Exodus Strength

cgeorg wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:34 am How long have you been standing long jumping? If it's recent, there is also likely some novice skill acquisition.

Just since late December. I think the trend towards bigger numbers represents skill gains. Hopefully these have mostly stabilized now, so we can see a decent trend in the next phase of my deadlift vs. power-clean experiment.

cwd wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:24 amThis 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.

Interesting. If residual fatigue were indeed compromising recruitment, I think that would be really obvious in your jump performance.

I find myself using the H-formula all the time now (at least for intensities between 70-95%)

cwd wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:27 am 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.

I don't know that "fatigue" and DOMS are interchangeable.

You're inevitably going to do more eccentric work with a shitload more reps.
More eccentric work means more soreness, yes?

But more soreness does not per ser == more "fatique".

ETA: I see someone else has made this point already. Oh well.

tersh wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:02 pm ETA: I see someone else has made this point already. Oh well.

You are still right though, even if you weren't right first!

I'm still kind of hung up on how H doesn't include set/rep scheme whatsoever. Isn't that kind of the whole point of the request for participants experiment? To figure out how to break the target reps at a target percentage into set/rep schemes that mitigate fatigue? At the very least it seems like it needs to have an additional "and all sets should be between @4-@7" disclaimer.

cgeorg wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:03 am I'm still kind of hung up on how H doesn't include set/rep scheme whatsoever. Isn't that kind of the whole point of the request for participants experiment? To figure out how to break the target reps at a target percentage into set/rep schemes that mitigate fatigue? At the very least it seems like it needs to have an additional "and all sets should be between @4-@7" disclaimer.

Moderating intraset fatigue seems to have the most marked difference in "stress-cost" around 70-75% e1rm. Maybe a 15-20% reduction [hand-wave].

"Strength" is weird. The difference in incurred fatigue between 3x5 and 5x3 @80% isn't as distinct as I thought it would be (maybe 5-10% reduction in stress-cost/H-value...though for some people [myself included] it's more like 20%).

Hanley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:32 am

cgeorg wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:03 am I'm still kind of hung up on how H doesn't include set/rep scheme whatsoever. Isn't that kind of the whole point of the request for participants experiment? To figure out how to break the target reps at a target percentage into set/rep schemes that mitigate fatigue? At the very least it seems like it needs to have an additional "and all sets should be between @4-@7" disclaimer.

Moderating intraset fatigue seems to have the most marked difference in "stress-cost" around 70-75% e1rm. Maybe a 15-20% reduction [hand-wave].

"Strength" is weird. The difference in incurred fatigue between 3x5 and 5x3 @80% isn't as distinct as I thought it would be (maybe 5-10% reduction in stress-cost/H-value...though for some people [myself included] it's more like 20%).

My primary observation from my hack at a “strength” day last night:

On bench, I could’ve hit 3x5x270 without too much fuss, but the last set would’ve been a little tougher and there would be noticeable bar speed differences among reps and sets.

By doing 5x3x270, I was going into each set fresher, even with <3 minutes of rest, and was able to focus on form and bar speed. Going by my feels (too lazy to do the video analysis), my last set was faster than my first and the fourth set was ridiculously fast.

Instead of doing 2x8 for drop sets, 4x4 was also much easier, turnaround time was fast (<2 minutes) and every rep was clean and consistent feeling.

I was fooling around with this splitting of sets and dropping the rest times per @Hanley’s advice on squats a while back and it makes sense. The accumulated fatigue is basically identical without the “hurt” afterwards. No idea about NMU recruitment, but considering that I can keep up bar speed with focus, I’m thinking that’s getting worked also.

cgeorg wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:03 am I'm still kind of hung up on how H doesn't include set/rep scheme whatsoever. Isn't that kind of the whole point of the request for participants experiment? To figure out how to break the target reps at a target percentage into set/rep schemes that mitigate fatigue? At the very least it seems like it needs to have an additional "and all sets should be between @4-@7" disclaimer.

