Logging Low Fatigue Stuff

[TurtleBear]

Good morning everyone,

Been lurking on here for a long time now. I was wondering if anyone had a good spreadsheet/tracker that incorporates low fatigue programming a bit better than the RTS one. I love RTS' Trac but I am trying to utilize some of Hanley's low fatigue programming and doing sub 6 RPE gives TRAC a bit of a seizure. I've done a bit of reading on some of the reading on here on the "Hanley normalized fatigue metric" and Ithink Im understanding it, but it would be helpful to have some visual aids for stress and long term planning as I plug along.

If there isn't an active go-to, would anyone mind giving me some idea on tracking long term based on your own experiences? Im getting back into training this year after pretty much all of 2022 being a lay off. So anything would be helpful

Thanks!
-TB

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Would this help ? viewtopic.php?t=3409

I think that the main problem you'll run into when using RTS log is that it is based on stress index, and stress index is only meaningful for RPE 6 sets and above. Now I have never tried this but since RTS tracks volume load (sets x reps x weight) you could perhaps rely on that instead. But the output of the "stress calculations" are going to be wierd no matter what.

[TurtleBear]

Would this help ? viewtopic.php?t=3409

I think that the main problem you'll run into when using RTS log is that it is based on stress index, and stress index is only meaningful for RPE 6 sets and above. Now I have never tried this but since RTS tracks volume load (sets x reps x weight) you could perhaps rely on that instead. But the output of the "stress calculations" are going to be wierd no matter what.

This is really helpful man thank you! Spent some of my evening last night playing with the spreadsheets.

[SnakePlissken]

Would this help ? viewtopic.php?t=3409

I think that the main problem you'll run into when using RTS log is that it is based on stress index, and stress index is only meaningful for RPE 6 sets and above. Now I have never tried this but since RTS tracks volume load (sets x reps x weight) you could perhaps rely on that instead. But the output of the "stress calculations" are going to be wierd no matter what.

RTS used to chart your tonnage, but now it just shows the stress index which I still haven't figured out. I really just use RTS because I can record lifts with RPE included and manage exercises well, but the stress calculator and TRAC don't seem that useful in general. Honestly though I feel like just tracking HNFM would probably work better.

[TurtleBear]

Would this help ? viewtopic.php?t=3409

I think that the main problem you'll run into when using RTS log is that it is based on stress index, and stress index is only meaningful for RPE 6 sets and above. Now I have never tried this but since RTS tracks volume load (sets x reps x weight) you could perhaps rely on that instead. But the output of the "stress calculations" are going to be wierd no matter what.

RTS used to chart your tonnage, but now it just shows the stress index which I still haven't figured out. I really just use RTS because I can record lifts with RPE included and manage exercises well, but the stress calculator and TRAC don't seem that useful in general. Honestly though I feel like just tracking HNFM would probably work better.

Yea thats sort of the problem Im running into as well. The weirdness with the stress index aside, I love how its laid out for tracking RPE, and the lifts and that I can attach videos etc etc. But the sub 6 RPE stuff tosses a giant ass monkey wrench in it haha

[SnakePlissken]

Would this help ? viewtopic.php?t=3409

I think that the main problem you'll run into when using RTS log is that it is based on stress index, and stress index is only meaningful for RPE 6 sets and above. Now I have never tried this but since RTS tracks volume load (sets x reps x weight) you could perhaps rely on that instead. But the output of the "stress calculations" are going to be wierd no matter what.

RTS used to chart your tonnage, but now it just shows the stress index which I still haven't figured out. I really just use RTS because I can record lifts with RPE included and manage exercises well, but the stress calculator and TRAC don't seem that useful in general. Honestly though I feel like just tracking HNFM would probably work better.

