A Brave New Assault on RPE

[mgil]

https://startingstrength.com/resources/ ... s-rpe.html

Now the primary argument is that RPE is used to sell templates such that it’s easier for a coach to work more clients because they don’t have to Rx the weight on the bar per session. Lots of other bullshit in that thread.

Couple of problems here:

@MikeTuchscherer has given out tons of information on integrating RPE into programming, a lot of it free.

There’s a continuous assertion that the lifter is too stupid to gauge effort. All in light of the same lifter being able to gauge where the barbell is during a lift. IOW, proprioception is just as hard of a skill, if not harder, to train than tracking of exertion.

The idea that RPE programming is a “get rich quick” scheme is oh-so-ironic from a guy selling $25 books on 5 exercises with a shitty sketch of novice programming. And most of that programming is derived from someone else anyhow.

My assessment is that the bulk of the people advocating against RPE are simply dishonest in their personal assessment of effort just like the are dishonest in their arguments against training methods that have documented success. Especially for a group of idiots that place empiricism above all else.

Goddamn the SS crowd grows more stupid daily.

I’ll tag @gnuckols also in case he stops by and hasn’t seen the shitshow of a thread linked above.

[mgil]

Also, there is a guy taking it to the SS morons with a 530lbs DL. It’s obvious he’s much stronger than the idiots remaining in that forum. Even better is some imbecile later coming along and telling him to get up to 242 and do sets of five and he’d be pulling 750 in no time.

Reading these threads makes it obvious that no one over there understands how to train or program successfully.

[PuddingFace]

These threads are great for sharpening one's reasoning skills & practicing identifying logical fallacies. Obviously they should just change the name of the site to StrawmanStrength so that one can just be skipped over in any post related to RPE on that site.

One only needs one significant piece of evidence to obliterate an entire contention. Even for advanced lifters, the phenomenology of your brilliant point re. hitting your workout numbers for the day despite feeling like absolute shit still pertains.

I know there is an informal logical fallacy in that word salad, and am seeing Counterfactual Fallacy, and of course the unstated major premise that falls from a gross misunderstanding of RPE.

Counterfactual Fallacy:
p1: Lifter hit pre-determined weights
p2: Lifter did not use RPE to adjust weight based on daily variation.
C: If lifter had used RPE to adjust weights, they would not have achieved pre-determined weights.

I think this fits but not sure its the most appropriate fallacy to choose.

I think the unstated premise that underlies all this RPE-bashing though is the assumption on StSt (StrawmanStrength still works) that no one actually wants to lift because they (StSt) don't actually want to lift. On a related note, i think some of the lifters that one thinks of when they think of RPE-based weight selection methods probably have much more dedication to their actual training than the self-loathing StSt crowd.

Two more comments -
Why would a coach need to review workouts to prescribe weights when the One True Prescription is to add five lbs each time?

AndrewL almost sees the light in the 4th post. I bet the level of cognitive dissonance that must have occurred there gave him a headache.

[alek]

This belongs here.

[SnakePlissken]

https://startingstrength.com/resources/ ... ost1833592

Holy shit man, these people are so petty. It's like they can't accept the fact that there are multiple ways to get stronger so they just belittle everything else. Insecurity out of the wazoo. Glad I discovered RPE and dropped the weekly sets of 5RMs that basically made me spin my wheels for half a year.

Also hard burn lmao...
https://startingstrength.com/resources/ ... ost1833770
Rippleblow: Maybe you're just one of these guys who thinks acronyms are cool.
Josh K: Looks like we have that in common, Mr. TMPHBITEU.

[Hardartery]

"RPE has always sounded like bullshit. Listening to powerlifters at my old gym talk about it made me roll my eyes, even before I started training.", is post (I think) 10. What was he doing at the gym talking to Powerlifters before he started training? Seriously. Is the guy some sort ofPower Bear creeper?

That aside, why do you guys bother going to that echo chamber of stupidity? Is there something valuable there occasionally? Is it just to gloat of the fact that you escaped the cult? It seems like a negative force in your lives that just drags you down, and maybe your happiness level and quality of life would be better without it.

[Hardartery]

If we are going to have a genuine discussion of RPE though, I'm in for that. I have zero concern for what Rip or SS have to say on the matter, but I am down for a conversation with people both pro and con.

