The cube

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
I liked percentage based especially when peaking because I would look ahead at numbers and get ****ing amped up to hit them. You guys are right about off days where u don't feel 100% butttttt with a set % u might push just a little harder to get that weight even when u thought u couldn't. With rpe the weight might feel super fukking heavy but you'll never know if u would have got that weight if u tried. Every set is different. Some feel shitty some feel awesome. My set of 585 today felt better than my set of 545. So many factors

Bottom line is find which one u like. We can argue which training method is better forever but if one works better for u then stick with it. I know some strong guys that hate rpe and vice versa and they all have different reasons why.
 

Milo

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,686
Reaction score
1,602
Points
113
I liked percentage based especially when peaking because I would look ahead at numbers and get ****ing amped up to hit them. You guys are right about off days where u don't feel 100% butttttt with a set % u might push just a little harder to get that weight even when u thought u couldn't. With rpe the weight might feel super fukking heavy but you'll never know if u would have got that weight if u tried. Every set is different. Some feel shitty some feel awesome. My set of 585 today felt better than my set of 545. So many factors

Bottom line is find which one u like. We can argue which training method is better forever but if one works better for u then stick with it. I know some strong guys that hate rpe and vice versa and they all have different reasons why.
On the other side of the coin you risk getting stapled to the floor for pushing to a percentage set for the day. I'd rather be a little short than get my confidence completely ****ed by getting DP'd by a weight. Right now I'm so fatigued I don't think I could hit 80% of my 1RM. But at least I can get equivalent work accomplished with a lower weight.
 

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
On the other side of the coin you risk getting stapled to the floor for pushing to a percentage set for the day. I'd rather be a little short than get my confidence completely ****ed by getting DP'd by a weight. Right now I'm so fatigued I don't think I could hit 80% of my 1RM. But at least I can get equivalent work accomplished with a lower weight.

That is true. I've only done two peaks and one was percent based and this one rpe. I never missed a lift on the percent based. Actually I always felt like I could do more but I've always liked having that feeling after a session. Like I said u can argue both sides forever. I like both training methods.
 

ToolSteel

KingOfSquat
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
5,229
Reaction score
5,653
Points
283
Can you break this shit down in like a RPE for dummies?
Or maybe a brief outline you would use for a guy?
Shit I liked % base training because I know what I supposed to hit, If I miss I just repeat til I don't.
That doesn't leave me with any what If's

Tool is making me feel like I'm leaving shit on the table and I'm missing out.
But y'all are speaking French and I'm feeling remedial plus I can't remember back to any of the lessons from 8th grade
Bonjour mfer!
Ecks kinda covered it. Unless you're peaking for a meet or for some other reason need 100% optimal training... It probably isn't going to make a night and day difference.

I do think rpe is the way to go for powerlifting. And I think some of the issue here is different interpretations.
Any top level powerlifter using % is going to be using some form of auto regulation wether they realize it or not.
But to get the most out of rpe is does take a specific mindset. The bottom line is you HAVE to spend the time learning "yourself" and your limits. You have to KNOW when you have 1/2/3 reps left in you and how much of a jump to take on your warmups to get there.

Knowing your own rpe is a pretty individual thing in its own. For me I go off bar speed for squat and bench. When I gas, I gas hard. I know that when I start loosing speed I'm around @8. I'm a horrible grinder. If a rep has any grind to it at all, I'm @9 or higher.
I still have trouble calling anything
Lower than a 7.
Like @6 on a double.

WHO THE **** CAN CALL @6 ON A DOUBLE!! That's like saying I could've done a set of 8. I DONT DO SETS OF 8!


Sorry about that.
/rant
 

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
I'll tell u what tho with rpe I feel more beat up. Lol. Maybe its just cus I'm peaking and going hard as fukk and have high rpes but hitting 8s and 9s week after week beats me up. But its getting me strong as fukk
 

Milo

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,686
Reaction score
1,602
Points
113
Ecks kinda covered it. Unless you're peaking for a meet or for some other reason need 100% optimal training... It probably isn't going to make a night and day difference.

