Formulary

[unruhschuh]

@PatrickDB @Hanley
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but here is the RPE table

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
10	100	95.5	92.2	89.2	86.3	83.7	81.1	78.6	76.2	73.9	70.7	68
9.5	97.8	93.9	90.7	87.8	85	82.4	79.9	77.4	75.1	72.3	69.4	66.7
9	95.5	92.2	89.2	86.3	83.7	81.1	78.6	76.2	73.9	70.7	68	65.3
8.5	93.9	90.7	87.8	85	82.4	79.9	77.4	75.1	72.3	69.4	66.7	64
8	92.2	89.2	86.3	83.7	81.1	78.6	76.2	73.9	70.7	68	65.3	62.6
7.5	90.7	87.8	85	82.4	79.9	77.4	75.1	72.3	69.4	66.7	64	61.3
7	89.2	86.3	83.7	81.1	78.6	76.2	73.9	70.7	68	65.3	62.6	59.5
6.5	87.8	85	82.4	79.9	77.4	75.1	72.3	69.4	66.7	64	61.3	58.6

and the corresponding H values.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
10	∞	988	493	343	266	226	196	175	159	147	128	117
9.5	2066	537	347	269	222	194	173	157	145	130	117	108
9	494	329	257	213	188	168	153	141	132	116	107	100
8.5	269	231	202	178	161	149	137	129	117	107	99	93
8	164	171	160	151	140	131	124	117	105	98	91	86
7.5	116	134	133	129	124	117	113	104	96	90	85	80
7	86	107	113	112	109	106	103	93	88	83	79	73
6.5	67	89	97	99	98	97	91	85	81	77	73	70

I guess I was trying to find out whether H somehow lines up with RPE, and if one could recommend an H value for a single set.

ETA: A picture says more than 192 numbers:

[unruhschuh]

Ok, one more. This one shows the intensities for H values of 30 to 120 and reps 1 to 12. Interestingly, the intensity for singles hardly changes, but the higher the reps, the larger the difference.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
30	82	74	68	63	59	55	52	48	45	42	39	37
40	84	78	73	68	65	61	58	55	53	50	48	45
50	86	80	76	72	68	65	63	60	58	55	53	51
60	87	82	78	74	71	68	66	63	61	59	57	55
70	88	83	79	76	73	71	68	66	64	62	60	59
80	89	84	81	78	75	73	70	68	66	65	63	61
90	89	85	82	79	76	74	72	70	68	67	65	63
100	90	86	83	80	78	76	74	72	70	68	67	65
110	90	87	83	81	79	77	75	73	71	70	68	67
120	91	87	84	82	80	78	76	74	73	71	70	68

Can we make a recommendation for an H value for a single set?

[unruhschuh]

Maybe this could be used to ramp up the intensity in a linear progression. Say we start with [math]H_\mathrm{set}=30[/math] for single sets and a total [math]H_\mathrm{total}=600[/math]. Then increase [math]H_\mathrm{set}[/math] to 120 over a number of weeks, while keeping the total [math]H_\mathrm{total}[/math] constant. Then use this to prescribe the intensities and # of sets of some DUP scheme.

[iamsmu]

If someone hits 2000 H's do they invariably die within 5 days? If so, you should put a skull or some other kind of warning above that yellow peak. It should be something universal that future generations will understand. We have no idea what language they will speak. And we don't want to make it too intriguing, as if the chart presents the key to achieving some kind of mystical state. Perhaps a small version of The Scream would be best. Just put a tiny one up there to be safe.

[unruhschuh]

If someone hits 2000 H's do they invariably die within 5 days? If so, you should put a skull or some other kind of warning above that yellow peak. It should be something universal that future generations will understand. We have no idea what language they will speak. And we don't want to make it too intriguing, as if the chart presents the key to achieving some kind of mystical state. Perhaps a small version of The Scream would be best. Just put a tiny one up there to be safe.

I did deadlifts with 3x5 @ 89%, i.e. H=1240 last week. Time for a reset? It sure wasn't pleasant and I still feel like shit. Hence my recent interest in the HNFM.

