Request for participants

[michael]

I hope the results of this experiment are public. This is an interesting protocol.

[Hanley]

I hope the results of this experiment are public. This is an interesting protocol.

Yup. I (hopefully with help from folks much smarter than) will compile results after ~month.

[chrisd]

Okay, so I'm set for day one tomorrow.

Pecs and tris are getting a lot of work, so bro block looks like some sort of row, probably pronated (not @£$@ing pendlay) and curls, because biceps.

Day 2 could be another kind of row, I'm leaning towards supinated or possibly pull downs, and LTEs could go in there, if my arms haven't fallen off.

Day 3 back to pronated rows and more curls

Reasonable ?

I assume the demo videos are the ones that you want, I'll try to get some.

Yup. Also, I just went into the program and knocked the volume down a bit.

Also, also: I'm thinking we should scrap "Power Day" Bro block.

OR you could make Power Day's Bro block 1)abs 2) something on legs.

I think 3 upper-focused Bro Blocks is just too much elbow stress

Aha! That gives 21/30 or just under 0.7 INOL for the main bench, as opposed to just over 1, which is a bit fierce. There's still the AMRAP, but hey, it's only one set. That should limit the need for rest times.

Abs once a week, well okay, I'm already doing tempo bulgarian split squats in a circuit, rehab movement, I could put those in, just need to avoid anything with a bounce.

Two loads of rows a week is probably plenty.

So long as the day 1 plan looks okay, there's time to think.

[Hanley]

So long as the day 1 plan looks okay, there's time to think.

Cool.

[Hanley]

This is an interesting protocol.

Even though I was totally prepared for it (and I have trained using this protocol), it's still really weird seeing @6s for worksets.

[damufunman]

I hope the results of this experiment are public. This is an interesting protocol.

Yup. I (hopefully with help from folks much smarter than) will compile results after ~month.

Not sure I qualify, but I could offer to help compile data and analysis if there's anything you have in mind at the end.

[PatrickDB]

Aha! That gives 21/30 or just under 0.7 INOL for the main bench, as opposed to just over 1, which is a bit fierce. There's still the AMRAP, but hey, it's only one set. That should limit the need for rest times.

Chris, I have been investigating the notion of INOL. I do not like it. Please tell me if I am getting something wrong.

For the audience at home, the idea is that the fatigue incurred by a set is:
[math]\frac{\text{number of reps}}{100 - \text{ intensity (as percent)}}.[/math]

We add up the INOL values for a lift/muscle group in a workout to estimate the total fatigue incurred.

So my hypertrophy bench workout for today has an INOL value of
[math]\frac{31}{100-70} + \frac{15}{100-60}\approx 1.4,[/math]
where here I've assumed for convenience that my 1RM CGBP is also my 1RM bench (which is not too far from the truth).

My coming strength bench workout (on Friday) is 15 total reps at 80%. This gives an INOL of
[math]\frac{15}{20}=.75,[/math]
or about half the value for Monday.

This metric cannot possibly be correct if these both represent roughly 48-hour recoverable volume. In fact, I think Hanley mentioned he thinks the strength workout is actually more fatiguing.

Therefore, either:

1) INOL is bunk, at least in this situation, or

2) Hanley's intuition about what constitutes 48-hour recoverable volume is off by literally a factor of 2.

Digging deeper, it looks like INOL was invented by interpolating through the values in Prelipin's table. Because that table seems dubious for programming the slow lifts (since it originated in olympic lifting, among other reasons), I don't like any derivative measures.

What we really need is "Hanley's table," and then I can interpolate between the table's values to produce a better metric. (Greg Nuckols says somewhere what he thinks the shape of the fatigue curve should be...)

[tersh]

I am struck by the thought that this sort of ratio might work better if SETS are involved, rather than reps?
I don't know how many sets you did up there, so I can't convert.

But on it's face, the thing doesn't make much sense to me.

[PatrickDB]

I am struck by the thought that this sort of ratio might work better if SETS are involved, rather than reps?
I don't know how many sets you did up there, so I can't convert.

But on it's face, the thing doesn't make much sense to me.

Hypertrophy day is 70%, 3x5 then 4x4. Strength day is 5x3 at 80%.

I'm not sure a set-based measure will work well here since the sets are so sub-maximal. And in fact this is sort of the point. By splitting up the volume we reduce the fatigue it generates.

