Exodus Strength

Posted: **Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:04 pm**

damufunman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:24 am
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?

Not useless - if I did that I'd have to consider the impact of a high H curl session on a systemic fatigue basis, not just a bicep fatigue basis. Which is what I'm trying to look at. Obviously I'm a limited resource system - so I need to consider cumulative fatigue. A relative tonnage weighted sum of Hs is vaguely useful for that, but I imagine there exists a more useful approach to aggregation.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:41 am**

@Shane that's interesting. How would you normalize tonnage? I think it's common to actually have more (or close to) tonnage for bench (because the greater volume can exceed the difference in loading) than, say squats, but the squats will still take longer to recover from (e.g. big guys doing bench twice a week, but squatting once, for instance).

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:53 am**

Shane wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pmI'd kind of like an absolute fatigue measure that I can use to pop a number on an entire session.

I think you will go insane if you try to define "fatigue" as anything other than something like "reduced readiness/ability to produce force".

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:37 am**

Agree with Hanley here - Austin had some posts and links on BBM after someone here inquired (Murelli maybe?) The final answer was that we can't really define "fatigue" and the symptoms and processes around the various inputs that go into it are really complex.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:57 am**

Yes, I think HNFM gives you a good ballpark. It hardly gets any better than this. You'll always have to consider the individual lifter and lift (and combinations of lifts, especially similar ones like squats/deadlifts, press/bench) anyway.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:15 am**

unruhschuh wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:57 am Yes, I think HNFM gives you a good ballpark. It hardly gets any better than this.

Except that it is accurate for about a 15% range of intensity, and seemingly only at low reps per set. I don't think the same fatigue is produced by 3x10@75% vs 10x3@75% (both HNFM 480), nor do I think that 3 singles @8 (HNFM 468) produce the same fatigue as 3x5@8.5 (HNFM 462).

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:23 am**

The Bridge has a section on fatigue, including "Fatigue is the sum of all stress the lifter is exposed to that
subsequently modifies performance including physical, emotional, and environmental
stress. It is well established that the total level of fatigue must be appropriate in order to
optimize the stress – recovery – adaptation cycle."

Murelli BBM: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... ns-fatigue

There's a post here by Jordan about using tonnage to track progress. He lists a bunch of factors he prefers.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:39 am**

cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:15 am nor do I think that 3 singles @8 (HNFM 468) produce the same fatigue as 3x5@8.5 (HNFM 462).

Have you tested this?

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:45 am**

Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:39 am
cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:15 am nor do I think that 3 singles @8 (HNFM 468) produce the same fatigue as 3x5@8.5 (HNFM 462).
Have you tested this?

But I'm just starting to make progress again, I don't want to take 2 sessions off. My thought is that the first of each might produce similar fatigue, but the third set of five at 82% is going to be harder systemically than the third single at 92%.

By the metric I created, the fatigue from the singles would dissipate in about a day and a half, the fahves would take a bit more than 3 days.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:54 am**

Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:39 am
cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:15 am nor do I think that 3 singles @8 (HNFM 468) produce the same fatigue as 3x5@8.5 (HNFM 462).
Have you tested this?

I'm in agreement with cgeorg that when casually thinking about it, 5 sets of 3 at 82% would seem to be a good deal more systemically stressful than 3 reps at 92. But I don't really know for sure.

How could that be tested? Perform an AMRAP-1 set at 60-70% a day after doing each variety and compare reps achieved?

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:15 pm**

omaniphil wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:54 am How could that be tested?

I test 3x5 @ ~82% every week. I am fully recovered within 48 hours.

I could not fully recover from 4x5 @ ~82%.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:42 pm**

omaniphil wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:54 amHow could that be tested? Perform an AMRAP-1 set at 60-70% a day after doing each variety and compare reps achieved?

Bar speeds.

3 singles at 93-94% are much more likely to fatigue me beyond 48 hours than sets with 82% (I don't know what 3x5@8.5 means...3rd set is almost certainly creeping to @10*...I'd do 5 sets of 3 and be fine in 48 hours).

*you can't use the formula absent an inject of common sense/ad hoc rules. If I do 82% for 15 reps using ~2 sets to failure...I'm fucked way beyond 48 hours.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:14 pm**

Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:42 pm
omaniphil wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:54 amHow could that be tested? Perform an AMRAP-1 set at 60-70% a day after doing each variety and compare reps achieved?
Bar speeds.