I do think rpe is the way to go for powerlifting. And I think some of the issue here is different interpretations.
Any top level powerlifter using % is going to be using some form of auto regulation wether they realize it or not.
But to get the most out of rpe is does take a specific mindset. The bottom line is you HAVE to spend the time learning "yourself" and your limits. You have to KNOW when you have 1/2/3 reps left in you and how much of a jump to take on your warmups to get there.

Knowing your own rpe is a pretty individual thing in its own. For me I go off bar speed for squat and bench. When I gas, I gas hard. I know that when I start loosing speed I'm around @8. I'm a horrible grinder. If a rep has any grind to it at all, I'm @9 or higher.
I still have trouble calling anything
Lower than a 7.
Like @6 on a double.

WHO THE **** CAN CALL @6 ON A DOUBLE!! That's like saying I could've done a set of 8. I DONT DO SETS OF 8!


Sorry about that.
/rant
I think your math is off there champ.
 

Joliver

E-Fighter Extraordinaire
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
10,592
Points
288
If someone is incapable of applying rpe correctly, then I'd say they need to do a daily max with % sets based on that.
Which is in a way rpe for dummies.

I do not think true rpe training is applicable for someone who isn't 100% dedicated. And by that I mean able to be 100% honest with themselves.

Tool, what I am trying to explain is that percentage based programs could never be RPE. There is no subjectivity. It is math. Math is a science. That is why it is the preferred method for so many lifters out there. I don't see percentage based guys attempting to convert their lifting data to RPE. I DO see RPE guys trying to draw tables and correlations to percentage based training because it is completely objective.


Although over shooting tends to be more chronic which is almost as bad..

The lifter is always the weak link in lifting. From my years of watching lifters, I most often see them overestimate their loading intensity and underestimate their volume intensity. They will get stronger but it will be from primarily from hypertrophic NOT neurologic adaptation. But there are those that blast away and regress. They usually burn out or get hurt.


I wanted to hit a few points here but needed to wait till I could sit down and think

I don't see where rpe fails this
Is that not also going a daily max effort as well? I agree 100% that maximal lifting is about physical capacity. And your capacity is not identical down to the pound every single day
And I am training to demonstrate maximum effort on demand. Whatever that may be.

I really think rpe lifters could be separated into two groups in relation to the rising popularity of the sport.
You have those that will push themselves to their true max effort (or whatever is called for that day),
And you will also have those that train rpe because it's easier to "cheat"
Rpe IS a lot harder to be honest with. In % training you have a number on a paper. You either hit it or your don't.
With rpe you have a demanded effort. If you don't "feel" like going heavy, and don't hit what you KNOW you are capable of on that day, than its no different than a % lifter skipping a rep/set or adjusting the weight. In both cases you're only hurting yourself.

Where RPE fails at being measurable is that it is a perception of exertion. I hit a 105% 2 board press in a peak. Very measurable. What RPE is is that? What RPE is 102%? What is 97.5%? Are they all 9s or 10s? If so, you cannot claim precision, because 110% wont ever be 102%. People flunk out of this business because they forget to aim small. Aim small...miss small. Nothing could be smaller than something by incremental percentage. In no world can a integer derivative of how hard something feels come close to the precision of incremental percentages of your known capability.

Yes, RPE may well take you to a training max. But is that training max optimal? 120 years worth of optimal training precedes my sheet. I may be up to the task that day, I may not, but how I feel about it wont be the deciding factor. It says 100%x1x1, I attempt it because the math says so...even if I feel like I've eclipsed my training max.

The mad Russian statisticians also noted the following: Lifter useful life was between 7-10 years with an average of 8. Afterwards, progress will be observed at a rate of about 1% per year...hopefully. You are brand new and piss and vinegar. You are staring 2000 in the face with speed and momentum. What happens in year 8? It took me a lifetime of ****ing around to get close to my PR dead. The last 10% damn near took me longer than the first 90%. These are the moments when percentages matter and a perceived feeling of exertion is as unimportant as an amputated leg on a millipede.