That's why I asked for a recommended per set H value. I guess between 50-100 would be good.

Hanley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:32 amModerating intraset fatigue seems to have the most marked difference in "stress-cost" around 70-75% e1rm. Maybe a 15-20% reduction [hand-wave].

"Strength" is weird. The difference in incurred fatigue between 3x5 and 5x3 @80% isn't as distinct as I thought it would be (maybe 5-10% reduction in stress-cost/H-value...though for some people [myself included] it's more like 20%).

That 5-10% though, if being the difference between 100% recovery and 90-95% recovery, will make a noticeable difference after 2-3 weeks. If it's the difference between 110% recovery vs 100%, not so much. If for some people it indeed gets as high as 20%, that's the difference between stalling 3 weeks into a program or not.

FWIW, going off of this:

cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:34 am These seem close. Ugh I lied I thought of something else, but it would require converting reps @ percents into RPE. Something like

[equation]sets^x*(RPE/10)^y*\%1RM^z[/equation]

Solve for x, y, z.

With x=.4, y=2, z=1, and the hypothesis that ~.5 is a good value for an exercise, 5x3@80 vs 3x5@80, using RTS RPE chart to convert pct to rpe:

5x3@80%:
[math]5^.4*(5.5/10)^2*.8=.46[/math]

3x5@80%:
[math]3^.4*(7.5/10)^2*.8=.69[/math]

50% increase going to 3x5. I also pulled x and y values from fairly thin air. @mgil, what's your bench 1RM?

edit: peeped log, looks like 270 was 80%. Backoffs:

4x4@70%
[math]4^.4*(3/10)^2*.7=.11[/math]

2x8@70%
[math]2^.4*(7/10)^2*.7=.45[/math]

^ That's probably more extreme a difference than you'd see real world. Totals:

5x3@80, 4x4@70 = .57
3x5@80, 2x8@70 = 1.14

That's pretty extreme. Maybe y and z are each more like 1.5.

More thinking - x should be greater than 1, because each subsequent set is likely to add slightly more fatigue than the last. I still think RPE is the best proxy for the amount of fatigue incurred because it measures how close you were to maxing out, with percent 1RM being a bit less important but not as much. More number play, x=1.1, y=2.5, z=2.

Relative importance of RPE/%1RM:
5RM: 86%@10 = .73
10RM: 74%@10 = .54
Easy Single: 92%@8 = .48

Shit well that doesn't really seem right? That an overwarmup would be that close to a 10RM? Maybe reps need to get in there explicitly, not just as a factor of RPE. With the set/rep schemes above though, it comes out a lot nicer, looking like 1 unit is about 2 days of recovery, and the changing of set/rep scheme lets you get back to the lift a day earlier.

5x3@80, 4x4@70 = .93
3x5@80, 2x8@70 = 1.44

Going to think about how rep count might come into play. Possibly just as another factor with an exponent somewhere in the 0-1 range.

Yeah, adding a factor of [math]reps^.5[/math] gives you:

5x3@80, 4x4@70 = 1.64
3x5@80, 2x8@70 = 3.45
1x1@92, 5x5@75 = 2.14

I would hazard a guess that units are approximately in days. Feel free to copy and play with.

edit sorry i keep rambling to myself, laid up letting my back heal and keep playing. With the above, 1@8, 1@9, 1@10 = 2.16. So a meet gives you about a week of fatigue.

Here's a INOLish method developed by Mike T based on RPE.

Mike T's recent summit at powerlifting university 2017 shined some light on this that made me take it more seriously. Much like INOL, Mike had created a system of coefficients that weighted the training stress of each set. For example, @9-10 RPE (no reps left in the tank) was 1.33, @8-9 was 1, @7-8 was 0.8, and so on. You can add all weights across a movement within a session or within a week and compare it to some ballpark guidelines. Whereas INOL weights reps according to intensity regardless of proximity to failure, Mike T's training stress index weights exertion by sets. Granted, if you're measuring by a different unit, you should create bounds for those units.