[alek]

If we are going to have a genuine discussion of RPE though, I'm in for that. I have zero concern for what Rip or SS have to say on the matter, but I am down for a conversation with people both pro and con.

Here’s a pretty lengthy thread on RPE. I just bumped it to the first page.

RPE Megathread

[wiigelec]

That aside, why do you guys bother going to that echo chamber of stupidity?

These threads are great for sharpening one's reasoning skills & practicing identifying logical fallacies.

[mgil]

These threads are great for sharpening one's reasoning skills & practicing identifying logical fallacies. Obviously they should just change the name of the site to StrawmanStrength so that one can just be skipped over in any post related to RPE on that site.

One only needs one significant piece of evidence to obliterate an entire contention. Even for advanced lifters, the phenomenology of your brilliant point re. hitting your workout numbers for the day despite feeling like absolute shit still pertains.

I know there is an informal logical fallacy in that word salad, and am seeing Counterfactual Fallacy, and of course the unstated major premise that falls from a gross misunderstanding of RPE.

Counterfactual Fallacy:
p1: Lifter hit pre-determined weights
p2: Lifter did not use RPE to adjust weight based on daily variation.
C: If lifter had used RPE to adjust weights, they would not have achieved pre-determined weights.

I think this fits but not sure its the most appropriate fallacy to choose.

I think the unstated premise that underlies all this RPE-bashing though is the assumption on StSt (StrawmanStrength still works) that no one actually wants to lift because they (StSt) don't actually want to lift. On a related note, i think some of the lifters that one thinks of when they think of RPE-based weight selection methods probably have much more dedication to their actual training than the self-loathing StSt crowd.

Two more comments -
Why would a coach need to review workouts to prescribe weights when the One True Prescription is to add five lbs each time?

AndrewL almost sees the light in the 4th post. I bet the level of cognitive dissonance that must have occurred there gave him a headache.

Almost every post has some weird fallacious argument.

Like one dude is crying about being able to categorize effort into a set of integers. Then goes on to talk about real numbers and precision (try to show off his supposed acumen). All the while not recognizing the word “perceived” and it’s inherent error.

It is a bunch of straw man arguments being made by a bunch of weak middle aged white males who fail to excel in nearly every dimension of life.

Rip et al spin up on RPE once every 6 months or so. It’s worth observing because it shows an implied amount of envy of other (successful) coaches as well as a general lack of understanding.

It’s been pointed out here as well that Rip’s own program requires RPE. In fact, it requires it on the first session. This was even pointed out on his own forum. The trainee works from the empty bar, conservatively adding weight, “until he/she notices the barbell slowing”. That, by definition, is perception. More so with the squat, and in particular when you’re staring at your taint while squatting. Something has to be noticed to recognize the barbell slowing down, and it has to be perceived by someone.

Even worse, Rip’s squishy “when the barbell slows” verbiage leads to idiots not knowing when to call the right weight and quite often having people start way to heavy and hence only having a short run at LP.

@Hardartery, I’m not convinced RPE is for everyone. It’s not a training panacea. Mike T and others will agree. It’s just an option to try and see if it helps the individual. What is known is that it has worked well for several people, including @JordanFeigenbaum and @Austin who used it while SSCs. Both of whom are stronger at a lighter weight than Rip ever achieved.

The error with the SS crowd is that it’s an “all or nothing” proposition with respect to training. The tautology of “it works every time it’s applied correctly” underscores the dogmatic principles from which they work from. They also fail to understand successful strength athletes over history, who did things like “leave reps in the tank” with good results.

Basically, it’s not that RPE will work for everyone, just that they need to shut up and understand what the data say.

[Hardartery]

@Hardartery, I’m not convinced RPE is for everyone. It’s not a training panacea. Mike T and others will agree. It’s just an option to try and see if it helps the individual. What is known is that it has worked well for several people, including @JordanFeigenbaum and @Austin who used it while SSCs. Both of whom are stronger at a lighter weight than Rip ever achieved.

The error with the SS crowd is that it’s an “all or nothing” proposition with respect to training. The tautology of “it works every time it’s applied correctly” underscores the dogmatic principles from which they work from. They also fail to understand successful strength athletes over history, who did things like “leave reps in the tank” with good results.

Basically, it’s not that RPE will work for everyone, just that they need to shut up and understand what the data say.