My wife used to ask me about my sessions: "How'd it go tonght?"....."Hard day at work...just a check in the box." These days happen. I cannot tell you how many times I ****ing knew I was going to get stapled. But I did it because it was to be done. Sometimes I surprised myself...others, not so much. But the point is...if its on the list...you do it and miss.

Nobody does this to cheat. Weak willed men don't endanger themselves to be cool, but fatigue makes cowards of us all. I know to follow the sheet. The sheet was made when I was cool and comfortable in my chair at home...probably with a beer...thinking with a clear mind. I approached my training max with the AC on the fritz and I lost my wraps and had to borrow...two guys just finished fighting/arguing over something...whatever god awful scenario.

If somebody does this to cheat for instagram, they are just tourists....they'll be gone soon and nobody will be the wiser. They are of no count...and shouldn't be.

You say RPE is a lot harder. It could be on any variable day, but is that optimal? Or could that be like those gymrats that proclaim their good workout was just so because they got sore? On the good days, RPE should always seem more intense. On average days...after a divorce...dog died...got fired....friend died....got audited...got scorching case of herpes with a side of clap....percentage based training is the compass that leads the masses. It is one word: methodical.

Percentages are undoubtedly the fundamental base of the program that led Mike Tuchscherer to be a champion. Mike developed reactive autoregulation after he was an elite lifter. The lillybridges developed their method after they were champions. Westside stole percentage based training...admittedly so. You name a lifter worth knowing, they got there on percentages. Now they realized that percentages were a google away and decided that they could package and sell their method....there is a thought. And that thought doesn't take away from the efficacy of what they preach, but a profit motive is a heavy drive to piss on something else. But of all of the things you can piss on, percentage as a measurement of progress isn't one of them.


I liked percentage based especially when peaking because I would look ahead at numbers and get ****ing amped up to hit them. You guys are right about off days where u don't feel 100% butttttt with a set % u might push just a little harder to get that weight even when u thought u couldn't. With rpe the weight might feel super fukking heavy but you'll never know if u would have got that weight if u tried. Every set is different. Some feel shitty some feel awesome. My set of 585 today felt better than my set of 545. So many factors

Bottom line is find which one u like. We can argue which training method is better forever but if one works better for u then stick with it. I know some strong guys that hate rpe and vice versa and they all have different reasons why.

This is true. There is no "one best way." But there is always the "out with the old and in with the new" schools of thoughts out there. So many of these guys piss down on the known and proven only because it is profitable to sell their "new and improved" whatever it is. I like most of these methods. The reason I like them is they are never far away from AS Prilepin and his percentage table.
 

PillarofBalance

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
20,402
Reaction score
18,204
Points
0
One of the things I cover in the article Joliver is the advent of the new tendo units. Like squat and science open barbell. Very cheap accessible devices that measure barspeed.

We can correlate rpe and percents using this. But it uses the Russian max - that is the max ON THAT DAY. Or was that bulgarian? Shit...

Your board press example if I were coaching you I wouldn't care what % that is. I would be looking for you to reach an intensity level.

I think that's what gets lost in translation. I am after intensity levels first. From there we get into volume.

I don't knock percentage based training at all though. I still use it for some clients particularly anyone I am doing a weekly DUP for.
 

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
U can't say one method is harder. That's not possible to say that. It depends on your program and what u are required to do. I said I feel more beat up but that's because I'm in a peak hitting high rpe week after week. Same would go for a peak with high percentages.
 

ECKSRATED

UG BENCH KING
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
8,629
Reaction score
9,007
Points
283
And this made me laugh out loud

"unimportant as an amputated leg on a millipede"
 

Joliver

E-Fighter Extraordinaire
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
10,592
Points
288
One of the things I cover in the article Joliver is the advent of the new tendo units. Like squat and science open barbell. Very cheap accessible devices that measure barspeed.