[iamsmu]

If someone hits 2000 H's do they invariably die within 5 days? If so, you should put a skull or some other kind of warning above that yellow peak. It should be something universal that future generations will understand. We have no idea what language they will speak. And we don't want to make it too intriguing, as if the chart presents the key to achieving some kind of mystical state. Perhaps a small version of The Scream would be best. Just put a tiny one up there to be safe.

I did deadlifts with 3x5 @ 89%, i.e. H=1240 last week. Time for a reset? It sure wasn't pleasant and I still feel like shit. Hence my recent interest in the HNFM.

I got completely derailed last summer, when I was actually trying make progress and not just trying to hold on a bit. I moved over to the KSC Power Building program at too high of a percentage. I must have come close to 2000 Hanley's on deadlift and my back was ruined for almost two weeks after sets across of 8's. I was just crushed. I wasn't prepared for the volume or the intensity. Stupid me. . . .

[cwd]

The H formula does not match my experience.
My "3s week" squat day is a close match for my "8s week" squat day in H units, but 8s week is much more fatiguing for me.

Yesterday was 3s week squat day, and I was tempted to run a bit on my morning walk. I feel great this morning.
On my walks after squat day on 8s week, I moan and groan a lot, and avoid stairs.

4 sets of 3 @8
RPE chart says 3@8 is 86%
4 * 3 * (100 / (100-86))**2 = 612 H units
plus a bunch of deadlifts

single with my 3s weight, then 4 sets of 8 @8
RPE chart says the single is 86%, the volume is 74%
1 * (100 - (100-86))**2 +
4 * 8 * (100 / (100-74))**2 = 524 H units
plus just as many deadlifts

I'm 52 years old. Perhaps Sullivan is right about "volume sensitive/intensity dependent", and H units are just wrong for old people.

Also, possibly my RPE for 8s vs 3s is way off, and I'm doing the 8s too heavy.

For 3s I used 275 and called it @8, giving e1rm of 320.
For 8s I used 210 and called it @8, giving e1rm of 283.

No, if anything, my 8s are too light, I'm rating my RPE too high.

[unruhschuh]

4 sets of 3 @8
RPE chart says 3@8 is 86%
4 * 3 * (100 - (100-86))**2 = 612 H units
plus a bunch of deadlifts

single with my 3s weight, then 4 sets of 8 @8
RPE chart says the single is 86%, the volume is 74%
1 * (100 - (100-86))**2 +
4 * 8 * (100 - (100-74))**2 = 607 H units
plus just as many deadlifts

I agree with the first value (even though, you've got a - instead of a / in there:

4 * 3 * (100 / (100-86))^2 = 612

But the second one should be:

1 * (100 / (100-86))^2 +4 * 8 * (100 / (100-74))^2 = 524

[cwd]

But the second one should be:

1 * (100 / (100-86))^2 +4 * 8 * (100 / (100-74))^2 = 524

Thanks, fixing.

[unruhschuh]

Maybe [math]H[/math] should not be linear in [math]r[/math] but something like

[equation]
H\left(\boldsymbol{r},\boldsymbol{i}\right) = \sum_{n=1}^N r_n^k \left(\frac{100}{100-i_n}\right)^2
[/equation]

where the exponent [math]k>1[/math] needs to be determined.

[unruhschuh]

For a single @90%, what is the fatigue equivalent set of 8? If an experienced lifter could give a good estimate, we could fit [math]k[/math] and see how the tables and graphs above would change.

Currently, for [math]k=1[/math], it is roughly 70%.

[Hanley]

The H formula does not match my experience.
My "3s week" squat day is a close match for my "8s week" squat day in H units, but 8s week is much more fatiguing for me.

Yesterday was 3s week squat day, and I was tempted to run a bit on my morning walk. I feel great this morning.
On my walks after squat day on 8s week, I moan and groan a lot, and avoid stairs.

4 sets of 3 @8
RPE chart says 3@8 is 86%
4 * 3 * (100 / (100-86))**2 = 612 H units
plus a bunch of deadlifts

single with my 3s weight, then 4 sets of 8 @8
RPE chart says the single is 86%, the volume is 74%
1 * (100 - (100-86))**2 +
4 * 8 * (100 / (100-74))**2 = 524 H units
plus just as many deadlifts

I'm 52 years old. Perhaps Sullivan is right about "volume sensitive/intensity dependent", and H units are just wrong for old people.