My point was, really, that you guys are wasting valuable time and possibly negatively affecting your recovery by letting that crap bring you down. I see a lot of better, more open minds on here than are ever going to be on SS. Let's just have the discussions here, amongst reasonable people. I am willing to bet that as a group we can figure stuff out that is beyond any single person and certainly beyond the cult mentality of some places. Imagine being stuck in the HIT/Arthur Jones/Mike Mentzer philosophy of training today. There are still some people out there stuck in it, hanging on every word of Ellis Darden (The last living dingleberry of the sales pitch) as if they will magically get gains that have never happened in iny of the previous decades of following the advice. The best way to deal with stuid echo chambers is to ignore them and let them suffocate on their own excrement without the air of attention. You guys are better than anything going on there, trust me. I'm working my way throught the RPE Megathread before I get on my soapbox.

[quikky]

SS argue that RPE is subjective and therefore useless, often citing examples of people perceiving the weight as being impossible to lift for the prescribed number of reps, yet still finishing all the reps, thus negating the perception as bullshit. What they do not seem to understand is that no one cares about you finishing what you wrote down on a piece of paper. What matters is long term progress, which not only depends on applying the correct stimulus over long periods of time, but also not driving yourself into the ground, getting injured, and actually having at least a mild enjoyment of the journey.

Lots of people fail at SS-approved strategies because the philosophy is go balls-to-the-wall or you're a pussy. People get married to this philosophy, and when they get injured, or stop making progress, or hate their workouts, or whatever else they experience with non-stop "add fahve pounds no matter what" they eventually quit. Again, short term thinking. For an organization that rallies behind "training" and not worrying about getting hot and sweaty today, they sure really care if you add fahve pounds today. What happens when you felt like crap today, still did the workout, barely eeking out all the reps, and are now wrecked for a week? Does this make you stronger long term vs backing off 5-10%, still getting a decent stimulus, and actually recovering for the next few workouts and continuing your progress?

The only objective way of determining difficulty is going to involuntary muscle failure. Anything short of getting pinned under the bar is "perception". Ignoring perception, and relying on objective failure, especially on big compound lifts that carry a lot of systemic fatigue potential is a recipe for long term failure for most trainees. And, if you do not go to failure, you are using perception, which, according to SS, is bullshit. There is no other way out of this logical hole that they've dug for themselves. The only part I agree with, is that using perception for novices, is often not a good idea. I've seen too many times a new trainee describe a set as being @10, when it was literally like @3.

[Hardartery]

SS argue that RPE is subjective and therefore useless, often citing examples of people perceiving the weight as being impossible to lift for the prescribed number of reps, yet still finishing all the reps, thus negating the perception as bullshit. What they do not seem to understand is that no one cares about you finishing what you wrote down on a piece of paper. What matters is long term progress, which not only depends on applying the correct stimulus over long periods of time, but also not driving yourself into the ground, getting injured, and actually having at least a mild enjoyment of the journey.

Almost everything is subjective, even whether or not you made the lift. Maybe you got whites, maybe it is was correct enough in the gym to say it counts, it's all subjective. That said, I will say that I don't really believe in RPE as written. I think it is a great tool to help inform a program or educate a new lifter, but I personally don't believe anyone can really perceive past "1 in the tank", and that is subjective too. I have thought that I had one more and then in fact did not. I have also had 2 in the tank when I would have said only 1. I think it might be a nice gauge for your volume and even your general well-being at a given time. I think percentages are a little more accurate, but I don't really use those either. I'm lifting, not doing math.

Lots of people fail at SS-approved strategies because the philosophy is go balls-to-the-wall or you're a pussy. People get married to this philosophy, and when they get injured, or stop making progress, or hate their workouts, or whatever else they experience with non-stop "add fahve pounds no matter what" they eventually quit. Again, short term thinking. For an organization that rallies behind "training" and not worrying about getting hot and sweaty today, they sure really care if you add fahve pounds today. What happens when you felt like crap today, still did the workout, barely eeking out all the reps, and are now wrecked for a week? Does this make you stronger long term vs backing off 5-10%, still getting a decent stimulus, and actually recovering for the next few workouts and continuing your progress?