For a single movement, Mike put forth 2.5 for an easy session, 3.5 for a moderate session, and 4.5 for a hard session. Much like INOL, it operates under the "single movement" clause, whereby the training stress of bench vs that of your squat aren't lumped together. It's not clear to me whether something like touch and go bench and feet up bench are arbitrarily separated, but you could argue it either way. For a training week, good planned bounds would be 14, 20, and 26, for the same rating scheme (easy, moderate, hard).

source:
http://zerosumgains.blogspot.com/2017/0 ... pe-to.html

Now that you've all made me interested in fatigue metrics per lift, I started thinking about how to quantify fatigue imposed by the whole training session. Specifically, If I calculate a H for squats of 500 then throw in some curls that have the same H, systemically I obviously haven't H'd my fatigue glands a 1000 H's. Be silly if they were purely additive across different lifts with different systemic impacts. But I can do 500 Hbombs worth of curls and I know I did some serious curlage - just not a 3 day session hangover like I'd get from the squats.

I did start looking at some weightings by normalised tonnage, and that seemed to make a lot of sense for a very basic approach. I know I can overhead press or curl all day and it'll have nowhere near the whole-body kicked in the ass impact of squatting all day. Weighting H by tonnage reflects that. But it's a pretty rudimentary approach, and still doesn't provide a good per session fatigue metric, as the weightings are relative to other lifts within the session. I guess there's always broadening the base to weighting across sessions. It's still relative though. I'd kind of like an absolute fatigue measure that I can use to pop a number on an entire session. Probably need to return to a more data driven modelling approach.

Shane wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pm Now that you've all made me interested in fatigue metrics per lift, I started thinking about how to quantify fatigue imposed by the whole training session. Specifically, If I calculate a H for squats of 500 then throw in some curls that have the same H, systemically I obviously haven't H'd my fatigue glands a 1000 H's. Be silly if they were purely additive across different lifts with different systemic impacts. But I can do 500 Hbombs worth of curls and I know I did some serious curlage - just not a 3 day session hangover like I'd get from the squats.

I did start looking at some weightings by normalised tonnage, and that seemed to make a lot of sense for a very basic approach. I know I can overhead press or curl all day and it'll have nowhere near the whole-body kicked in the ass impact of squatting all day. Weighting H by tonnage reflects that. But it's a pretty rudimentary approach, and still doesn't provide a good per session fatigue metric, as the weightings are relative to other lifts within the session. I guess there's always broadening the base to weighting across sessions. It's still relative though. I'd kind of like an absolute fatigue measure that I can use to pop a number on an entire session. Probably need to return to a more data driven modelling approach.

(possibly?) Useless thought experiment for you:
If you can get your curl up to your squat weight, does that change things?

Isn't the issue that the formula inputs are reps and intensity (as a percent of 1RM for the exercise in question). If my 1RM for a DL is 500 and my 1RM for a press is 200, and I do 10 reps of DL at 400 and 10 reps of press at 160, I'll get the same H for both (10 reps at 80% intensity), but the DL will be a lot more fatiguing.

Am I misinterpreting?

I think smaller, weaker (by virtue of anatomical size, not level of training advancement) can take more stress and recover faster than big strong muscles. So maybe your Press H values tend to trend higher than your deadlift H values.

Exactly. There should be different target ranges for different exercises.

quark wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:46 am Exactly. There should be different target ranges for different exercises.

I think the equation holds for squats, deads and bench press. Overhead Press is a little wonky (but, conveniently, the H values that I would use to ballpark 48-hour max recoverable volume for deads, squats and bench represent ~ a 24-hour max recoverable volume for overhead press).

edit: but, yeah, just use different H-values for different lifts if you need to. What's useful is that the stress measure is normalized across intensities on a single lift (from ~65-95%).

Made a picture:



MATLAB code. Should run in Octave. Lazy writing.
ETA: grid lines

mgil wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:52 am Made a picture:

...questioning my sexuality now