Stupid Questions Thread

All training and programming related queries and banter here

Moderators: mgil, chromoly, Manveer

Post Reply
James
Registered User
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:26 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3121

Post by James » Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:02 am

Renascent wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:05 pmPersonally, I was microloading to progress with things like plate curls and extensions, but I suppose there's no reason not to use five- and ten-pound jumps as long as you're able to hit your prescribed reps and sets.
I'll probably end up having to microload. I thought about it more last night and that 15lbs jump from 10 to 25 seems drastic. I was just thinking that trying to hold two or more plates would be a pain after getting past a base ten plate.
dw wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 5:07 pm I jumped to DBs when I realized my gym didn't have 35 pound plates.
But this gives me an idea. I have a cheap 2" DB handle if I took a sleeve off I could make a weight horn to keep plates together.

User avatar
Renascent
Desperado
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:42 am
Age: 39

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3122

Post by Renascent » Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:13 am

James wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:02 am
Renascent wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:05 pmPersonally, I was microloading to progress with things like plate curls and extensions, but I suppose there's no reason not to use five- and ten-pound jumps as long as you're able to hit your prescribed reps and sets.
I'll probably end up having to microload. I thought about it more last night and that 15lbs jump from 10 to 25 seems drastic. I was just thinking that trying to hold two or more plates would be a pain after getting past a base ten plate.
It gets a little tricky at three plates, in my experience, but still manageable. At 40 pounds, I have to sandwich a 5 between the 25 and 10 and hold them tightly.

I've considered buying a 35, but haven't actually done so yet.

OverheadDeadlifts
Registered User
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:13 pm

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3123

Post by OverheadDeadlifts » Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:54 am

James wrote: Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:21 am What's the best way to progress weight on neck exercises without a harness? Just jump straight from ten to 25 to 35 to 45 plates after hitting set/rep goals?
Jumping up in plates worked fine for me. Did the exact progression you described over a few weeks. 5kg/10lbs sounds like a big jump for a neck isolation but it’s very manageable, probably because the ROM is quite short.

James
Registered User
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:26 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3124

Post by James » Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:57 pm

Renascent wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:13 amIt gets a little tricky at three plates, in my experience, but still manageable. At 40 pounds, I have to sandwich a 5 between the 25 and 10 and hold them tightly.

I've considered buying a 35, but haven't actually done so yet.
The only reason I have a 35 pair is because they came with the second hand Dick's weight set I bought. I don't think I have ever used them.
OverheadDeadlifts wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:54 amJumping up in plates worked fine for me. Did the exact progression you described over a few weeks. 5kg/10lbs sounds like a big jump for a neck isolation but it’s very manageable, probably because the ROM is quite short.
Interesting, I'll give the 25 a try Saturday. If it's too much I'll just back off to a 10 and a five pinched together.

JimRiley
Registered User
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:51 am
Location: <x(t), y(t), z(t), t>
Age: 69

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3125

Post by JimRiley » Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:26 pm

If I write 180x5x5 @7 in my training log, I mean each of the 5 sets, viewed own its own, felt like RPE 7. In other words, it felt like I could have done 3 more reps on any one of the sets, like 180x5,5,8,5,5.

What I don't mean is that 3 more reps on every set (180x8x5) or 3 more sets (180x5x8) would have been doable (though the latter probably would be).

Do others take the same meaning I do from a notation like 180x5x5 @7? Would it be better to put 180x5x5 @7,7,7,7,7 to avoid confusion?

ChasingCurls69
Registered User
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:43 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3126

Post by ChasingCurls69 » Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:18 pm

JimRiley wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:26 pm If I write 180x5x5 @7 in my training log, I mean each of the 5 sets, viewed own its own, felt like RPE 7. In other words, it felt like I could have done 3 more reps on any one of the sets, like 180x5,5,8,5,5.

What I don't mean is that 3 more reps on every set (180x8x5) or 3 more sets (180x5x8) would have been doable (though the latter probably would be).

Do others take the same meaning I do from a notation like 180x5x5 @7? Would it be better to put 180x5x5 @7,7,7,7,7 to avoid confusion?
I think that's right as written. I would write it like that personally if every set was RPE 7, or if my last/most difficult set was RPE 7. And I'd only write out the RPE for each set individually if they were different each time, like I started @6 and finished @8-9 despite doing sets across.