We can correlate rpe and percents using this. But it uses the Russian max - that is the max ON THAT DAY. Or was that bulgarian? Shit...

Your board press example if I were coaching you I wouldn't care what % that is. I would be looking for you to reach an intensity level.

I think that's what gets lost in translation. I am after intensity levels first. From there we get into volume.

I don't knock percentage based training at all though. I still use it for some clients particularly anyone I am doing a weekly DUP for.

Good point POB. I have been using a tendo unit since I broke my Nin-tendo....clever...I know. I have always monitored speed. My speed at a given percent is a driver of my training philosophy.

On that given board press example, it was an overload. It was beyond a 10 on the RPE scale. It was a maximum effort...beyond my maximum effort in a competition press. It was measurable only by percentage.

When I label the disparity between RPE and percentage based programs, the maximum intensity component is 6 to 5 and pick 'em. Dead even. Intensity is intensity. Max to max.

Where RPE can falls short of prescribed percentages is in the days that the perception of maximum falls short of what a percentage based program would call for from an intensity standpoint--overreaches in particular. When a 9 is below the prescribed maximum effort in a comparative program. I know those days happen. I've been there. Where does an autoregulator benchmark on those days?

I've never argued against RPE. I've stated that it is for advanced guys that know themselves. Guys that can be objective in their subjectivity. Or guys that have a coach. If you didn't guide some of your lifters, would they always hit mandatory intensity levels every time?
 

PillarofBalance

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
20,402
Reaction score
18,204
Points
0
Good point POB. I have been using a tendo unit since I broke my Nin-tendo....clever...I know. I have always monitored speed. My speed at a given percent is a driver of my training philosophy.

On that given board press example, it was an overload. It was beyond a 10 on the RPE scale. It was a maximum effort...beyond my maximum effort in a competition press. It was measurable only by percentage.

When I label the disparity between RPE and percentage based programs, the maximum intensity component is 6 to 5 and pick 'em. Dead even. Intensity is intensity. Max to max.

Where RPE can falls short of prescribed percentages is in the days that the perception of maximum falls short of what a percentage based program would call for from an intensity standpoint--overreaches in particular. When a 9 is below the prescribed maximum effort in a comparative program. I know those days happen. I've been there. Where does an autoregulator benchmark on those days?

I've never argued against RPE. I've stated that it is for advanced guys that know themselves. Guys that can be objective in their subjectivity. Or guys that have a coach. If you didn't guide some of your lifters, would they always hit mandatory intensity levels every time?

They certainly would not always hit required intensity no. On the flip side what happens when you have SARS and can't even bench 80% for 5 or 6 triples? But that's what it requires?

I have experimented though with alphaD using both. I would give him a minimum weight to use that was based off a %1rm. But it almost always turned out to be too light. He was then free to add weight.

But Jesus that was a pain in the ass to write and manage! Correlating rpe to a % is a ****ing nightmare.
 

Joliver

E-Fighter Extraordinaire
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
10,592
Points
288
They certainly would not always hit required intensity no. On the flip side what happens when you have SARS and can't even bench 80% for 5 or 6 triples? But that's what it requires?

I have experimented though with alphaD using both. I would give him a minimum weight to use that was based off a %1rm. But it almost always turned out to be too light. He was then free to add weight.

But Jesus that was a pain in the ass to write and manage! Correlating rpe to a % is a ****ing nightmare.

I've subscribed to what john broz has always said--"You can't listen to your body because it is lying to you." Not withstanding injuries of course.

If you have SARS....get in there and lift...with a mask, of course. I've walked the walk on this, I benched 85% for sets of triples 72 hours before I had the end of my clavical chopped off so it would fit in my AC joint again. It accomplished nothing. But it was on the list.

Tool should get SARS.
 

DocDePanda187123

fitasfuk50's Operating System
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
8,074
Reaction score
5,825
Points
283
Yes it would be @9. But that's the exact point. @9 is @9. Period. You wouldn't call it @3 because you could do 400 on a good day.

