RPE Megathread: The Sweet Smell of Easy.

[filippo]

how do y’all program your deload/washout/pivot weeks?

[Hanley]

I've been thinking about this for a long time, but haven't really checked in with the current RTS position, so I'll ask here: how does session stress scale with readiness?

If my e1RM is down 5%, it seems silly to use the same session prescription. Assuming fixed session volumes, 70% scaled for reduced readiness is quite different from 70% at full readiness**. IOW -- at reduced readiness, I'm not a nice, linearly weaker version of myself -- I'm a different physiological creature (in my case, one with a way higher proportion of type I MUs).

** even allowing variable volume to hit a certain RPE will be quite different as I'm stressing different bioenergetic systems and shit. @8 in reduced readiness is not @8 in full readiness.

[deepmountain]

I've been thinking about this for a long time, but haven't really checked in with current the current RTS position, so I'll ask here: how does session stress scale with readiness?

If my e1RM is down 5%, it seems silly to use the same session prescription. Assuming fixed session volumes, 70% scaled for reduced readiness is quite different from 70% at full readiness**. IOW -- at reduced readiness, I'm not a nice, linearly weaker version of myself...I'm a different physiological creature (in my case, one with a way higher proportion of type I MUs).

** even allowing variable volume to hit a certain RPE will be quite different as I'm stressing different bioenergetic systems and shit. @8 in reduced readiness is not @8 in full readiness.

Great question.

I don't have an answer to your question, but this is one of my major concerns with fixed volume prescriptions. Earlier this year I tried programming most of my sessions with a fixed amount of volume, but found it to be generally less effective than other methods. I know RTS has moved (somewhat) away from fatigue drops and percents recently, but this issue makes me wonder if they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Hanley]

fixed volume prescriptions.

But even if I allow for variable volume, using an intensity scaled to my real-time e1RM seems...iffy. Seems if I hit a certain "reduced readiness threshold" the training objectives themselves should change.

[deepmountain]

fixed volume prescriptions.

But even if I allow for variable volume, using an intensity scaled to my real-time e1RM seems...iffy. Seems if I hit a certain "reduced readiness threshold" the training objectives themselves should change.

Could you clarify what you mean by "training objectives should change?"

If stresses(both caused by training and from outside sources) are swinging your performance that wildly(ex. more than a 5% swing in ERM), we've got bigger problems to focus on.

[Hanley]

Could you clarify what you mean by "training objectives should change?"

Sure. Say my session assignment has me scheduled for highly strength-specific training (doubles or triples at a relative intensity above ~82%).

If my e1RM is down, much of the benefit of such as session (skill, neuro) is lost (I literally won't be recruiting the muscle I'm looking to optimize) Shouldn't I shift the training objective for the session to a hypertrophy bias?

If stresses(both caused by training and from outside sources) are swinging your performance that wildly(ex. more than a 5% swing in ERM), we've got bigger problems to focus on.

Well, I pulled that out of my ass, but it's not an unrealistic drop for me if I'm working on less than ~6 hours sleep.

[deepmountain]

Could you clarify what you mean by "training objectives should change?"

Sure. Say my session assignment has me scheduled for highly strength-specific training (doubles or triples at a relative intensity above ~82%).

If my e1RM is down, much of the benefit of such as session (skill, neuro) is lost (I literally won't be recruiting the muscle I'm looking to optimize) Shouldn't I shift the training objective for the session to a hypertrophy bias?

How do you know that you won't be recruiting the muscle you're looking to optimize? What if you had an absolutely stellar day and your ERM was up by 5%? Would you be recruiting more muscle than you had previously planned to?

Why would you switch to a hypertrophy focus if your original intent was top-end strength? I guess I just don't see any utility in changing goals just because you have face some unplanned performance variance. I guess I'm unfamiliar with your training principles, but do you not follow some degree of phasic structure?

[Hanley]

How do you know that you won't be recruiting the muscle you're looking to optimize?

I'm literally weaker. The recruitment patterns have to be different.