Yea thats sort of the problem Im running into as well. The weirdness with the stress index aside, I love how its laid out for tracking RPE, and the lifts and that I can attach videos etc etc. But the sub 6 RPE stuff tosses a giant ass monkey wrench in it haha

To me, losing the sub RPE 6 stuff isn't a huge deal since I spent just about all of 2022 doing really low RPE (usually up to about an RPE 7 or 8 at most on anything with lots of backoff work in the sub 6 range). I lost about 5% on all my Big 4 1RMs in that time frame and realized as a natural lifter you really have to put in effort to see growth. Now, I've been doing lifts again going up to 9 and 10 somewhat regularly and sub 6 work isn't common anymore. The RTS Stress Index does an OK job of estimating what stress that all is now, but when I look at the "3 day, 6 day, and 9 day" charts they really don't match up with what I actually feel.

For instance, my last block in January I got a peak of about 14 on that index (the 6 day) and was pumping along and now my 6 day chart is floating around the 7-8 range and I've been getting beat up for the last week. I don't really know how that information is supposed to help me make future decisions even with more correct information being fed into it.

[TurtleBear]

Would this help ? viewtopic.php?t=3409

I think that the main problem you'll run into when using RTS log is that it is based on stress index, and stress index is only meaningful for RPE 6 sets and above. Now I have never tried this but since RTS tracks volume load (sets x reps x weight) you could perhaps rely on that instead. But the output of the "stress calculations" are going to be wierd no matter what.

RTS used to chart your tonnage, but now it just shows the stress index which I still haven't figured out. I really just use RTS because I can record lifts with RPE included and manage exercises well, but the stress calculator and TRAC don't seem that useful in general. Honestly though I feel like just tracking HNFM would probably work better.

Yea thats sort of the problem Im running into as well. The weirdness with the stress index aside, I love how its laid out for tracking RPE, and the lifts and that I can attach videos etc etc. But the sub 6 RPE stuff tosses a giant ass monkey wrench in it haha

To me, losing the sub RPE 6 stuff isn't a huge deal since I spent just about all of 2022 doing really low RPE (usually up to about an RPE 7 or 8 at most on anything with lots of backoff work in the sub 6 range). I lost about 5% on all my Big 4 1RMs in that time frame and realized as a natural lifter you really have to put in effort to see growth. Now, I've been doing lifts again going up to 9 and 10 somewhat regularly and sub 6 work isn't common anymore. The RTS Stress Index does an OK job of estimating what stress that all is now, but when I look at the "3 day, 6 day, and 9 day" charts they really don't match up with what I actually feel.

For instance, my last block in January I got a peak of about 14 on that index (the 6 day) and was pumping along and now my 6 day chart is floating around the 7-8 range and I've been getting beat up for the last week. I don't really know how that information is supposed to help me make future decisions even with more correct information being fed into it.

Appreciate the feedback man.I've never had any problems making progress in the RPE 7-9 range. I will just stick to what I know works and keep plugging along with TRAC. I finished writing out my first training block last night and am really happy with it.

Thanks again!

[Hanley]

realized as a natural lifter you really have to put in effort to see growth.

Maybe keep the scope of your realization to the first-person. Growth using exclusively sub RPE 7 sets is absolutely possible for natty lifters.

[cgeorg]

realized as a natural lifter you really have to put in effort to see growth.

Maybe keep the scope of your realization to the first-person. Growth using exclusively sub RPE 7 sets is absolutely possible for natty lifters.

Hanley put like 50 lbs on my bench with mostly un-RPE-rateable work.

[Hanley]

un-RPE-rateable work.

Mmmhmm. Must be the new euphemism for tren.

[SnakePlissken]

Would this help ? viewtopic.php?t=3409

I think that the main problem you'll run into when using RTS log is that it is based on stress index, and stress index is only meaningful for RPE 6 sets and above. Now I have never tried this but since RTS tracks volume load (sets x reps x weight) you could perhaps rely on that instead. But the output of the "stress calculations" are going to be wierd no matter what.