But let's ignore that quirk and pretend for the sake of the argument that I did 3x8 at 70% and that strength day is 3x5 at 80%, which are more traditional, higher RPE setups. Does there exist a simple set-based metric for fatigue where these rep schemes are approximately equal?

[Shane]

@PatrickDB Could be a poor fit for very high-rep or submaximal work. 15's at 60? Why not throw a dart to get a number. Hell it might be a poor fit for everything, but I'd imagine those two factors would be particularly problematic. Plus treating all exercises as equally fatiguing so of limited use for managing total training load as opposed to per exercise load. Curls & Deadlifts - plug in the numbers and same same.

Perhaps check out this guy's R-INOL calculator. I have not looked into it.

[tersh]

Does there exist a simple set-based metric for fatigue where these rep schemes are approximately equal?

I haven't the faintest. This stuff about tracking fatigue is fairly new to me.

@PatrickDB Could be a poor fit for very high-rep or submaximal work. 15's at 60? Why not throw a dart to get a number. Hell it might be a poor fit for everything, but I'd imagine those two factors would be particularly problematic. Plus treating all exercises as equally fatiguing so of limited use for managing total training load as opposed to per exercise load. Curls & Deadlifts - plug in the numbers and same same.

Perhaps check out this guy's R-INOL calculator. I have not looked into it.

From that guy's site (http://www.gavinlairdstrength.com/2017/ ... ning-load/):

The R-INOL system uses a table of co-efficients based on the relative neural stress of different lifts and reps to calculate the training stress, relative to the Back Squat. For example it’s fairly obvious the 3 x 8 in the Squat is more stressful than 3 x 8 in the leg extension. R-INOL accurately quantifies that difference in stress for most common gym exercises. This allows for overall training stress to be managed more accurately, and for direct comparisons to be drawing between different exercses. You can now see EXACTLY how different exercises relate to one another in terms of training stress, and subsequent fatigue. How many sets of 8 in the glute ham raise equate to 1 set of 8 at the same % 1RM in the Romanian deadlift? How stressfull is the leg press relative to the back squat? How much total work can I recover from per week? R-INOL lets you deduce the answers to these questions and more.

R-INOL not only quantifies the stress for the set as a whole, but also for each individual rep of a set. For instance four sets of five reps at seventy five percent of 1 rep maximum weight (4 x 5 @ 75%) = 20 reps total. 2 x 10 @ 75% is also 20 reps, with the same load. So in terms of total kg lifter, % intensity etc. these are the same. R-INOL calculates the relative stress of each individual rep in a set at a given % intensity (1st rep is easiest, 2nd rep is harder, 3rd rep harder still and so on) to a theoretical maximum MU recruitment / fatigue level that can be generated with the particular % intensity. So 4 x 5 @ 75% will give a slightly lower R-INOL figure than 2 x 10 @ 75%, reflecting the fact that the 2 sets of ten is more fatguing than the 4 sets of 5 with the same load.

Pretty interesting. I'm quite curious about where these neural stress factors come from.

[chrisd]

Aha! That gives 21/30 or just under 0.7 INOL for the main bench, as opposed to just over 1, which is a bit fierce. There's still the AMRAP, but hey, it's only one set. That should limit the need for rest times.

Chris, I have been investigating the notion of INOL. I do not like it. Please tell me if I am getting something wrong.

For the audience at home, the idea is that the fatigue incurred by a set is:
[math]\frac{\text{number of reps}}{100 - \text{ intensity (as percent)}}.[/math]

We add up the INOL values for a lift/muscle group in a workout to estimate the total fatigue incurred.

So my hypertrophy bench workout for today has an INOL value of
[math]\frac{31}{100-70} + \frac{15}{100-60}\approx 1.4,[/math]
where here I've assumed for convenience that my 1RM CGBP is also my 1RM bench (which is not too far from the truth).

My coming strength bench workout (on Friday) is 15 total reps at 80%. This gives an INOL of
[math]\frac{15}{20}=.75,[/math]
or about half the value for Monday.

This metric cannot possibly be correct if these both represent roughly 48-hour recoverable volume. In fact, I think Hanley mentioned he thinks the strength workout is actually more fatiguing.

Therefore, either:

1) INOL is bunk, at least in this situation, or

2) Hanley's intuition about what constitutes 48-hour recoverable volume is off by literally a factor of 2.