I feel you guys are leaning too hard on the "self regulation" side. @9 means ~90% of your max effort. Not 90% of how hard you feel like going.

A guy who feels lazy and calls @7 an @9 is the same guy that's going to cheat his % a few lbs because he's feeling lazy. Or miss a lift but put it in his log anyway.

Incorrect. An @9 only means about 90% of your max effort when it's 3reps. A x5 @9 is less than 85% of your max for example.
 

ToolSteel

KingOfSquat
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
5,229
Reaction score
5,653
Points
283
Incorrect. An @9 only means about 90% of your max effort when it's 3reps. A x5 @9 is less than 85% of your max for example.
Incorrect. It has zero correlation to %1rm.
@9 is ~90% of the maximum effort you could possibly put into a given set regardless of the rep range.
 

ToolSteel

KingOfSquat
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
5,229
Reaction score
5,653
Points
283
Tool, what I am trying to explain is that percentage based programs could never be RPE. There is no subjectivity. It is math. Math is a science. That is why it is the preferred method for so many lifters out there. I don't see percentage based guys attempting to convert their lifting data to RPE. I DO see RPE guys trying to draw tables and correlations to percentage based training because it is completely objective.

The lifter is always the weak link in lifting. From my years of watching lifters, I most often see them overestimate their loading intensity and underestimate their volume intensity. They will get stronger but it will be from primarily from hypertrophic NOT neurologic adaptation. But there are those that blast away and regress. They usually burn out or get hurt.

Where RPE fails at being measurable is that it is a perception of exertion. I hit a 105% 2 board press in a peak. Very measurable. What RPE is is that? What RPE is 102%? What is 97.5%? Are they all 9s or 10s? If so, you cannot claim precision, because 110% wont ever be 102%.

People flunk out of this business because they forget to aim small. Aim small...miss small. Nothing could be smaller than something by incremental percentage. In no world can a integer derivative of how hard something feels come close to the precision of incremental percentages of your known capability.

Yes, RPE may well take you to a training max. But is that training max optimal? 120 years worth of optimal training precedes my sheet. I may be up to the task that day, I may not, but how I feel about it wont be the deciding factor. It says 100%x1x1, I attempt it because the math says so...even if I feel like I've eclipsed my training max.

The mad Russian statisticians also noted the following: Lifter useful life was between 7-10 years with an average of 8. Afterwards, progress will be observed at a rate of about 1% per year...hopefully. You are brand new and piss and vinegar. You are staring 2000 in the face with speed and momentum. What happens in year 8? It took me a lifetime of ****ing around to get close to my PR dead. The last 10% damn near took me longer than the first 90%. These are the moments when percentages matter and a perceived feeling of exertion is as unimportant as an amputated leg on a millipede.

My wife used to ask me about my sessions: "How'd it go tonght?"....."Hard day at work...just a check in the box." These days happen. I cannot tell you how many times I ****ing knew I was going to get stapled. But I did it because it was to be done. Sometimes I surprised myself...others, not so much. But the point is...if its on the list...you do it and miss.

Nobody does this to cheat. Weak willed men don't endanger themselves to be cool, but fatigue makes cowards of us all. I know to follow the sheet. The sheet was made when I was cool and comfortable in my chair at home...probably with a beer...thinking with a clear mind. I approached my training max with the AC on the fritz and I lost my wraps and had to borrow...two guys just finished fighting/arguing over something...whatever god awful scenario.

If somebody does this to cheat for instagram, they are just tourists....they'll be gone soon and nobody will be the wiser. They are of no count...and shouldn't be.

You say RPE is a lot harder. It could be on any variable day, but is that optimal? Or could that be like those gymrats that proclaim their good workout was just so because they got sore? On the good days, RPE should always seem more intense. On average days...after a divorce...dog died...got fired....friend died....got audited...got scorching case of herpes with a side of clap....percentage based training is the compass that leads the masses. It is one word: methodical.