A goal is beneficial, but... I am okay with adding a rep in place of weight one week to the next. I am equally okay with having a bad day or a bad week and not taking it personally. It happens. It doesn't mean much in the long term, next week could be completely different for mno measureable reason. By the same token, I can think of several reasons to intentionally overtrain and run myself into the ground in the short-term. It's not a great plan long term though.

The only objective way of determining difficulty is going to involuntary muscle failure. Anything short of getting pinned under the bar is "perception". Ignoring perception, and relying on objective failure, especially on big compound lifts that carry a lot of systemic fatigue potential is a recipe for long term failure for most trainees. And, if you do not go to failure, you are using perception, which, according to SS, is bullshit. There is no other way out of this logical hole that they've dug for themselves. The only part I agree with, is that using perception for novices, is often not a good idea. I've seen too many times a new trainee describe a set as being @10, when it was literally like @3.

Honestly, still sbjective and relative. There are a hundred reasons you can fail that having nothing to do with actual strength. If you were to take a "Real" 1 RM and then calculate %'s and then assign RPE to those percentages for the trainee, they get a better handle on real exertion versus being a pussy. I've been lifting a long time. I have failed plenty of lifts, and have made lifts that I did not think were a realistic possibility. I have lost count of the number of times that I have done a set workin up and thought I was screwed that day, only to hit the higher weights like they were the warmups. I think the notion of knowing that something was a 7 versus an 8 by feel is absurd, and there is no possibility that I could assign something a number like that. But I am at least 50% at knowing when there is 1 in the tank on any given set.
*** I am still moving throught the Megathread.

[alek]

SS argue that RPE is subjective and therefore useless, often citing examples of people perceiving the weight as being impossible to lift for the prescribed number of reps, yet still finishing all the reps, thus negating the perception as bullshit. What they do not seem to understand is that no one cares about you finishing what you wrote down on a piece of paper. What matters is long term progress, which not only depends on applying the correct stimulus over long periods of time, but also not driving yourself into the ground, getting injured, and actually having at least a mild enjoyment of the journey.

Almost everything is subjective, even whether or not you made the lift. Maybe you got whites, maybe it is was correct enough in the gym to say it counts, it's all subjective. That said, I will say that I don't really believe in RPE as written. I think it is a great tool to help inform a program or educate a new lifter, but I personally don't believe anyone can really perceive past "1 in the tank", and that is subjective too. I have thought that I had one more and then in fact did not. I have also had 2 in the tank when I would have said only 1. I think it might be a nice gauge for your volume and even your general well-being at a given time. I think percentages are a little more accurate, but I don't really use those either. I'm lifting, not doing math.

Lots of people fail at SS-approved strategies because the philosophy is go balls-to-the-wall or you're a pussy. People get married to this philosophy, and when they get injured, or stop making progress, or hate their workouts, or whatever else they experience with non-stop "add fahve pounds no matter what" they eventually quit. Again, short term thinking. For an organization that rallies behind "training" and not worrying about getting hot and sweaty today, they sure really care if you add fahve pounds today. What happens when you felt like crap today, still did the workout, barely eeking out all the reps, and are now wrecked for a week? Does this make you stronger long term vs backing off 5-10%, still getting a decent stimulus, and actually recovering for the next few workouts and continuing your progress?

A goal is beneficial, but... I am okay with adding a rep in place of weight one week to the next. I am equally okay with having a bad day or a bad week and not taking it personally. It happens. It doesn't mean much in the long term, next week could be completely different for mno measureable reason. By the same token, I can think of several reasons to intentionally overtrain and run myself into the ground in the short-term. It's not a great plan long term though.

The only objective way of determining difficulty is going to involuntary muscle failure. Anything short of getting pinned under the bar is "perception". Ignoring perception, and relying on objective failure, especially on big compound lifts that carry a lot of systemic fatigue potential is a recipe for long term failure for most trainees. And, if you do not go to failure, you are using perception, which, according to SS, is bullshit. There is no other way out of this logical hole that they've dug for themselves. The only part I agree with, is that using perception for novices, is often not a good idea. I've seen too many times a new trainee describe a set as being @10, when it was literally like @3.