Digging deeper, it looks like INOL was invented by interpolating through the values in Prelipin's table. Because that table seems dubious for programming the slow lifts (since it originated in olympic lifting, among other reasons), I don't like any derivative measures.

What we really need is "Hanley's table," and then I can interpolate between the table's values to produce a better metric. (Greg Nuckols says somewhere what he thinks the shape of the fatigue curve should be...)

Your first assumption seems out of line with what I understand of Hristov's reasoning.

Prilepin's chart give ranges of reps per set and reps per workout with optimal (as an average and not a prescription) numbers of reps per set for a given exercise.

Hristov states that Prilepin's numbers may be oaky, but are less useful for mixed workouts. 5x5 at 71% is not the same as 5x5 at 79%

Hristov considers that his equation give a reasonable approximation of Prilepin's chart with the added advantage that summing the numbers obtained for an exercise over time will give an indication of the fatigue that you are likely to incur. He doesn't suggest a timescale for its dissipation.

A single INOL is not intended to tell you how much fatigue you have incurred or your likely recovery time.

Hristov recommends a number between 0.6 and 0.8 for a given exercise for the general population, that's his preference. He considers 0.4 to 1.0 to be reasonable limits.

Totals over the week are where Hristov goes further than Prilepin. A weekly total under 1 is pretty easy and will leave you feeling fine, cal it a deload week. Between 1 and 2 generally okay. From 2 to 3 a loading phase. Over 4 not recommended.

It does seem to fall down a bit as you approach 1rm, but then we shouldn't really be going there very often.

Anyway, it is a handy quick way of looking at a proposed rep scheme and seeing if it scores high or low. Ten singles at 70% ? hmmm... I guess it would be easy enough, will I get enough work out of it ? How about fifteen, that's the reps from the early NLP. How does Stronglifts stack up against the NLP ? How do you compare Texas method with 5/3/1 ?

It's a quick and easy method to consider the volume and intensity of a workout, nothing more, nothing less.

I have been using it an Prilepin's chart for some months to check my programming and have to say, it seems to check out. One heavy workout will not wreck you, but a succession of them will. Prilepin effectively let's you leave one or two in the tank by choosing reps per set and limits your total work. Hristov allows you to plan a week. If I could only stick to it and stop going over 90% too often, I might feel better.

Anyway, it's merely a metric and Hristov made no claims about it being correct in every case.

[SeanHerbison]

Ah, what the crap @Hanley? I wanted to pay you to let me be your training guinea pig last month, and you said you weren't going back to coaching yet. You waited until just after I got coaching set up with KOTJ to post this?

[OCG]

I agree with Chris, it's more of a reality check than anything else. It's not a super accurate tool, but more like helping to answer the question "Is this a sane program?". If you plug everything in and you get a week that's a 2 or a 2.2 do we care about the difference? Nah. But if we plug it all in and it's week after week of 3.5 to 4, well, probably dial it back a bit. I've seen the last one in action, multiple weeks of "lol guys look how high my INOL is aren't I cool". It ended exactly how you would expect it to.

@SeanHerbison it's almost like he doesn't like you or something.

[SeanHerbison]

@SeanHerbison it's almost like he doesn't like you or something.

I know, right? He probably thinks I'm going to take his explosivey throne, since I'm younger and prettier, and he's jealous. I'm like the Margaery Tyrell to his Cersei Lannister.

[damufunman]

@SeanHerbison it's almost like he doesn't like you or something.

I know, right? He probably thinks I'm going to take his explosivey throne, since I'm younger and prettier, and he's jealous. I'm like the Margaery Tyrell to his Cersei Lannister.

Ha Just (mostly) watched through GOT so I know what this is. Everyone wasn't lying, great show.

Relating to the discussion above, I haven't done any reading or research on this, but how does an intensity-weighted tonnage sound to you guys?
[equation]IWT = weight \times reps \times \%1RM \quad (1)[/equation]
Which can also be represented as
[equation]IWT = 1RM \times reps \times \%1RM^2 \quad (2)[/equation]
This factors in the fact that lower intensities are less stressful for a given number of reps. For example, why 5 sets of 5 with just the bar as warmup isn't meaningful volume. Equation (2) has a [math]\%1RM^2[/math] term, that effectively gives more weight to higher intensities, which I think follows with what people experience of higher intensities are more fatiguing.
Note that this does ignore how the volume is distributed, ie 5 x 3 @ 80% vs 3 x 5 @ 80%.