RTS used to chart your tonnage, but now it just shows the stress index which I still haven't figured out. I really just use RTS because I can record lifts with RPE included and manage exercises well, but the stress calculator and TRAC don't seem that useful in general. Honestly though I feel like just tracking HNFM would probably work better.

Yea thats sort of the problem Im running into as well. The weirdness with the stress index aside, I love how its laid out for tracking RPE, and the lifts and that I can attach videos etc etc. But the sub 6 RPE stuff tosses a giant ass monkey wrench in it haha

To me, losing the sub RPE 6 stuff isn't a huge deal since I spent just about all of 2022 doing really low RPE (usually up to about an RPE 7 or 8 at most on anything with lots of backoff work in the sub 6 range). I lost about 5% on all my Big 4 1RMs in that time frame and realized as a natural lifter you really have to put in effort to see growth. Now, I've been doing lifts again going up to 9 and 10 somewhat regularly and sub 6 work isn't common anymore. The RTS Stress Index does an OK job of estimating what stress that all is now, but when I look at the "3 day, 6 day, and 9 day" charts they really don't match up with what I actually feel.

For instance, my last block in January I got a peak of about 14 on that index (the 6 day) and was pumping along and now my 6 day chart is floating around the 7-8 range and I've been getting beat up for the last week. I don't really know how that information is supposed to help me make future decisions even with more correct information being fed into it.

Appreciate the feedback man.I've never had any problems making progress in the RPE 7-9 range. I will just stick to what I know works and keep plugging along with TRAC. I finished writing out my first training block last night and am really happy with it.

Thanks again!

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water on low RPE work. It has it's place, but it makes up a minority of the work I do now just from personal experience. I also track RPE using the "when I get bad form breakdown, it's a 10" rule though rather than "gun to my head RPE 10." Only time that rule gets broken is when I go for an actual max attempt so really my RPE 7 is kinda like saying "yeah I could've done several of those." An 8 is "a few more solid reps." 9 is "I had 1 more solid rep." and 10 is "next rep would've been really ugly or possibly failure.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@Hanley based on the assumption that both low RPE and high RPE can yield hypertrophy, which one do you believe to be the most efficient ?

Say you have a fixed recovery budget a fixed amount of time to train, and you mainly want to get as jacked as possible, which one would you recommend (and why, that's the part that I find the most interesting) ?

[Hanley]

@Hanley based on the assumption that both low RPE and high RPE can yield hypertrophy, which one do you believe to be the most efficient ?

Say you have a fixed recovery budget a fixed amount of time to train, and you mainly want to get as jacked as possible, which one would you recommend (and why, that's the part that I find the most interesting) ?

Oh, high RPE is more efficient for sure. During "Low RPE blocks" I was doing shit like 11 sets of 7 @ 65% e1RM to match the hypertrophy stimulus of something like 4 sets of 10-12 @ 65% [huge hand-wave on "matched hypertrophy stimulus"]. BUUT, my rate of strength gain (and - I'm pretty sure - power production) went bonkers.

So, yeah, pure hypertrophy focus = high RPE for sure

if strength (and power, especially) are also priorities, low-RPE might be superior [use case: think "hypertrophy for power athletes']

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@Hanley based on the assumption that both low RPE and high RPE can yield hypertrophy, which one do you believe to be the most efficient ?

Say you have a fixed recovery budget a fixed amount of time to train, and you mainly want to get as jacked as possible, which one would you recommend (and why, that's the part that I find the most interesting) ?

Oh, high RPE is more efficient for sure. During "Low RPE blocks" I was doing shit like 11 sets of 7 @ 65% e1RM to match the hypertrophy stimulus of something like 4 sets of 10-12 @ 65% [huge hand-wave on "matched hypertrophy stimulus"]. BUUT, my rate of strength gain (and - I'm pretty sure - power production) went bonkers.

So, yeah, pure hypertrophy focus = high RPE for sure

if strength (and power, especially) are also priorities, low-RPE might be superior [use case: think "hypertrophy for power athletes']

That makes sense. Thanks for chiming in man.