Honestly, still sbjective and relative. There are a hundred reasons you can fail that having nothing to do with actual strength. If you were to take a "Real" 1 RM and then calculate %'s and then assign RPE to those percentages for the trainee, they get a better handle on real exertion versus being a pussy. I've been lifting a long time. I have failed plenty of lifts, and have made lifts that I did not think were a realistic possibility. I have lost count of the number of times that I have done a set workin up and thought I was screwed that day, only to hit the higher weights like they were the warmups. I think the notion of knowing that something was a 7 versus an 8 by feel is absurd, and there is no possibility that I could assign something a number like that. But I am at least 50% at knowing when there is 1 in the tank on any given set.
*** I am still moving throught the Megathread.

The arguments you're making for RPE being absurd are essentially the same arguments--with the same fallacies--made by those that think CICO is bullshit because counting calories is imprecise and inaccurate.

No one using or advocating for RPE, or any auto-regulated scheme, claim that it's perfect, at least that I know of; if one does, well they're wrong. It is simply one of many tools that can be used to get stronger. However, regardless of how you feel, how strong you are, what program you use, whatever, for each and every set you perform, there is some non-negative finite integer of reps that you can perform once you are done with your set. Whether or not you make a guess--educated or not--that remains true. All those that use and advocate for RPE are trying to do is make their guess as close to reality as they can, knowing that their guess will be imperfect.

I will go out on a limb and say that just as the accuracy of a scale for your weight is less important than its precision, so too is precision more important than accuracy with respect to RPE.

[SnakePlissken]

SS argue that RPE is subjective and therefore useless, often citing examples of people perceiving the weight as being impossible to lift for the prescribed number of reps, yet still finishing all the reps, thus negating the perception as bullshit. What they do not seem to understand is that no one cares about you finishing what you wrote down on a piece of paper. What matters is long term progress, which not only depends on applying the correct stimulus over long periods of time, but also not driving yourself into the ground, getting injured, and actually having at least a mild enjoyment of the journey.

Almost everything is subjective, even whether or not you made the lift. Maybe you got whites, maybe it is was correct enough in the gym to say it counts, it's all subjective. That said, I will say that I don't really believe in RPE as written. I think it is a great tool to help inform a program or educate a new lifter, but I personally don't believe anyone can really perceive past "1 in the tank", and that is subjective too. I have thought that I had one more and then in fact did not. I have also had 2 in the tank when I would have said only 1. I think it might be a nice gauge for your volume and even your general well-being at a given time. I think percentages are a little more accurate, but I don't really use those either. I'm lifting, not doing math.

Lots of people fail at SS-approved strategies because the philosophy is go balls-to-the-wall or you're a pussy. People get married to this philosophy, and when they get injured, or stop making progress, or hate their workouts, or whatever else they experience with non-stop "add fahve pounds no matter what" they eventually quit. Again, short term thinking. For an organization that rallies behind "training" and not worrying about getting hot and sweaty today, they sure really care if you add fahve pounds today. What happens when you felt like crap today, still did the workout, barely eeking out all the reps, and are now wrecked for a week? Does this make you stronger long term vs backing off 5-10%, still getting a decent stimulus, and actually recovering for the next few workouts and continuing your progress?

A goal is beneficial, but... I am okay with adding a rep in place of weight one week to the next. I am equally okay with having a bad day or a bad week and not taking it personally. It happens. It doesn't mean much in the long term, next week could be completely different for mno measureable reason. By the same token, I can think of several reasons to intentionally overtrain and run myself into the ground in the short-term. It's not a great plan long term though.

The only objective way of determining difficulty is going to involuntary muscle failure. Anything short of getting pinned under the bar is "perception". Ignoring perception, and relying on objective failure, especially on big compound lifts that carry a lot of systemic fatigue potential is a recipe for long term failure for most trainees. And, if you do not go to failure, you are using perception, which, according to SS, is bullshit. There is no other way out of this logical hole that they've dug for themselves. The only part I agree with, is that using perception for novices, is often not a good idea. I've seen too many times a new trainee describe a set as being @10, when it was literally like @3.

Honestly, still sbjective and relative. There are a hundred reasons you can fail that having nothing to do with actual strength. If you were to take a "Real" 1 RM and then calculate %'s and then assign RPE to those percentages for the trainee, they get a better handle on real exertion versus being a pussy. I've been lifting a long time. I have failed plenty of lifts, and have made lifts that I did not think were a realistic possibility. I have lost count of the number of times that I have done a set workin up and thought I was screwed that day, only to hit the higher weights like they were the warmups. I think the notion of knowing that something was a 7 versus an 8 by feel is absurd, and there is no possibility that I could assign something a number like that. But I am at least 50% at knowing when there is 1 in the tank on any given set.
*** I am still moving throught the Megathread.