[chrisd]

@SeanHerbison it's almost like he doesn't like you or something.

I know, right? He probably thinks I'm going to take his explosivey throne, since I'm younger and prettier, and he's jealous. I'm like the Margaery Tyrell to his Cersei Lannister.

Ha Just (mostly) watched through GOT so I know what this is. Everyone wasn't lying, great show.

Relating to the discussion above, I haven't done any reading or research on this, but how does an intensity-weighted tonnage sound to you guys?
[equation]IWT = weight \times reps \times \%1RM \quad (1)[/equation]
Which can also be represented as
[equation]IWT = 1RM \times reps \times \%1RM^2 \quad (2)[/equation]
This factors in the fact that lower intensities are less stressful for a given number of reps. For example, why 5 sets of 5 with just the bar as warmup isn't meaningful volume. Equation (2) has a [math]\%1RM^2[/math] term, that effectively gives more weight to higher intensities, which I think follows with what people experience of higher intensities are more fatiguing.
Note that this does ignore how the volume is distributed, ie 5 x 3 @ 80% vs 3 x 5 @ 80%.

Higher intensity. More fatiguing. Quite possibly. I tend to feel recovered, but my log says I wasn't. I'll look into it, when I have time.

[PatrickDB]

Hristov considers that his equation give a reasonable approximation of Prilepin's chart with the added advantage that summing the numbers obtained for an exercise over time will give an indication of the fatigue that you are likely to incur. He doesn't suggest a timescale for its dissipation.

It's a quick and easy method to consider the volume and intensity of a workout, nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, it's merely a metric and Hristov made no claims about it being correct in every case.

Ok. I am still uncomfortable.

The fact remains that two workouts that are supposed to incur the same amount of fatigue get scored very differently (1.4 versus .75), and in fact that workout with the lower INOL is suspected to be actually more fatiguing.

I don't doubt it can be useful in that going to either extreme will give you in turn an extreme INOL. But I think we'd get much more accurate results just using Hanley's intuition and a different shape for the curve, for example.

I suppose my underlying objection is that I think Prelipin's table is bullshit for powerlifting.

[chrisd]

Hristov considers that his equation give a reasonable approximation of Prilepin's chart with the added advantage that summing the numbers obtained for an exercise over time will give an indication of the fatigue that you are likely to incur. He doesn't suggest a timescale for its dissipation.

It's a quick and easy method to consider the volume and intensity of a workout, nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, it's merely a metric and Hristov made no claims about it being correct in every case.

Ok. I am still uncomfortable.

The fact remains that two workouts that are supposed to incur the same amount of fatigue get scored very differently (1.4 versus .75), and in fact that workout with the lower INOL is suspected to be actually more fatiguing.

I don't doubt it can be useful in that going to either extreme will give you in turn an extreme INOL. But I think we'd get much more accurate results just using Hanley's intuition and a different shape for the curve, for example.

I suppose my underlying objection is that I think Prelipin's table is bullshit for powerlifting.

Tim Henrique agrees, he also has tables.

[PatrickDB]

I agree with Chris, it's more of a reality check than anything else. It's not a super accurate tool, but more like helping to answer the question "Is this a sane program?". If you plug everything in and you get a week that's a 2 or a 2.2 do we care about the difference? Nah. But if we plug it all in and it's week after week of 3.5 to 4, well, probably dial it back a bit. I've seen the last one in action, multiple weeks of "lol guys look how high my INOL is aren't I cool". It ended exactly how you would expect it to.

I think it's more than "not super accurate," I'm not sure it's any better than eyeballing the volume and going, "huh, that's a lot." In a sense it's pseudo-mathematics. I could give you any number of arbitrary formulas that give high numbers for high intensity, high volume work, and low numbers for low intensity, low volume work. That doesn't mean they say anything of value.

For instance, the bench programming for this experiment for the 1 week cycle group has a total INOL of around 2.75, and the accessory density blocks will drive the fatigue up a little higher. But I don't think this programming represents a heavy loading phase. It's supposed to be a sustainable weekly progression for an early intermediate. The total "posterior chain" (squat + deadlift) INOL is even higher.