couldn't do 306x5@8 anymore. On your fourth set you hit 300x5@9, then on your fifth set you are doing 290x5@8.

I'm eyerolling so hard right now

But, thank you for teaching me the subtle ways of The RPE

Your wellcom.

That part was not meant for you, the part about autoregulating intraworkout fatigue was the good part. Did you just Rip a part of my argument to poke fun at me brah?

[Hanley]

Did you just Rip a part of my argument to poke fun at me brah?

I don't like The Bridge. Okay? I don't like it.

[Murelli]

Did you just Rip a part of my argument to poke fun at me brah?

I don't like The Bridge. Okay? I don't like it.

It's not meant to be a good program, I guess. It is meant to "expose you to RPE and variety (lift variation, rep ranges) and enhance your work capacity", I guess.

You can always mix a single @8 with percentage based back-off work for a more auto-regulated fatigue-limited workout, I guess. That's what I plan to do after being your guinea pig, I guess.

[damufunman]

Did you just Rip a part of my argument to poke fun at me brah?

I don't like The Bridge. Okay? I don't like it.

For disliking RPE, I'd be curious to see how RPE and velocity track (I hear they track very well). Why do you like velocity based?