The arguments you're making for RPE being absurd are essentially the same arguments--with the same fallacies--made by those that think CICO is bullshit because counting calories is imprecise and inaccurate.

No one using or advocating for RPE, or any auto-regulated scheme, claim that it's perfect, at least that I know of; if one does, well they're wrong. It is simply one of many tools that can be used to get stronger. However, regardless of how you feel, how strong you are, what program you use, whatever, for each and every set you perform, there is some non-negative finite integer of reps that you can perform once you are done with your set. Whether or not you make a guess--educated or not--that remains true. All those that use and advocate for RPE are trying to do is make their guess as close to reality as they can, knowing that their guess will be imperfect.

I will go out on a limb and say that just as the accuracy of a scale for your weight is less important than its precision, so too is precision more important than accuracy with respect to RPE.

I think y'all both agree it's not perfect and is really just a training a tool (I third that), but people have different definitions for RPE which always got me when I started. Mike T's version is "Reps until you get form breakdown" and other people use "absolute failure" as guides. To me, anything over 4-5 reps is too hard to use on a number basis and RPE is just an extremely relative number of how much Exertion I put into a set (say of something like 10, you can always squeeze out another rep); the high rep version for me is just a number for my training logs so I can track how I felt about working sets to approximate and see if I'm in the ballpark so I'm not doing warmup sets, but also not straining on the last few reps.

When I do sets of 5 or lower, anything past RPE 7 is essentially a rough guess with a +/-1 error bar. An RPE8 means "2-3 reps left", a 9 means "that was tough but I know I could've hit another one" and a 10 is "I barely even got that rep and I know I couldn't hit another one."

I'm sure there's dozens of ways people have skinned it, but a forum post I read on BBM forums a few years ago drove home that whatever you do needs to be consistent because everything is relative to you.

[alek]

SS argue that RPE is subjective and therefore useless, often citing examples of people perceiving the weight as being impossible to lift for the prescribed number of reps, yet still finishing all the reps, thus negating the perception as bullshit. What they do not seem to understand is that no one cares about you finishing what you wrote down on a piece of paper. What matters is long term progress, which not only depends on applying the correct stimulus over long periods of time, but also not driving yourself into the ground, getting injured, and actually having at least a mild enjoyment of the journey.

Almost everything is subjective, even whether or not you made the lift. Maybe you got whites, maybe it is was correct enough in the gym to say it counts, it's all subjective. That said, I will say that I don't really believe in RPE as written. I think it is a great tool to help inform a program or educate a new lifter, but I personally don't believe anyone can really perceive past "1 in the tank", and that is subjective too. I have thought that I had one more and then in fact did not. I have also had 2 in the tank when I would have said only 1. I think it might be a nice gauge for your volume and even your general well-being at a given time. I think percentages are a little more accurate, but I don't really use those either. I'm lifting, not doing math.

Lots of people fail at SS-approved strategies because the philosophy is go balls-to-the-wall or you're a pussy. People get married to this philosophy, and when they get injured, or stop making progress, or hate their workouts, or whatever else they experience with non-stop "add fahve pounds no matter what" they eventually quit. Again, short term thinking. For an organization that rallies behind "training" and not worrying about getting hot and sweaty today, they sure really care if you add fahve pounds today. What happens when you felt like crap today, still did the workout, barely eeking out all the reps, and are now wrecked for a week? Does this make you stronger long term vs backing off 5-10%, still getting a decent stimulus, and actually recovering for the next few workouts and continuing your progress?

A goal is beneficial, but... I am okay with adding a rep in place of weight one week to the next. I am equally okay with having a bad day or a bad week and not taking it personally. It happens. It doesn't mean much in the long term, next week could be completely different for mno measureable reason. By the same token, I can think of several reasons to intentionally overtrain and run myself into the ground in the short-term. It's not a great plan long term though.

The only objective way of determining difficulty is going to involuntary muscle failure. Anything short of getting pinned under the bar is "perception". Ignoring perception, and relying on objective failure, especially on big compound lifts that carry a lot of systemic fatigue potential is a recipe for long term failure for most trainees. And, if you do not go to failure, you are using perception, which, according to SS, is bullshit. There is no other way out of this logical hole that they've dug for themselves. The only part I agree with, is that using perception for novices, is often not a good idea. I've seen too many times a new trainee describe a set as being @10, when it was literally like @3.

