Exodus Strength

stevan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:56 am Have you been tracking weekly H values for SBD for your clients?

Yeah.

Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:21 am

stevan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:56 am Have you been tracking weekly H values for SBD for your clients?

Yeah.

Is there a big variance in H values that people can tolerate?

Weekly H value for SBD in the MM' 1st week is 920/901/327 and 1216/1607/781 in the 2nd week, if we ignore the variations and presses. Is this a typical ratio of H values you program (bench higher or same H value compared to squat, deadlift always lower...) or it varies between individuals?

stevan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:47 am Is there a big variance in H values that people can tolerate?

Yup. But I think that's expected . I'm working with quite a range of folks -- from the not-terribly-athletic noob to the just-qualified-for-nationals bro.

I had a couple of dudes with weekly bench values over 2000. That sort of weekly stress was new to me as a programmer.

stevan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:47 amIs this a typical ratio of H values you program (bench higher or same H value compared to squat, deadlift always lower...) or it varies between individuals?

That ratio is pretty typical.

Is it possible to re-arrange the RPE equation so you can get reps as a function of RPE and intensity? I has the dumb and can't figure it out

victrhugochavez wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:35 pm Is it possible to re-arrange the RPE equation so you can get reps as a function of RPE and intensity? I has the dumb and can't figure it out

Which RPE equation are you using? My stuff uses a lookup table rather than an equation.

I was talking about the equation that uses A, B, C... F coefficients to figure RPE or intensity. I'm trying to set something up where you can designate intensity and proximity to failure in order to determine reps. Seems like a bass-ackwards way of doing it, but mostly curious

victrhugochavez wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:42 am I was talking about the equation that uses A, B, C... F coefficients to figure RPE or intensity. I'm trying to set something up where you can designate intensity and proximity to failure in order to determine reps. Seems like a bass-ackwards way of doing it, but mostly curious

It is a cubic equation with real coefficients and there is an algebraic solution for it's root. I'm not in the mood right now to write it all down. In practice you'd probably use a numerical algorithm like newton's method anyway.

Oh, what the hell, here we go:

First you transform the equation to this
[equation]
\begin{align}
C - \frac{i\!n\!t}{A \cdot R\!P\!E + B} + D \cdot r\!e\!p\!s + E \cdot r\!e\!p\!s^2 + F \cdot r\!e\!p\!s^3 &= 0
\end{align}
[/equation]
Using
[equation]
ax^3+bx^2+cx+d=0
[/equation]
you identify
[equation]
\begin{align}
x &= r\!e\!p\!s\\
a &= F \\
b &= E \\
c &= D \\
d &= C - \frac{i\!n\!t}{A \cdot R\!P\!E + B}
\end{align}
[/equation]
You then compute
[equation]
\begin{align}
\Delta _{0}&=b^{2}-3ac \\
\Delta _{1}&=2b^{3}-9abc+27a^{2}d \\
C&={\sqrt[{3}]{\frac {\Delta _{1}\pm {\sqrt {{\Delta _{1}}^{2}-4{\Delta _{0}}^{3}}}}{2}}}
\end{align}
[/equation]
There are three possible cube roots implied by the last expression, of which at least two are non-real complex numbers; any of these may be chosen when defining [math]C[/math].
The three solutions are
[equation]
x_{k}=-{\frac {1}{3a}}\left(b+\xi ^{k}C+{\frac {\Delta _{0}}{\xi ^{k}C}}\right),\qquad k\in \{0,1,2\}
[/equation]
where [math]\xi = -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{3} i[/math]

This can probably be simplified to only one (real) solution, if we restrict the ranges of intensity and RPE to [math]i\!n\!t \in \left[50\%,100\%\right][/math] and [math]R\!P\!E \in \left[6,10\right][/math].

I'm a little late to it, but I ended up just figuring out how to do it with match and offset functions. Thank you though

victrhugochavez wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:13 pm I'm a little late to it, but I ended up just figuring out how to do it with match and offset functions. Thank you though

But, but ... muh maths

unruhschuh wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:21 am But, but ... muh maths

I was making a template format that was percent based but still gave you relative intensity based on intensity and rep inputs. I kinda wanted a way to figure out how to make it so you can get intensity determined from rep+RI inputs or reps based on intensity+RI inputs, but as it turns out lookup tables are super easy in comparison.

Saw this and thought of you: http://www.strongur.io/monitoring-train ... tion-load/
Features a measure of exertion load which works out as [math]m e^{-0.215 \times \textrm{#reps from failure}}[/math] summed over each rep.
It models both intraset (last rep of a set is harder) and interset (last set is harder) (did I use those words correctly?) fatigue, thusly -- assuming you gauge RPE of each set, so less usable on an easy-smelling program.

Not read the article yet, anyone looked at it?

@convergentsum, that looks interesting.

Tagging @Hanley so that he can see it.

I've come across the exertion load thing. Don't have enough experience or data to validate the numbers but it seemed reasonable. My gut feel is that the coefficient is going to be individual, as you have people that recover differently (between sets), and can manage more/less reps at a given %, so inter- and intraset fatigue stuff.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:07 am Saw this and thought of you: http://www.strongur.io/monitoring-train ... tion-load/
Features a measure of exertion load which works out as [math]m e^{-0.215 \times \textrm{#reps from failure}}[/math] summed over each rep.
It models both intraset (last rep of a set is harder) and interset (last set is harder) (did I use those words correctly?) fatigue, thusly -- assuming you gauge RPE of each set, so less usable on an easy-smelling program.

Not read the article yet, anyone looked at it?

This is really interesting! There is an update from May 2019 in the last part where he adds ROM as a factor which turns the metric to measuring work done, which I think is a possible significant
improvement to make it a general metric of generated fatigue.

Haven't found any guidelines around numbers to shoot for on different muscle groups and total though. Seems like it's all "hidden" in the Strongur app. Maybe should take it for a spin in the old iPad..

Has anyone been using Strongur or exertion load?

I used @BassPlayer 's google sheet and @unruhschuh 's formulas to expand a little bit.

Second sheet is a calculator to determine how many total reps you would need to achieve a particular HNFM value at a given intensity.

Third sheet is similar to the first sheet's calculator like BassPlayer's, but it exempts the weight (so you can make an example slot in a Dev. Block or whatever else you wanted.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Hanley wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:05 am

MattimusMaximus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:32 am Does the formula include the “work up to a single @8 or @9? Reason I ask is because there’s a few singles in there above 80% while trying to find @8 or @9 that would count as total volume for the day correct?

Example:
1@79, 1@84, 1@89 (@8)
Then 3s x 5r @70, 3s x 3r @70
Total vol = 3+24 = 27

Just curious if I should be including those since they would count as added stress right?

Yeah, absolutely include them.

Hi, it's me, the Necromancer, again.

How do you recommend folks do this? Today I averaged the singles above the workset volume weight to calculate the % in the formula, i.e.

[equation]H = \frac{ 4 }{\left( 1 - \frac{346}{412} \right)^2} [/equation]

Do you think that works okay in general? If I do [math]n[/math] singles, [math]s_1, s_2, \dots , s_n[/math] above the workset volume weight, then let

[equation] H = n \div \left( 1 - \frac{s_1 + s_2 + \cdots + s_n}{n \cdot \text{e1rm}} \right)^2 [/equation]

Today's example would be

[equation] H = 4 \div \left( 1 - \frac{315 + 335 + 355 + 380}{4 \cdot 412} \right)^2 = 157 [/equation]

Would a weighted average where the heavier the single, the higher the weighting be "better"?