Percentages are undoubtedly the fundamental base of the program that led Mike Tuchscherer to be a champion. Mike developed reactive autoregulation after he was an elite lifter. The lillybridges developed their method after they were champions. Westside stole percentage based training...admittedly so. You name a lifter worth knowing, they got there on percentages. Now they realized that percentages were a google away and decided that they could package and sell their method....there is a thought. And that thought doesn't take away from the efficacy of what they preach, but a profit motive is a heavy drive to piss on something else. But of all of the things you can piss on, percentage as a measurement of progress isn't one of them.




This is true. There is no "one best way." But there is always the "out with the old and in with the new" schools of thoughts out there. So many of these guys piss down on the known and proven only because it is profitable to sell their "new and improved" whatever it is. I like most of these methods. The reason I like them is they are never far away from AS Prilepin and his percentage table.
I kind of lost my attention span halfway through. You cannot attempt to debate the pros/cons of two systems when you only understand one of them. STOP trying to relate rpe to %1rm.
You're trying to directly compare Lbs and Kg. At sea level, sure, there's a relation. That's one scenereo out of many. They both are quantifiable with precision yet measure two completely different things. Lbs change based on surroundings. A kg is ALWAYS a kg.

You're basing your lifts off of a number that may or may not at one point in time in one specific scenereo been your 1rm. So sure you can write down % dumbers. But what purpose do they have? Nothing any more significant than the numbers that I log. I still track the weight and compare week to week. The only significance to % here is you're basing from a theoretical set point.
Good point POB. I have been using a tendo unit since I broke my Nin-tendo....clever...I know. I have always monitored speed. My speed at a given percent is a driver of my training philosophy.

On that given board press example, it was an overload. It was beyond a 10 on the RPE scale. It was a maximum effort...beyond my maximum effort in a competition press. It was measurable only by percentage.

When I label the disparity between RPE and percentage based programs, the maximum intensity component is 6 to 5 and pick 'em. Dead even. Intensity is intensity. Max to max.

Where RPE can falls short of prescribed percentages is in the days that the perception of maximum falls short of what a percentage based program would call for from an intensity standpoint--overreaches in particular. When a 9 is below the prescribed maximum effort in a comparative program. I know those days happen. I've been there. Where does an autoregulator benchmark on those days?

I've never argued against RPE. I've stated that it is for advanced guys that know themselves. Guys that can be objective in their subjectivity. Or guys that have a coach. If you didn't guide some of your lifters, would they always hit mandatory intensity levels every time?
Did you complete the rep? Then it wasn't beyond @10

Flame me if you want but I really think the issue here is you only love what you understand; you will never be able to compare the two until you actually understand what rpe means.
 
Last edited:

DocDePanda187123

fitasfuk50's Operating System
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
8,074
Reaction score
5,825
Points
283
Incorrect. It has zero correlation to %1rm.
@9 is ~90% of the maximum effort you could possibly put into a given set regardless of the rep range.

Yiu don't understand RPE then. Read up on how Tuchscherer correlates RPE to percentages.
 

ToolSteel

KingOfSquat
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
5,229
Reaction score
5,653
Points
283
Yiu don't understand RPE then. Read up on how Tuchscherer correlates RPE to percentages.
No, the problem is you misunderstanding what I said in the first place. I was never speaking about % 1rm, I was talking about % maximal effort on a given set.

In relation to percentages, even Tuchscherer gives ranges. There is no exact correlation.
 
Last edited:

ToolSteel

KingOfSquat
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
5,229
Reaction score
5,653
Points
283
So attempt to say there's an exact correlation is foolish. Every lifter is different. Take me and Ecks for example in the squat. Where we stand currently, 1rm is probably pretty damn close. But I have and have always had shit for endurance. Put 405 on the bar for reps, and he'd embarrass me.
So even though we could do the same workout at the same rpe, given we were both performing at our best, his % would be higher than mine. Likewise if we were to do the same % based workout, my perceived effort would be higher than his.
 

New Threads

Top