Why would you switch to a hypertrophy focus if your original intent was top-end strength?

Because I'm reinforcing a motor program that's subtly (but quite importantly) altered from a state of high-readiness.

In other sports, it's bad practice to train motor programs in fatigue, because of the possibility of corrupting hard-won refinement of skill. I don't see why barbell "sport specific" work should be excluded from this concern.

I guess I'm unfamiliar with your training principles, but do you not follow some degree of phasic structure?

Yeah, sure, but I'd rather make shift from script for 1 session than get bad/corrupt "sport practice".

[deepmountain]

How do you know that you won't be recruiting the muscle you're looking to optimize?

I'm literally weaker. The recruitment patterns have to be different.

Why would you switch to a hypertrophy focus if your original intent was top-end strength?

Because I'm reinforcing a motor program that's subtly (but quite importantly) altered from a state of high-readiness.

In other sports, it's bad practice to train motor programs in fatigue, because of the possibility of corrupting hard-won refinement of skill. I don't see why barbell "sport specific" work should be excluded from this concern.

I guess I'm unfamiliar with your training principles, but do you not follow some degree of phasic structure?

Yeah, sure, but I'd rather make shift from script for 1 session than get bad/corrupt "sport practice".

I understand and acknowledge most of the issues you're bringing up, but I don't agree with your solution. If your sport-specific performance (lifting very heavy weights) is going to be so negatively affected, why would changing the training goal to a hypertrophy focus be the fix?

You're going to generate stress that likely won't have a positive impact on your initial training goal(sport specificity) and will generate excess(and probably junk) fatigue. If you're that unable to train, wouldn't the correct solution be to address whatever is causing these performance limitations and then accomplish your goal? Aka go home, eat, get some rest, and then train.

[JohnHelton]

@Hanley, I don't know if this answers your question, but I always adjust my drop sets if I am over or under my target 1@8. In other words, I recalculate my e1RM. I then use that new e1RM to calculate the target weights for the drop sets, even if the target is only 75% x e1RM. I believe this is the RTS prescribed approach. I have found it helpful in order to produce the amount of stress intended for the workout.

[Hanley]

If your sport-specific performance (lifting very heavy weights) is going to be so negatively affected, why would changing the training goal to a hypertrophy focus be the fix?

Because -- even using identical joint angles -- recruitment patterns are so different at very submax loads that I (guessing here) am less likely to corrupt the sport-specific motor program.

Shit, I could even change the lift variation to something very non-sport-specific.

and will generate excess(and probably junk) fatigue. If you're that unable to train, wouldn't the correct solution be to address whatever is causing these performance limitations and then accomplish your goal? Aka go home, eat, get some rest, and then train.

I don't know. In this hypothetical, I'm already at the gym; I've just performed a heavy(ish) single. Might as well bump MPS rates over the next couple of days, no? I'm just looking for a small net positive in a state of compromised readiness.

Hanley, I don't know if this answers your question, but I always adjust my drop sets if I am over or under my target 1@8. In other words, I recalculate my e1RM. I then use that new e1RM to calculate the target weights for the drop sets, even if the target is only 75% x e1RM. I believe this is the RTS prescribed approach. I have found it helpful in order to produce the amount of stress intended for the workout.

Yeah, that's what I've always done too. But doing that is making less and less sense to me.

[deepmountain]

I don't know. In this hypothetical, I'm already at the gym; I've just performed a heavy(ish) single. Might as well bump MPS rates over the next couple of days, no? I'm just looking for a small net positive in a state of compromised readiness.

I think the heavy(ish) single would accomplish enough for the training session to not be a waste.

I'm not convinced I'm correct, but I just don't see utility in work/volume that isn't working towards the ultimate goal of the training session/block.

[Particle]

What about reducing the reps per set to ensure that the reps stay clean? Like going from 3@80% to 2@80% and possibly adding sets?

[Hanley]

I just don't see utility in work/volume that isn't working towards the ultimate goal of the training session/block.

More contractile tissue more better.