User avatar
broseph
High Fiber
Posts: 4895
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:11 am
Location: West Michigan
Age: 41

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3127

Post by broseph » Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:40 am

ChasingCurls69 wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:18 pm
JimRiley wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:26 pm If I write 180x5x5 @7 in my training log, I mean each of the 5 sets, viewed own its own, felt like RPE 7. In other words, it felt like I could have done 3 more reps on any one of the sets, like 180x5,5,8,5,5.

What I don't mean is that 3 more reps on every set (180x8x5) or 3 more sets (180x5x8) would have been doable (though the latter probably would be).

Do others take the same meaning I do from a notation like 180x5x5 @7? Would it be better to put 180x5x5 @7,7,7,7,7 to avoid confusion?
I think that's right as written. I would write it like that personally if every set was RPE 7, or if my last/most difficult set was RPE 7. And I'd only write out the RPE for each set individually if they were different each time, like I started @6 and finished @8-9 despite doing sets across.
I just want to know how you guys are doing 5x5 with every set being @7. Barring super long rest times, if I started with 5@7, I'd surely be closer to @9 by the 5th set.

The stupid question here; do I have piss poor muscular endurance (or whatever), or are these guys atypical?

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3128

Post by 5hout » Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:02 am

broseph wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:40 am
ChasingCurls69 wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:18 pm
JimRiley wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:26 pm If I write 180x5x5 @7 in my training log, I mean each of the 5 sets, viewed own its own, felt like RPE 7. In other words, it felt like I could have done 3 more reps on any one of the sets, like 180x5,5,8,5,5.

What I don't mean is that 3 more reps on every set (180x8x5) or 3 more sets (180x5x8) would have been doable (though the latter probably would be).

Do others take the same meaning I do from a notation like 180x5x5 @7? Would it be better to put 180x5x5 @7,7,7,7,7 to avoid confusion?
I think that's right as written. I would write it like that personally if every set was RPE 7, or if my last/most difficult set was RPE 7. And I'd only write out the RPE for each set individually if they were different each time, like I started @6 and finished @8-9 despite doing sets across.
I just want to know how you guys are doing 5x5 with every set being @7. Barring super long rest times, if I started with 5@7, I'd surely be closer to @9 by the 5th set.

The stupid question here; do I have piss poor muscular endurance (or whatever), or are these guys atypical?
Personally, I think it's people subconsciously curving the RPEs. So the first set is "RPE 7 for the first set" and the last set, which becomes "RPE 7 for the final set of 5 decently hard sets". I used to catch myself doing this all the time.

JimRiley
Registered User
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:51 am
Location: <x(t), y(t), z(t), t>
Age: 69

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3129

Post by JimRiley » Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:41 pm

5hout wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:02 am
broseph wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:40 am
ChasingCurls69 wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:18 pm
JimRiley wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:26 pm If I write 180x5x5 @7 in my training log, I mean each of the 5 sets, viewed own its own, felt like RPE 7. In other words, it felt like I could have done 3 more reps on any one of the sets, like 180x5,5,8,5,5.

What I don't mean is that 3 more reps on every set (180x8x5) or 3 more sets (180x5x8) would have been doable (though the latter probably would be).

Do others take the same meaning I do from a notation like 180x5x5 @7? Would it be better to put 180x5x5 @7,7,7,7,7 to avoid confusion?
I think that's right as written. I would write it like that personally if every set was RPE 7, or if my last/most difficult set was RPE 7. And I'd only write out the RPE for each set individually if they were different each time, like I started @6 and finished @8-9 despite doing sets across.
I just want to know how you guys are doing 5x5 with every set being @7. Barring super long rest times, if I started with 5@7, I'd surely be closer to @9 by the 5th set.

The stupid question here; do I have piss poor muscular endurance (or whatever), or are these guys atypical?
Personally, I think it's people subconsciously curving the RPEs. So the first set is "RPE 7 for the first set" and the last set, which becomes "RPE 7 for the final set of 5 decently hard sets". I used to catch myself doing this all the time.
Yeah, 5 sets of 5 all at RPE 7 may not have been a very realistic example. I do find, though, that a fairly long series of short sets, like squatting 10 triples in a row, can feel pretty nearly the same throughout.

Also, when I record a sets-across @6 it's sometimes an over-simplification because I tend to treat RPE 6 as an all-purpose "it wasn't very hard" rather than guessing at RPE 5, 4, etc. Or if the whole thing was a laugher I'll put @<6, or even @<<6.

