RPE Megathread: The Sweet Smell of Easy.

[RyanHartigan]

It turns on the word 'credible'. If you don't think you can record data about training and predict how an athlete will respond to future training, you have a high standard of the word credible.

There's so many confounding variables that even when you have lots of data I think it's impossible to get an authentic predictor of performance because of inter/intra athlete variability.

There is lots of credible (to me) evidence I can point to and say - this likely is/isn't working or this likely will/won't work based on that person's recent training history, but it's at best educated guesses and at worst experimental stabs in the dark.

[Hanley]

It turns on the word 'credible'. If you don't think you can record data about training and predict how an athlete will respond to future training, you have a high standard of the word credible.

Im not doubting it can be done, but how do you do it?

How do you determine that sticking to the plan when you hit @9 vice @8 had favorable results?

But -- more importantly -- where does the plan for scaling stress in a state of reduced readiness come from?

My credible data -- and why Im wrestling with this -- is that literally no one in a state of reduced readiness is simply a linearly weaker version of themself (but I'm programming that way....which, I think, I'm fucking up).

Edit: basically, you have to suffer my doubt and anxiety

[Manveer]

It turns on the word 'credible'. If you don't think you can record data about training and predict how an athlete will respond to future training, you have a high standard of the word credible.

Im not doubting it can be done, but how do you do it?

How do you determine that sticking to the plan when you hit @9 vice @8 had favorable results?

But -- more importantly -- where does the plan for scaling stress in a state of reduced readiness come from?

Just add 5 pounds.

[Hanley]

It turns on the word 'credible'. If you don't think you can record data about training and predict how an athlete will respond to future training, you have a high standard of the word credible.

Im not doubting it can be done, but how do you do it?

How do you determine that sticking to the plan when you hit @9 vice @8 had favorable results?

But -- more importantly -- where does the plan for scaling stress in a state of reduced readiness come from?

Just add 5 pounds.

Namas fucking te

[stevan]

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.

Not that it means anything, but I came to the same conclusion. Squishy.

[stevan]

Nah. I just like to share my concerns over things I'm pretty sure I'm fucking up while programming. I think the scaling of stress for real-time fatigue is something we're all fucking up.

That said -- I'm really fucking over the pretense of statistical rigor for "emerging strategies" and "agile programming".

I'm not 100% sure what do you mean by this, probably because of language. Any chance you can dumb it down for me? Are you saying that 5@8 is not always the same stress/stimulus as 5@8? And that has some implications for your "agile programming"?

[Hanley]

Are you saying that 5@8 is not always the same stress/stimulus as 5@8? And that has some implications for your "agile programming"?

Yeah. And the difference in quality between 5@8 in full-readiness (little departure from an e1RM trend-line) and 5@8 in compromised-readiness (big departure from e1RM trend-line) could have repercussions in training highly-skilled lifters (probably minimal difference for newbs).

Fatigue is insanely complicated, but I really only care about the motor-level when it comes to reduction in measured force. Force can really only be moderated by total-pool recruitment or changes in twitch rate.

So, in a state of compromised readiness, I'm either a) not recruiting my highest-threshold motor units, or b) I'm recruiting the full-pool with seriously compromised rate coding (I suspect it's the former...but we'll see in like 5 years). I think that has implications for training.

- If I'm not recruiting the largest MUs, because of fatigue, I'm shifting my training to a pool of MUs with very different bioenergetic characteristics. I'm biased toward MUs that can withstand more @8 sets...I actually think I might need to bump volume UP in a state of fatigue (but lower intensities).

- If I am recruiting the full-pool of MUs but with seriously compromised rate coding because of fatigue....I need to stay the fuck away from "skill work". So, I should shift the training bias of the session to hypertrophy (or stay away from comp lifts).

^ again, this would really only come into play with someone with a lift with super-narrow error margins (think the 220 natty lifter with a 420 bench).

[stevan]

Are you saying that 5@8 is not always the same stress/stimulus as 5@8? And that has some implications for your "agile programming"?

Yeah. And the difference in quality between 5@8 in full-readiness (little departure from an e1RM trend-line) and 5@8 in compromised-readiness (big departure from e1RM trend-line) could have repercussions in training highly-skilled lifters (probably minimal difference for newbs).

Fatigue is insanely complicated, but I really only care about the motor-level when it comes to reduction in measured force. Force can really only be moderated by total-pool recruitment or changes in twitch rate.

So, in a state of compromised readiness, I'm either a) not recruiting my highest-threshold motor units, or b) I'm recruiting the full-pool with seriously compromised rate coding (I suspect it's the former...but we'll see in like 5 years). I think that has implications for training.

- If I'm not recruiting the largest MUs, because of fatigue, I'm shifting my training to a pool of MUs with very different bioenergetic characteristics. I'm biased toward MUs that can withstand more @8 sets...I actually think I might need to bump volume UP in a state of fatigue (but lower intensities).

- If I am recruiting the full-pool of MUs but with seriously compromised rate coding because of fatigue....I need to stay the fuck away from "skill work". So, I should shift the training bias of the session to hypertrophy (or stay away from comp lifts).

