Jordan's Training Stress Score

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Hi fellow nerds,
I came across several posts from @JordanFeigenbaum where he uses a metric he came up with callled Training Stress Score (TSS). The goal of such a metric is similar to things like INOL, Stress Index, HNFM etc. The main feature is that it integrates RPE. The formula is:

TSS = Reps x RPE x Intensity Modifier

where

Intensity Modifier = 10 x (Intensity - 40%).

and Intensity is expressed in percentage of the 1RM. The formula above is for one set, and should be added across sets if performing mutiple sets.

I made a table which gives values of TSS as a function of RPE and Reps:

RPE/REPS	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
10	60	110	156	196	230	258	287	304	324	330	330	336
9	50	94	132	166	194	221	239	259	267	270	277	270
8	42	78	110	138	164	182	202	211	216	224	220	221
7	34	64	90	115	133	151	162	168	176	175	177	176
6	28	52	74	91	108	119	126	134	135	138	139	137
5	22	41	57	72	83	90	98	100	104	105	105	102

Seems like an interesting tool in order to design sessions when programming with RPE. Thoughts ?

[gtl]

Does this assume intensity is based on a standrd RPE chart?

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Does this assume intensity is based on a standrd RPE chart?

The table that I generated is based on a standard RPE chart, which maps (reps,RPE) into %1RM. Now if your RPE chart is very different from the standard, you should recalculate the table using your individual, customized RPE chart.

[KarlM]

The guy has a lot of coaching experience so I won’t write it off out of hand but it’s hard to believe that a useful training stress metric that’s linear in repsXrpe is anywhere close to reality. It seems fatigue will climb exponentially with that product. At least raise it to some power greater than 1.

[Hardartery]

As far as a list of not useful things to spend any time on, this has got to be right up there near the top.

[alphagamma]

Okay, we can calculate this. But what's its usage though? Is there like a weekly stress score we can't exceed? Do we calculate this for all lifts?

[dw]

Okay, we can calculate this. But what's its usage though? Is there like a weekly stress score we can't exceed? Do we calculate this for all lifts?

I think the idea is that you have a fixed stress (or fatigue) budget per unit of time and you can use this to adjust volume based on what RPEs and intensities you want to do in a particular session or series of sessions.

Idk I barely skimmed the OP.

I don't have any objection to people analyzing things with greater precision than is customary. Let us recall what some of our benighted forebears have said about RPE and isolation movements...

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Okay, we can calculate this. But what's its usage though? Is there like a weekly stress score we can't exceed? Do we calculate this for all lifts?

Are you familiar with things like INOL, Stress Index, HNFM etc ? If so, I think it has the same usage.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

The guy has a lot of coaching experience so I won’t write it off out of hand but it’s hard to believe that a useful training stress metric that’s linear in repsXrpe is anywhere close to reality. It seems fatigue will climb exponentially with that product. At least raise it to some power greater than 1.

Yeah I think that's a great point.

[alphagamma]

Okay, we can calculate this. But what's its usage though? Is there like a weekly stress score we can't exceed? Do we calculate this for all lifts?

I think the idea is that you have a fixed stress (or fatigue) budget per unit of time and you can use this to adjust volume based on what RPEs and intensities you want to do in a particular session or series of sessions.

Idk I barely skimmed the OP.

I don't have any objection to people analyzing things with greater precision than is customary. Let us recall what some of our benighted forebears have said about RPE and isolation movements...

Perhaps, but then the issue is what is our budget in the first place.

Is a 1 RM really less stressful than a 10 rep set?

[dw]

Okay, we can calculate this. But what's its usage though? Is there like a weekly stress score we can't exceed? Do we calculate this for all lifts?

I think the idea is that you have a fixed stress (or fatigue) budget per unit of time and you can use this to adjust volume based on what RPEs and intensities you want to do in a particular session or series of sessions.

Idk I barely skimmed the OP.

I don't have any objection to people analyzing things with greater precision than is customary. Let us recall what some of our benighted forebears have said about RPE and isolation movements...

Perhaps, but then the issue is what is our budget in the first place.

Is a 1 RM really less stressful than a 10 rep set?

That you would figure out from experience, the way RTS determines TTP.

As for the particulars I have no idea. I think one could probably work out at an accurate scheme along these lines though.

[mbasic]

Hi fellow nerds,
I came across several posts from @JordanFeigenbaum where he uses a metric he came up with callled Training Stress Score (TSS). The goal of such a metric is similar to things like INOL, Stress Index, HNFM etc. The main feature is that it integrates RPE. The formula is:

TSS = Reps x RPE x Intensity Modifier

where

Intensity Modifier = 10 x (Intensity - 40%).

and Intensity is expressed in percentage of the 1RM. The formula above is for one set, and should be added across sets if performing mutiple sets.