ChasingCurls69
Registered User
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:43 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3130

Post by ChasingCurls69 » Sun Mar 19, 2023 2:07 pm

broseph wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:40 am
ChasingCurls69 wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:18 pm
JimRiley wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:26 pm If I write 180x5x5 @7 in my training log, I mean each of the 5 sets, viewed own its own, felt like RPE 7. In other words, it felt like I could have done 3 more reps on any one of the sets, like 180x5,5,8,5,5.

What I don't mean is that 3 more reps on every set (180x8x5) or 3 more sets (180x5x8) would have been doable (though the latter probably would be).

Do others take the same meaning I do from a notation like 180x5x5 @7? Would it be better to put 180x5x5 @7,7,7,7,7 to avoid confusion?
I think that's right as written. I would write it like that personally if every set was RPE 7, or if my last/most difficult set was RPE 7. And I'd only write out the RPE for each set individually if they were different each time, like I started @6 and finished @8-9 despite doing sets across.
I just want to know how you guys are doing 5x5 with every set being @7. Barring super long rest times, if I started with 5@7, I'd surely be closer to @9 by the 5th set.

The stupid question here; do I have piss poor muscular endurance (or whatever), or are these guys atypical?
Oh, I definitely could not do 5x5@7 across, it would be @8-9 by the 5th set as well.

User avatar
DCR
Registered User
Posts: 3406
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am
Location: Louisiana / New York
Age: 45

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3131

Post by DCR » Sun Mar 19, 2023 2:38 pm

Never used RPE but, generalizing my sets of 5 across, usually works out to something like @7, 8, 9, 8.5, 7.5, presuming suitable rests. Gets shittier, and then somehow get the groove and it gets easier.

AlanMackey
Registered User
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:17 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3132

Post by AlanMackey » Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:15 am

broseph wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:40 amI just want to know how you guys are doing 5x5 with every set being @7. Barring super long rest times, if I started with 5@7, I'd surely be closer to @9 by the 5th set.

The stupid question here; do I have piss poor muscular endurance (or whatever), or are these guys atypical?
Maybe it's just me, purposely misusing the RPE thing, but my @7RPE usually means no set was above that.

User avatar
Brackish
Registered User
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:29 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3133

Post by Brackish » Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:50 am

broseph wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:40 am
ChasingCurls69 wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:18 pm
JimRiley wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:26 pm If I write 180x5x5 @7 in my training log, I mean each of the 5 sets, viewed own its own, felt like RPE 7. In other words, it felt like I could have done 3 more reps on any one of the sets, like 180x5,5,8,5,5.

What I don't mean is that 3 more reps on every set (180x8x5) or 3 more sets (180x5x8) would have been doable (though the latter probably would be).

Do others take the same meaning I do from a notation like 180x5x5 @7? Would it be better to put 180x5x5 @7,7,7,7,7 to avoid confusion?
I think that's right as written. I would write it like that personally if every set was RPE 7, or if my last/most difficult set was RPE 7. And I'd only write out the RPE for each set individually if they were different each time, like I started @6 and finished @8-9 despite doing sets across.
I just want to know how you guys are doing 5x5 with every set being @7. Barring super long rest times, if I started with 5@7, I'd surely be closer to @9 by the 5th set.

The stupid question here; do I have piss poor muscular endurance (or whatever), or are these guys atypical?
I must have shitty endurance too. Because if my first set of squats is truly an @8, and I'm doing 3-5 sets, then my 3rd or 5th set with that same weight is sure as shit not an @8. However, I don't find that to be the case with accessories, or not as much anyways.

Bliss
Registered User
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:29 pm
Location: Russia, N56 E49
Age: 33

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3134

Post by Bliss » Fri Mar 24, 2023 8:39 am

Hanley wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:59 am
thoradicus wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:51 amDid 105kgx1, which was probably my 1rm and managed to do 85kgx15 @ 80%. if there was a gun to my head, I think I could have done 1-2 more reps... taking the heavy singles/warmups into account.




Dude, that is just bonkers (15RM with 77ish% 1RM).

My guess is that your 1RM is probably more like 108-112 range. But 15 reps with 85kg is still crazy work capacity with a very high relative intensity.

I think you can forget ever using %-based template programs...ever. They'll be totally inappropriate for you.

I'll get back to you with some ideas.
Wondering what have come out of this exchange? Stumbled across his topic from a while back, a shame that he didn't write up a follow up...
viewtopic.php?t=2682#p169531

@thoradicus?

User avatar
mouse
Registered User
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:48 am
Age: 37

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3135

Post by mouse » Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:05 am

DCR wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 2:38 pm Never used RPE but, generalizing my sets of 5 across, usually works out to something like @7, 8, 9, 8.5, 7.5, presuming suitable rests. Gets shittier, and then somehow get the groove and it gets easier.
I have experienced this kind of thing as well... but on the opposite curve.