A little MPS bump seems like a better option than doing nothing even in a skill block

[Hanley]

What about reducing the reps per set to ensure that the reps stay clean? Like going from 3@80% to 2@80% and possibly adding sets?

Maybe, but the "dirtiness" of these reps wouldn't manifest as compromised mechanics. Compromised twitch rates/recruitment patterns will just yield slower, clean reps.

[JohnHelton]

From my experience, the goal of reducing the e1RM given reduced "readiness" is about managing overall stress. If you accumulate too much stress, you crash and lose training momentum. That is what happened to me in my last cycle. Maybe @Manveer has more insight. I don't think the concept is more sophisticated than that. I think the same could be accomplished by adjusting sets, reps, etc. Maybe an adjusted set/rep scheme would be even more appropriate on a day with reduced readiness. However, the model becomes more complex, and maybe unnecessarily so. RTS seems to be having good success with this simple formula. I do think this is a good question though. I would guess that Mike T. would agree with that.

[Hanley]

and maybe unnecessarily so

Probably.

But overthinking training logic is what I do.

[JohnHelton]

and maybe unnecessarily so

Probably.

But overthinking training logic is what I do.

If no one thought about it more deeply, I would still be doing 3x5 and wondering why I couldn't get any stronger.

[RyanHartigan]

@DrHades What John said, but I'm happy with +-1. If you haven't been at it very long, I would keep at it. You get better at doing the top sets with follow up volume pretty quick.

@filippo Only when required. I forgot to put some examples in OP, I might edit it later when I get a minute.

How does session stress scale with readiness?

If my e1RM is down 5%, it seems silly to use the same session prescription because:

• I'm a different physiological creature (in my case, one with a way higher proportion of type I MUs).

• It's bad practice to train motor programs in fatigue, because of the possibility of corrupting hard-won refinement of skill and much of the benefit of such as session (skill, neuro) is lost

if I hit a certain "reduced readiness threshold" the training objectives should change.

I haven't implemented this threshold in my training as a pre-planned strategy, but sometimes when you can't break 405 off the floor, but can do 360 for volume it's likely going to be more productive to do that. It should be a rare occurrence, which is better solved by monitoring your response to stresses and planning ahead accordingly. That example is also a huge fluctuation in my peak strength way above 5%, without a corresponding huge fluctuation in my ability to punch out volume. Doing nothing that session and adjusting training may have also been successful in this context.

Staying with the prescription only 'seems silly' if those couple of points you made exclude a greater training benefit (defined by highest 1RM on meet day) from doing a highly strength-specific session (presumably close to a meet or test day.). Even accepting your points as accurate, it doesn't follow that altering the prescription is the best course of action, particularly when you have data about what happens to your ERM and have evidence that following that plan yields good results.

Say you hit @9 when you were planning @8 a few weeks out from competition (~5% or so loss of ERM). Do you:

A: Continue your plan because you have credible data that it will return a favourable result; or
B: Disregard the plan because your ERM dropped 5%. Continuing to train may damage the skill you are trying to enhance and the best thing to do is some volume work to get a little MPS bump.

Depending on the lift, time out from competition and the athlete, B could be a really terrible idea.

I know A works, but I can't really exclude that B is a good strategy too in other contexts. I do like the idea of having reduced readiness/performance/preparedness thresholds with backup plans if you cross them.

I would still be doing 3x5 and wondering why I couldn't get any stronger.

The reason you aren't getting stronger is because you didn't do the program. If you did the program, you would have added 5lbs.

[Hanley]

Even accepting your points as accurate, it doesn't follow that altering the prescription is the best course of action, particularly when you have data about what happens to your ERM and have evidence that following that plan yields good results.

Say you hit @9 when you were planning @8 a few weeks out from competition (~5% or so loss of ERM). Do you:

A: Continue your plan because you have credible data that it will return a favourable result; or

How are you determining if the given variables you are tracking are statisically valid predictors of performance?

I ask because I don't see how you could possibly have "credible data that it will return a favourable result".