Page 1 of 6

Formulary

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:34 am
by unruhschuh
RPE
Will add some prose later.

[equation]
\begin{align}
i\!n\!t \left(r\!e\!p\!s, R\!P\!E\right) &= \left(A \cdot R\!P\!E + B\right)\left(C + D \cdot r\!e\!p\!s + E \cdot r\!e\!p\!s^2 + F \cdot r\!e\!p\!s^3\right)\\
R\!P\!E \left(r\!e\!p\!s, i\!n\!t\right) &= \dfrac{1}{A} \left(\dfrac{i\!n\!t}{C + D \cdot r\!e\!p\!s + E \cdot r\!e\!p\!s^2 + F \cdot r\!e\!p\!s^3} - B\right)
\end{align}
[/equation]
where
[equation]
\begin{align}
A &= 0.033056 \\
B &= 0.67374 \\
C &= 102.15 \\
D &= -3.7133 \\
E &= 0.14921 \\
F &= -0.0071171
\end{align}
[/equation]

source
Hanley normalized fatigue metric
[equation]
H\left(\boldsymbol{r\!e\!p\!s},\boldsymbol{i\!n\!t}\right) = \sum_{n=1}^N r\!e\!p\!s_n \left(\frac{100}{100-i\!n\!t_n}\right)^2
[/equation]
[math]H[/math] is an arbitrary measure of accumulated fatigue for multiple sets of the same exercise, where each set is assumed to stop 2-3 reps short of failure, for purposes of choosing how much volume to include in a program.

[math]N[/math] is the number of sets
[math]r\!e\!p\!s_n[/math] is the number of reps of set [math]n[/math]
[math]i\!n\!t_n[/math] is the intensity, as percent of e1RM weight used for set [math]n[/math]

An [math]H[/math] value of 200 for a given exercise would be a "light" workout, easy to recover from for most lifters.
An [math]H[/math] value of 400 would be a "medium" workout, while 600 might take more than 2 days to recover from.

For [math]N=1[/math] we can solve [math]H\left(r\!e\!p\!s,i\!n\!t\right)[/math] for either [math]r\!e\!p\!s[/math] or [math]i\!n\!t[/math]
[equation]
\begin{align}
r\!e\!p\!s\left(H,i\!n\!t\right) &= H \cdot \left(\dfrac{100-i\!n\!t}{100}\right)^2
&
i\!n\!t\left(H,r\!e\!p\!s\right) &= 100 \cdot \left(1 - \sqrt{\dfrac{r\!e\!p\!s}{H}}\right)
\end{align}
[/equation]
which can be helpful when laying out a program. Let's say you want to know how many total reps you'd have to do at an intensity of 80% to reach an HNFM of 600
[equation]
r\!e\!p\!s\left(600,80\%\right) = 600 \cdot \left(\frac{100-80}{100}\right)^2 = 24
[/equation]

source
INOL
todo
Wilks
The Wilks coefficient [math]W[/math] is used to compare the total of powerlifters across weight classes. It is defined as
[equation]
W\left(m\right)={\frac {500}{a+bm+cm^{2}+dm^{3}+em^{4}+fm^{5}}}
[/equation]
where [math]m[/math] is the bodyweight in kg and [math]a[/math] through [math]f[/math] are given in the table below.

If [math]T=S+B+D[/math] is the the total of a lifter with [math]S,B,D[/math] being their top weights of squat, bench and deadlift respectively, then their wilks score is given as
[equation]
T_{\mathrm{Wilks}} = W \cdot T
[/equation]

menwomen
[math]a[/math]-216.0475144 594.31747775582
[math]b[/math]16.2606339 -27.23842536447
[math]c[/math]-0.002388645 0.82112226871
[math]d[/math]-0.00113732 -0.00930733913
[math]e[/math]7.01863E-06 4.731582E-05
[math]f[/math]-1.291E-08 -9.054E-08

[1] Robert Wilks, CEO of Powerlifting Australia

Re: Formulary

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:22 am
by cwd
unruhschuh wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:34 am
Hanley normalized fatigue metric
[equation]
H = r \left(\frac{100}{100-i}\right)^2
[/equation]

source
Let's define terms, units, and context:

H is an arbitrary measure of accumulated fatigue for multiple sets of the same exercise, where each set is assumed to stop 2-3 reps short of failure, for purposes of choosing how much volume to include in a program.

r is total reps across all sets
i is intensity, as percent of e1RM weight used

An H value of 200 for a given exercise would be a "light" workout, easy to recover from for most lifters.
An H value of 400 would be a "medium" workout, while 600 might take more than 2 days to recover from.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:30 am
by unruhschuh
Re Hanley normalized fatigue metric @PatrickDB

What if one does [math]N[/math] sets with different intensities? Would it be this?
[equation]
H = \sum_{n=1}^N r_n \left(\frac{100}{100-i_n}\right)^2
[/equation]

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:29 am
by PatrickDB
Yes!