^ again, this would really only come into play with someone with a lift with super-narrow error margins (think the 220 natty lifter with a 420 bench).

Thanks. You got my support to keep rambling about this, not that that means anything.

[Hanley]

keep rambling about this, not that that means anything.

That's about as far as my ruminations have taken me. I might start implementing with arbitrary fatigue thresholds (say 3% fatigue).

[stevan]

keep rambling about this, not that that means anything.

That's about as far as my ruminations have taken me. I might start implementing with arbitrary fatigue thresholds (say 3% fatigue).

I think Mike T. would be interested in rambling about this with you. Who can get him here?

[Hanley]

keep rambling about this, not that that means anything.

That's about as far as my ruminations have taken me. I might start implementing with arbitrary fatigue thresholds (say 3% fatigue).

I think Mike T. would be interested in rambling about this with you. Who can get him here?

I think he's probably too busy running a very successful business.

[stevan]

keep rambling about this, not that that means anything.

That's about as far as my ruminations have taken me. I might start implementing with arbitrary fatigue thresholds (say 3% fatigue).

I think Mike T. would be interested in rambling about this with you. Who can get him here?

I think he's probably too busy running a very successful business.

I would pay.
edit: I'll shoot him a DM. Worth a shot. Prepare your ad hominems John.

[anelson]

Are you saying that 5@8 is not always the same stress/stimulus as 5@8? And that has some implications for your "agile programming"?

Yeah. And the difference in quality between 5@8 in full-readiness (little departure from an e1RM trend-line) and 5@8 in compromised-readiness (big departure from e1RM trend-line) could have repercussions in training highly-skilled lifters (probably minimal difference for newbs).

Fatigue is insanely complicated, but I really only care about the motor-level when it comes to reduction in measured force. Force can really only be moderated by total-pool recruitment or changes in twitch rate.

So, in a state of compromised readiness, I'm either a) not recruiting my highest-threshold motor units, or b) I'm recruiting the full-pool with seriously compromised rate coding (I suspect it's the former...but we'll see in like 5 years). I think that has implications for training.

- If I'm not recruiting the largest MUs, because of fatigue, I'm shifting my training to a pool of MUs with very different bioenergetic characteristics. I'm biased toward MUs that can withstand more @8 sets...I actually think I might need to bump volume UP in a state of fatigue (but lower intensities).

- If I am recruiting the full-pool of MUs but with seriously compromised rate coding because of fatigue....I need to stay the fuck away from "skill work". So, I should shift the training bias of the session to hypertrophy (or stay away from comp lifts).

^ again, this would really only come into play with someone with a lift with super-narrow error margins (think the 220 natty lifter with a 420 bench).

Just to explicate the implication, could it it be summarized like this? If force production is compromised, train the adaptation that is least dependent on force production (i.e. hypertrophy). Is that what you're getting at?

[Hanley]

Prepare your ad hominems John.

Start a log, Mike.

Tell me you have a background in Data Science, Mike.

Your mom, Mike

[MikeTuchscherer]

Who hath summoned me?

[stevan]

Who hath summoned me?

I can't believe you actually came. Thank you for coming. Post #87, Mike. Share some thoughts if you can.

[MikeTuchscherer]

Seriously though... that's a good point. I think you're right to an extent -- it's not exactly the same if you're fatigued. It's probably not a huge difference though.

Honestly, I think that reads like a great reason to avoid training in a highly fatigued state. I've never seen much benefit to it myself. I need people to perform well if I want them to get better, and that includes performing well in training. I don't think every session needs to be fully recovered, but carrying a fatigue debt has never been useful to me from a pragmatic standpoint.

IIRC from Chris Beardsley's IG post earlier this week, there's some evidence showing that our perception of "fatigue" is basically all related to muscle damage. If that's true, then there would be a physical reason for the reduced force production. I suppose it could still be a central downregulation as a protective mechanism, but I'm not familiar enough with the Central Governor stuff to know how likely that is. In the end, it may not matter.

[Hanley]

Honestly, I think that reads like a great reason to avoid training in a highly fatigued state.

Probably true. What sort of reduction in e1RM do you think represents the (necessarily fuzzy) threshold from "acceptably fatigued" to "highly fatigued"? IOW -- the "no go" threshold?

Edit: Also, thanks very much for stopping by! A big proportion of us here have benefited greatly from your training systems. Lots of indebtedness.

[MikeTuchscherer]

Well these days with the ES framework, there should be little decrease in performance until you pass your peak in a development cycle. Even a type 2 response is only a small dip.

I used to think a 5% drop was the threshold. Nowadays that sounds big to me. Ideally, I want someone to only lose about 5% during a pivot. So that's a 5% dip from not training very much, so a 5% dip from training too much sounds like a lot.

[Manveer]

Well these days with the ES framework, there should be little decrease in performance until you pass your peak in a development cycle. Even a type 2 response is only a small dip.

I used to think a 5% drop was the threshold. Nowadays that sounds big to me. Ideally, I want someone to only lose about 5% during a pivot. So that's a 5% dip from not training very much, so a 5% dip from training too much sounds like a lot.

What helps people hold on to their strength longer during periods of reduced training? Size? Training age?

PS-I hope you enjoy your new user title.