I made a table which gives values of TSS as a function of RPE and Reps:

RPE/REPS	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
10	60	110	156	196	230	258	287	304	324	330	330	336
9	50	94	132	166	194	221	239	259	267	270	277	270
8	42	78	110	138	164	182	202	211	216	224	220	221
7	34	64	90	115	133	151	162	168	176	175	177	176
6	28	52	74	91	108	119	126	134	135	138	139	137
5	22	41	57	72	83	90	98	100	104	105	105	102

Seems like an interesting tool in order to design sessions when programming with RPE. Thoughts ?

I don't 'get' it.

Say a top set of 12 @RPE10 is probably not as hard (in terms of recovering from, "stress", etc) as a x5@RPE10.

The 12RM/AMRAP thing you'll fail due to metabolite probs and other shit.

Maybe if you haven't been exposed to x12@10 much you'll be sore** the first go'round, etc.

The x5@10 load is such that you are doing a lot more deep damage to tissue and is a CNS stressor as well.

==================================

** speaking of DOMS, has anyone else seen the more recent research eluding to DOMS being more of a facia thing? and thus, not really tied to your contractile machinery? At least that's how I see it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431437/

[Hardartery]

Hi fellow nerds,
I came across several posts from @JordanFeigenbaum where he uses a metric he came up with callled Training Stress Score (TSS). The goal of such a metric is similar to things like INOL, Stress Index, HNFM etc. The main feature is that it integrates RPE. The formula is:

TSS = Reps x RPE x Intensity Modifier

where

Intensity Modifier = 10 x (Intensity - 40%).

and Intensity is expressed in percentage of the 1RM. The formula above is for one set, and should be added across sets if performing mutiple sets.

I made a table which gives values of TSS as a function of RPE and Reps:

RPE/REPS	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
10	60	110	156	196	230	258	287	304	324	330	330	336
9	50	94	132	166	194	221	239	259	267	270	277	270
8	42	78	110	138	164	182	202	211	216	224	220	221
7	34	64	90	115	133	151	162	168	176	175	177	176
6	28	52	74	91	108	119	126	134	135	138	139	137
5	22	41	57	72	83	90	98	100	104	105	105	102

Seems like an interesting tool in order to design sessions when programming with RPE. Thoughts ?

I don't 'get' it.

Say a top set of 12 @RPE10 is probably not as hard (in terms of recovering from, "stress", etc) as a x5@RPE10.

The 12RM/AMRAP thing you'll fail due to metabolite probs and other shit.

Maybe if you haven't been exposed to x12@10 much you'll be sore** the first go'round, etc.

The x5@10 load is such that you are doing a lot more deep damage to tissue and is a CNS stressor as well.

==================================

** speaking of DOMS, has anyone else seen the more recent research eluding to DOMS being more of a facia thing? and thus, not really tied to your contractile machinery? At least that's how I see it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431437/

I have seen such allusions to fascia, and I think it's more bullshit TBH. It seems to go with getting special massages and such to deal with an invented explanation. I have also seen that a lot of it stems from one guy that based his ideas on dissected corpses who have a very rigid fascia, but this is a false idea because it becomes rigid after death as a part of the process and this in no way lends itself to fanciful suppositions as to its nature in an active living organism. But they would love to sell you a massage gun to fix the theoretical problem.

Side not, I very much doubt that the disparate posts of Jordan F were meant to be turned into a chart and applied literally across the lifting population at large but rather were more about "Publish or perish" necessity to keep generating content.

[mbasic]

I have seen such allusions to fascia, and I think it's more bullshit TBH. It seems to go with getting special massages and such to deal with an invented explanation. I have also seen that a lot of it stems from one guy that based his ideas on dissected corpses who have a very rigid fascia, but this is a false idea because it becomes rigid after death as a part of the process and this in no way lends itself to fanciful suppositions as to its nature in an active living organism. But they would love to sell you a massage gun to fix the theoretical problem.

I think what you are saying in the above is outdated .... and, six month ago I would have agreed with all this^.



But, as we all know, DOMS is really much ado about nothing ...

Side note, I very much doubt that the disparate posts of Jordan F were meant to be turned into a chart and applied literally across the lifting population at large but rather were more about "Publish or perish" necessity to keep generating content.

lol at the bolded .... so true in much of the S&C-interwebbs.