Honestly, still sbjective and relative. There are a hundred reasons you can fail that having nothing to do with actual strength. If you were to take a "Real" 1 RM and then calculate %'s and then assign RPE to those percentages for the trainee, they get a better handle on real exertion versus being a pussy. I've been lifting a long time. I have failed plenty of lifts, and have made lifts that I did not think were a realistic possibility. I have lost count of the number of times that I have done a set workin up and thought I was screwed that day, only to hit the higher weights like they were the warmups. I think the notion of knowing that something was a 7 versus an 8 by feel is absurd, and there is no possibility that I could assign something a number like that. But I am at least 50% at knowing when there is 1 in the tank on any given set.
*** I am still moving throught the Megathread.

The arguments you're making for RPE being absurd are essentially the same arguments--with the same fallacies--made by those that think CICO is bullshit because counting calories is imprecise and inaccurate.

No one using or advocating for RPE, or any auto-regulated scheme, claim that it's perfect, at least that I know of; if one does, well they're wrong. It is simply one of many tools that can be used to get stronger. However, regardless of how you feel, how strong you are, what program you use, whatever, for each and every set you perform, there is some non-negative finite integer of reps that you can perform once you are done with your set. Whether or not you make a guess--educated or not--that remains true. All those that use and advocate for RPE are trying to do is make their guess as close to reality as they can, knowing that their guess will be imperfect.

I will go out on a limb and say that just as the accuracy of a scale for your weight is less important than its precision, so too is precision more important than accuracy with respect to RPE.

I think y'all both agree it's not perfect and is really just a training a tool (I third that), but people have different definitions for RPE which always got me when I started. Mike T's version is "Reps until you get form breakdown" and other people use "absolute failure" as guides. To me, anything over 4-5 reps is too hard to use on a number basis and RPE is just an extremely relative number of how much Exertion I put into a set (say of something like 10, you can always squeeze out another rep); the high rep version for me is just a number for my training logs so I can track how I felt about working sets to approximate and see if I'm in the ballpark so I'm not doing warmup sets, but also not straining on the last few reps.

When I do sets of 5 or lower, anything past RPE 7 is essentially a rough guess with a +/-1 error bar. An RPE8 means "2-3 reps left", a 9 means "that was tough but I know I could've hit another one" and a 10 is "I barely even got that rep and I know I couldn't hit another one."

I'm sure there's dozens of ways people have skinned it, but a forum post I read on BBM forums a few years ago drove home that whatever you do needs to be consistent because everything is relative to you.

Yeah, I think this is all good.

[Hardartery]

The arguments you're making for RPE being absurd are essentially the same arguments--with the same fallacies--made by those that think CICO is bullshit because counting calories is imprecise and inaccurate.

No one using or advocating for RPE, or any auto-regulated scheme, claim that it's perfect, at least that I know of; if one does, well they're wrong. It is simply one of many tools that can be used to get stronger. However, regardless of how you feel, how strong you are, what program you use, whatever, for each and every set you perform, there is some non-negative finite integer of reps that you can perform once you are done with your set. Whether or not you make a guess--educated or not--that remains true. All those that use and advocate for RPE are trying to do is make their guess as close to reality as they can, knowing that their guess will be imperfect.

I will go out on a limb and say that just as the accuracy of a scale for your weight is less important than its precision, so too is precision more important than accuracy with respect to RPE.