Also, possibly my RPE for 8s vs 3s is way off, and I'm doing the 8s too heavy.

For 3s I used 275 and called it @8, giving e1rm of 320.
For 8s I used 210 and called it @8, giving e1rm of 283.

No, if anything, my 8s are too light, I'm rating my RPE too high.

Are you sure sets 3 & 4 on 8s day are @8?

If I started 8s at 7, I think set 4 would be a bit of a death-grind.

I know it’d mess your nice numbering up, but I’d encourage you to try sets of 4-5 with your 8s weight.

edit: also, you might be more sore from the 8s, but -- after 48 hours -- would they compromise measured performance more than 3s?

[anelson]

The H formula does not match my experience.
My "3s week" squat day is a close match for my "8s week" squat day in H units, but 8s week is much more fatiguing for me.

Yesterday was 3s week squat day, and I was tempted to run a bit on my morning walk. I feel great this morning.
On my walks after squat day on 8s week, I moan and groan a lot, and avoid stairs.

But how well do acute fatigue and localized soreness (or lack thereof) serve as proxies for max recoverable volume? Not rhetorical, seriously asking. For example, 20x135 would give me crippling DOMS, but it yields an HNFM of less than 100.

[cwd]

The H formula does not match my experience.
( ... 4 sets of 3 @8 feels easier than 4 sets of 8 @8 but similar H values ... )

Are you sure sets 3 & 4 on 8s day are @8?

My RPE ratings are always subject to question

Yesterday's squats were:
265 x3 @7.5
275 x3 @8
275 x3 @8
275 x3 @8.5 with untimed but fairly long rests between sets
last set of 3

Two weeks ago:
270 x1 @7.5 (which has to be wrong, but that's what it felt like)
210 x8 4 times, last set @8
This workout left me *much* more sore.
last set of 8

I know it’d mess your nice numbering up, but I’d encourage you to try sets of 4-5 with your 8s weight.

So, still 32 total reps at the same weight, but broken up into 6-7 sets instead of 4?

[cwd]

But how well do acute fatigue and localized soreness (or lack thereof) serve as proxies for max recoverable volume? Not rhetorical, seriously asking. For example, 20x135 would give me crippling DOMS, but it yields an HNFM of less than 100.

This is a very good point.

[Hanley]

So, still 32 total reps at the same weight, but broken up into 6-7 sets instead of 4?

Yup. It's the only way I can get bench tonnage at 70-75%. More sets of fewer reps seems to keep inflammation down.

[cwd]

edit: also, you might be more sore from the 8s, but -- after 48 hours -- would they compromise measured performance more than 3s?

I do my standing-long-jump test 48 hours after squat day, got 62.5" after 8s week squats 2 weeks ago.
Let's see what I get tomorrow 48 hours after 3s week squats...

[Hanley]

edit: also, you might be more sore from the 8s, but -- after 48 hours -- would they compromise measured performance more than 3s?

I do my standing-long-jump test 48 hours after squat day, got 62.5" after 8s week squats 2 weeks ago.
Let's see what I get tomorrow 48 hours after 3s week squats...

That's super handy. I'd bet the jump is actually a really good proxy measure of fatigue.

[cwd]

@Hanley, there's no clear pattern re: my standing long-jump after 4x3 vs 4x8 squats. There is a gradual improvement over time.

This suggests the H formula is correct in rating my 3s and 8s days about the same, despite my having a lot more DOMS after 8s.

Code: Select all

Date        Lift        Jump 48 hours later, inches
2018.01.21  Squat 3s	58.5
2018.01.24  Dead 3	61.75
2018.01.28  Squat 8s	62.5
2018.01.31  Dead 8	59.75
2018.02.04  Squat 5s	63
2018.02.08  Dead 5	63.5
2018.02.11  Squat 3s	64

[cgeorg]

How long have you been standing long jumping? If it's recent, there is also likely some novice skill acquisition.