[Hardartery]

I have seen such allusions to fascia, and I think it's more bullshit TBH. It seems to go with getting special massages and such to deal with an invented explanation. I have also seen that a lot of it stems from one guy that based his ideas on dissected corpses who have a very rigid fascia, but this is a false idea because it becomes rigid after death as a part of the process and this in no way lends itself to fanciful suppositions as to its nature in an active living organism. But they would love to sell you a massage gun to fix the theoretical problem.

I think what you are saying in the above is outdated .... and, six month ago I would have agreed with all this^.



But, as we all know, DOMS is really much ado about nothing ...

You could be right, I am likely outdated on this. Which I am fine with, because I am increasingly un-interested in the Science based stuff being pushed. It usually ends up being bullshit, and frequently is counter-productive. I am going with what works and by feel, and if someone wants to call it "Bro Science" or whatever, that is their problem. I am getting to be too old to spin my wheels messing with the "Science based" guys. I'm starting to not even care WHY something works.

[mbasic]

I only think its interesting, because some people still use DOMS as a gauge or proxy for how recovered they are or aren't.
Dr.Mike Isratel refers to DOMS this way quite a bit (DOMS = muscles still "damaged"/not fully recovered) ....

If it (doms) is "in" the facia, well I think that is all non contractile tissue or whatever, and SHOULD have little real bearing on your current state of recovery .... other then the fact it feels bad, or 'tight' and that could hamper your enthusiasm to workout or whatever. Maybe those two things coincidentally overlap in parallel time frames, but could not/are not be related to one another at all directly.

I have had High School kids post good training times (almost PRs, electronically timed) on the track while still "DOMSey".

[Hardartery]

I only think its interesting, because some people still use DOMS as a gauge or proxy for how recovered they are or aren't.
Dr.Mike Isratel refers to DOMS this way quite a bit (DOMS = muscles still "damaged"/not fully recovered) ....

If it (doms) is "in" the facia, well I think that is all non contractile tissue or whatever, and SHOULD have little real bearing on your current state of recovery .... other then the fact it feels bad, or 'tight' and that could hamper your enthusiasm to workout or whatever. Maybe those two things coincidentally overlap in parallel time frames, but could not/are not be related to one another at all directly.

I have had High School kids post good training times (almost PRs, electronically timed) on the track while still "DOMSey".

If you have DOMS, and proceed to do one work set of the thing that caused the DOMS, the DOMS go away. They come back the next day, usually worse, but you can kick that can down the road several days in a row. Is it really related to recovery? Don't know, bro science says don't work out until the DOMS go away, same as Israetel. If it's in the fascia would a work set make them go away? I doubt it.

[OverheadDeadlifts]

I only think its interesting, because some people still use DOMS as a gauge or proxy for how recovered they are or aren't.
Dr.Mike Isratel refers to DOMS this way quite a bit (DOMS = muscles still "damaged"/not fully recovered) ....

If it (doms) is "in" the facia, well I think that is all non contractile tissue or whatever, and SHOULD have little real bearing on your current state of recovery .... other then the fact it feels bad, or 'tight' and that could hamper your enthusiasm to workout or whatever. Maybe those two things coincidentally overlap in parallel time frames, but could not/are not be related to one another at all directly.

I have had High School kids post good training times (almost PRs, electronically timed) on the track while still "DOMSey".

Definitely jives with how tendon bullshit often tends to follow a period of ignoring unchecked chronic DOMS because performance was improving anyway.

[chrisd]

The guy has a lot of coaching experience so I won’t write it off out of hand but it’s hard to believe that a useful training stress metric that’s linear in repsXrpe is anywhere close to reality. It seems fatigue will climb exponentially with that product. At least raise it to some power greater than 1.

Yeah I think that's a great point.

INOL also breaks down as you approach 100%.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Some thoughts:
- I think that none of those metrics (INOL,HNFM,TSS) work across the full range of what you can do with a barbell (or whatever). For instance I think a no-shit 1RM (think last attempt at a powerlifting meet, ammonia, death metal, "they said you were done, they said had no chance", etc) generates a unique type of fatigue. I'd imagine that this TSS metric would make sense for say RPE < 9 and reps < 12
- How to use these metrics (INOL, HNFM,TSS) is pretty straightforward: you track those metrics for each lift across your blocks and compare this with performance improvement, from this you'll be able to deduce what is your "budget", i.e. how many units of said metric seem to generate progress. Once you have an estimate of the budget you can use it to generate sessions that fall within that budget. It's really not rocket science .
- I do not think that those metrics are "universal prescriptions for the lifting population at large", like everything in training you still have to use your brain.
- I do not see the link between this topic and "publish or perish". No one here is an academic author publishing peer reviewed research.
- TSS is in fact not linear in the RPE when the number of reps is held constant. Increasing RPE for a fixed number of reps increases the Intensity Modifier.