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:54 am
by Dan
I put together this calculator for the Hanley fatigue metric. In playing around with the numbers, it does seem to have limitations at near maximums, but as you pointed out in the above post, this is targeted more towards sets with 2 or 3 reps in the tank. Color-coded the results column because why not? The numbers I left in there roughly outline what has been discussed as a possible power day. Let me know if there are any issues I missed. Hope this is useful for folks.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:29 am
by michael
HNFM and the NLP.

3x5 @ 80% = 375
3x5 @ 85% = 666

HNFM predicts that you won't be able to recover in 48 hours, if your working sets reach 85% 1RM.

To get sets across with 85% you'd need really long rest periods, so don't do that.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:32 am
by Hanley
michael wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:29 amHNFM predicts that you won't be able to recover in 48 hours, if your working sets reach 85% 1RM.
Sounds about right

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:36 am
by mgil
Hanley wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:32 am
michael wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:29 amHNFM predicts that you won't be able to recover in 48 hours, if your working sets reach 85% 1RM.
Sounds about right
Hence LP going to shit at the end.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:41 am
by Hanley
mgil wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:36 amHence LP going to shit at the end.
Yup. And the very reasonable switch to "advanced novice" (a top set of 5 @~85% followed by 2 more sets at ~80%) gets you to a more sane H-value of 475ish.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:42 am
by michael
mgil wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:36 am Hence LP going to shit at the end.
Yes. It's spooky how well the formula predicts both the efficacy in the beginning and the flameout at the end.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:53 am
by michael
Hanley wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:41 am Yup. And the very reasonable switch to "advanced novice" (a top set of 5 @~85% followed by 2 more sets at ~80%) gets you to a more sane H-value of 475ish.
Using the formula, a better light day for advanced novice:

5x5 @ 75% = 400

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:22 am
by Hanley
michael wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:53 am
Hanley wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:41 am Yup. And the very reasonable switch to "advanced novice" (a top set of 5 @~85% followed by 2 more sets at ~80%) gets you to a more sane H-value of 475ish.
Using the formula, a better light day for advanced novice:

5x5 @ 75% = 400
Why better?

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:33 am
by mgil
@michael the idea with that “p” Day is that it’s light in this H measure, but allows for practice of heavy singles or doubles to keep the idea of “display of strength” in the programming loop.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:10 am
by michael
Hanley wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:22 am Why better?
In the context of NLP, so that we're on the same page.

When the RPE starts to ramp on the 3x5 the "advanced novice" adds a "light" day.
But, the "light" day is less stress (tonnage) than the day it replaces.

The old idea was to allow > 48 hours of recoverable damage and rest longer. I think increasing volume, but maintaining the 48 recover period may be better long term.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:13 am
by Hanley
michael wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:10 am
Hanley wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:22 am Why better?
In the context of NLP, so that we're on the same page.

When the RPE starts to ramp on the 3x5 the "advanced novice" adds a "light" day.
But, the "light" day is less stress (tonnage) than the day it replaces.

The old idea was to allow > 48 hours of recoverable damage and rest longer. I think increasing volume, but maintaining the 48 recover period may be better long term.
Oh. I never programmed advanced novice with a "light day". That's a change (for the worse in my opinion)

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:26 pm
by michael
Damn. The switch from 3x5 to 3x3 is explained by HNFM.

3 x 5 @ 85% = 666
3 x 3 @ 85% = 400

The shift moves the stress back down to a recoverable amount.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:30 pm
by Hanley
michael wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:26 pm Damn. The switch from 3x5 to 3x3 is explained by HNFM.

3 x 5 @ 85% = 666
3 x 3 @ 85% = 400

The shift moves the stress back down to a recoverable amount.
Yeah, but you're losing tonnage. This is weenie-peaking. Don't do it

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:36 pm
by michael
Hanley wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:30 pm
michael wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:26 pm Damn. The switch from 3x5 to 3x3 is explained by HNFM.

3 x 5 @ 85% = 666
3 x 3 @ 85% = 400

The shift moves the stress back down to a recoverable amount.
Yeah, but you're losing tonnage. This is weenie-peaking. Don't do it
Agreed, but I can see why they do it now.

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:50 pm
by unruhschuh
I was playing around with some plots for HNFM and this is the most useful so far. It's interesting to see that with an intensity of 60% you'd need almost 100 reps to reach H=600. Also the fact that the Hs are so close together for 90%.

Image

Re: Formulary

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:32 pm
by michael
unruhschuh wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:50 pm It's interesting to see that with an intensity of 60% you'd need almost 100 reps to reach H=600.
10x10 German Volume Training

Beautiful plot.