I wasn't really making an argument either for, or against RPE. I didn't call the idea absurd...I did point out that the subjective nature isn't really an argument against the system. Everything is subjective, so to say a system is no good, or absurd, or whatever else based on that argument is silly, because literally everything in lifting has some level of being subjective. If a certain perceived rate of exertion works for somebody, then I think that they should go ahead and roll with it. I also don't think that most people are good judges of that. Just like most of us think our foem is great until we see a video of it. It's better than nothing, but there's no point in pretending it's a perfect system. Even the best system has flaws and user adjustments. So, I'm not really sure what your argument is here, which is not clarified by the use of synonyms as if they are in fact not synonymous. I'm saying that there is a zero percent chance of me judging RPE of 7 versus 7.5 or 8, or 6.5, or 6. Zero. If it is just a more flexible way of judging the weight than calculating percent, then fine, that seems workable, if you know your 1 RM you can probably influence yourself in deciding RPE. If a 7 RPE is 70% of 1RM, then it's really just trying to get around math and exact weights and at the same time allow for some flexibility in your recovery. Okay, that seems reasonable. If I know that I should be 7 RPE more or less at 70%, and I know that I have roughly 70% on the bar, and that's the goal for the work, great. Makes sense. If we're just saying "Go by feel", then it makes no sense. In the and it's just a slightly different package for the same thing as many other programs. If you can accurately judge RPE in that defined and specific of a manner, you really shouldn't need a program at all - you should have the self-awareness and ability to do your own programming based on how it affects you as an inidividual. The goal isn't finding the best cookie-cutter program, it's knowing how to program for yourself, and that means taking what works from whatever thing you come across and keeping that part - whatever you want to call it.
I don't know, maybe RPE is somehow sacred to you as an individual, or you are so used to hearing attacked that you knee jerk that response, but I'm not trying to have an argument. A nuanced discussion is better. Nobody has to win or lose, and no one has to believe one guy over the other, but we all benefit from considering the positives AND the negatives of a given program or idea. Personally, I find it easier to judge "One in the tank", which I got from Ed Coan. Maybe that doesn't work for you. Personally, I can't be buggered to measure bar velocity or break out a calculator for training. I just do not beieve it's that important in the long run and isn't worth the messing around with it.

[Hardartery]

I think y'all both agree it's not perfect and is really just a training a tool (I third that), but people have different definitions for RPE which always got me when I started. Mike T's version is "Reps until you get form breakdown" and other people use "absolute failure" as guides. To me, anything over 4-5 reps is too hard to use on a number basis and RPE is just an extremely relative number of how much Exertion I put into a set (say of something like 10, you can always squeeze out another rep); the high rep version for me is just a number for my training logs so I can track how I felt about working sets to approximate and see if I'm in the ballpark so I'm not doing warmup sets, but also not straining on the last few reps.

When I do sets of 5 or lower, anything past RPE 7 is essentially a rough guess with a +/-1 error bar. An RPE8 means "2-3 reps left", a 9 means "that was tough but I know I could've hit another one" and a 10 is "I barely even got that rep and I know I couldn't hit another one."

I'm sure there's dozens of ways people have skinned it, but a forum post I read on BBM forums a few years ago drove home that whatever you do needs to be consistent because everything is relative to you.

Still working my way through the Megathread, I stopped to replace the brakes on my truck. I know very little about RPE other than it means "Rate of Perceived Exertion", plus whatever I read in this thread and the Megathread. I was out of the loop when that idea came on the scene, and I'm trying to figure out what everyone is talking about with it. Deciphering people is made difficult by the wide range of personal definitions, which I thought was me misunderstanding something that I would hopefully figure out. I'm not picking on it. If you bring up something stupid like HIT or Press 2.0, I think it will be obvious that I'm not playing nice.

[Hanley]

I give a planck-fuck.

BUT

Here's Johns Hopkins researcher, Roland Griffiths, explaining the results of a study that explored the efficacy of psilocybin for treating major depressive disorder:

[Austin]

I’m not convinced RPE is for everyone. It’s not a training panacea. Mike T and others will agree. It’s just an option to try and see if it helps the individual. What is known is that it has worked well for several people, including @JordanFeigenbaum and @Austin who used it while SSCs. Both of whom are stronger at a lighter weight than Rip ever achieved.

Agree with this, although I've not seen anyone claim it is for everyone either. Regardless, given the normal (and unpredictable) variation in day-to-day performance, it is wise to have some strategy to account for this rather than to deliberately ignore it and force a potentially inappropriate dose of stimulus just because "the program" said so. At least, if you care about sustainable long-term training, rather than a myopic focus on absolute performance today. Whatever strategy that is, fine.

I'm also inclined towards people developing the skills to play a more autonomous role in their own training, rather than being treated like an idiot who is hopelessly dependent on their coach to pick all their weights for them and to have eyes on every working rep of every working set ... but that's a separate issue.

Anyway, that thread is pathetic. I couldn't give less of a fuck about Rip's opinion on literally anything.