First set will feel shitty as I get used to the weight, 2nd/3rd(sometimes 4th) will get easier as I adjust/find a groove, and then 4th/5th will get shittier again as I start to tire out.

Thats why when I judge RPE I'm usually aiming for it on only the first and last set, don't go above the target and if you hit it early either adjust or call it.

These days though I'm more of a fan of top set+back offs on most stuff versus sets across and at the moment I'm starting to think I really dig moving on of the back offs in front of the top set... but time will tell there...

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3136

Post by 5hout » Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:15 am

mouse wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:05 am
These days though I'm more of a fan of top set+back offs on most stuff versus sets across and at the moment I'm starting to think I really dig moving on of the back offs in front of the top set... but time will tell there...
So like set at 135 225 315 315 315 315 then one heavier set heurisitcally judged after this? I've played around with this and think it's v good if you the type of person to turn your top set into an ultragrind and then have to back way way off or stop.

User avatar
mouse
Registered User
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:48 am
Age: 37

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3137

Post by mouse » Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:22 am

5hout wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:15 am
mouse wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:05 am
These days though I'm more of a fan of top set+back offs on most stuff versus sets across and at the moment I'm starting to think I really dig moving on of the back offs in front of the top set... but time will tell there...
So like set at 135 225 315 315 315 315 then one heavier set heurisitcally judged after this? I've played around with this and think it's v good if you the type of person to turn your top set into an ultragrind and then have to back way way off or stop.
More like if the plan is to have a top set of 315, with 4 back offs of 275, I'll do:

275x5, 315x5, 275x5x3

Maybe it's just because I've never trained like this before but it seems to help prime myself better for the 'heavy' set and then trick myself into thinking I'm somehow doing less work while maintaining the volume...

AlanMackey
Registered User
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:17 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3138

Post by AlanMackey » Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:33 am

mouse wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:05 amThats why when I judge RPE I'm usually aiming for it on only the first and last set, don't go above the target and if you hit it early either adjust or call it.
This!

lehman906
Registered User
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 8:31 am
Age: 49

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3139

Post by lehman906 » Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:53 am

mouse wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:22 am
5hout wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:15 am
mouse wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:05 am
These days though I'm more of a fan of top set+back offs on most stuff versus sets across and at the moment I'm starting to think I really dig moving on of the back offs in front of the top set... but time will tell there...
So like set at 135 225 315 315 315 315 then one heavier set heurisitcally judged after this? I've played around with this and think it's v good if you the type of person to turn your top set into an ultragrind and then have to back way way off or stop.
More like if the plan is to have a top set of 315, with 4 back offs of 275, I'll do:

275x5, 315x5, 275x5x3

Maybe it's just because I've never trained like this before but it seems to help prime myself better for the 'heavy' set and then trick myself into thinking I'm somehow doing less work while maintaining the volume...
I know Jordan was big on doing that for a while.

User avatar
DCR
Registered User
Posts: 3406
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am
Location: Louisiana / New York
Age: 45

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#3140

Post by DCR » Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:09 am

mouse wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:22 am
5hout wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:15 am
mouse wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:05 am
These days though I'm more of a fan of top set+back offs on most stuff versus sets across and at the moment I'm starting to think I really dig moving on of the back offs in front of the top set... but time will tell there...
So like set at 135 225 315 315 315 315 then one heavier set heurisitcally judged after this? I've played around with this and think it's v good if you the type of person to turn your top set into an ultragrind and then have to back way way off or stop.
More like if the plan is to have a top set of 315, with 4 back offs of 275, I'll do:

275x5, 315x5, 275x5x3

Maybe it's just because I've never trained like this before but it seems to help prime myself better for the 'heavy' set and then trick myself into thinking I'm somehow doing less work while maintaining the volume...
It’s a function of getting older and needing more work to get the blood flowing on the way up. Every now and then someone in their 20s or 30s feels the need to let me know that I’m blowing my load with too much volume on the work up. First of all, that volume is not just a means, but also an end in itself; I’m nearly as interested in adding reps here and there and building the base as I am in the top set. Second of all, it’s not a choice - contrary to their thinking, in the absence of the greater volume I’m weaker up top. Doing a few triples or whatever on the way up to “conserve [my] energy” sounds great but at 44 doesn’t work in practice. It just leaves me ice cold.

Post Reply