3 singles at 93-94% are much more likely to fatigue me beyond 48 hours than sets with 82% (I don't know what 3x5@8.5 means...3rd set is almost certainly creeping to @10*...I'd do 5 sets of 3 and be fine in 48 hours).

*you can't use the formula absent an inject of common sense/ad hoc rules. If I do 82% for 15 reps using ~2 sets to failure...I'm fucked way beyond 48 hours.

5@8.5 is 82%. 1@8 is 92. 3x5@82% and 3x1@92 give the same HNFM, in the 460s. Both not far above 400. I don't think they're equivalent. If someone is trying to use the metric to evaluate how fatiguing a program is, 3x5@82% looks the same as 5x3@82%. They're not. That's the point I was making back here.

It is accurate for about a 15% range of intensity, and seemingly only at low reps per set.

I don't think we can say "It hardly gets any better than this."

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:25 pm**

cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:14 pm. That's the point I was making back here.

I agree with the point. I guess I'd rather just use the formula sensibly with a few heuristic-y rules ("no worksets between 65-95% over @9") than try to model "set-fatigue".

I might be biased, though; my hand-wavy rules are probably more refined than most folks who've only got their n=1 data set.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:27 pm**

EricK wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:41 am @Shane that's interesting. How would you normalize tonnage? I think it's common to actually have more (or close to) tonnage for bench (because the greater volume can exceed the difference in loading) than, say squats, but the squats will still take longer to recover from (e.g. big guys doing bench twice a week, but squatting once, for instance).

@EricK, yeah on the normalization front, to date it's just been each lift's tonnage as a proportion of total session tonnage. So doesn't account for a whole range of things such as:
- the impact of related lifts, for example squat + deadlift would be rougher on your wheels than squat + bench, and arguably more taxing systemically as well.
- relative tonnage of the entire session (although the H's I guess have this as a factor).
- stuff that just screws you up longer for similar tonnage

The problems equating tonnage across lifts within a session don't matter as much for my purposes, as I use a pretty defined upper/lower split. But still, two sessions that my metrics would show as quite similar could as you've highlighted have wildly different full-system effects. Assuming they're a thing that can be separated from the lift specific fatigue outcomes.

Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:53 am
Shane wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pmI'd kind of like an absolute fatigue measure that I can use to pop a number on an entire session.
I think you will go insane if you try to define "fatigue" as anything other than something like "reduced readiness/ability to produce force".

@HanleyYeh already achieving well on the first part. But it still irks me that there's direct (yo quadz be toast!) and indirect (squat hangover!) fatigue types/effects/symptoms. Unrelated lifts will not be affected by the first, but will be by the second.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:03 pm**

Let me see if I understand this correctly. I calculated the H value for my programmed squat workout for Friday (3/9) and it is 711. This is above 600 so it will take me longer than 48 hours to recover. I take 2 days off between lifting so I'll have 72 hours of recovery before I lift again. So according to this metric, I will be carrying some fatigue when I deadlift 72 hours later.

Here are some H values for the past/future leg workouts.
3/4 squat - H=667
3/6 dead lift - H=585
3/9 squat - H=711
3/12 dead lift - H=625

Currently (3/7), my legs do not feel very good...excessively tired. Is it reasonable to assume from these H values that by Monday after dead lifting that I will be completely wrecked and perhaps I should change my approach? Or is the extended recovery time enough to continue lifting? I was hoping to get through Monday and then take a 2 week deload then finishing up my current Hepburn cycle to get all 6 sets of 3 at this weight and then test. Perhaps that is asking for injury. Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:17 pm**

I'm not sure if you'll get injured but I'm also not sure if that programming is optimal. As far as I know there's no empirical support for a "rebound" effect from temporary overreaching. I'd rather just program workouts so I can recover fully (more or less) for the next one.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:08 am**

cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:14 pm
Hanley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:42 pm
omaniphil wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:54 amHow could that be tested? Perform an AMRAP-1 set at 60-70% a day after doing each variety and compare reps achieved?
Bar speeds.

3 singles at 93-94% are much more likely to fatigue me beyond 48 hours than sets with 82% (I don't know what 3x5@8.5 means...3rd set is almost certainly creeping to @10*...I'd do 5 sets of 3 and be fine in 48 hours).

*you can't use the formula absent an inject of common sense/ad hoc rules. If I do 82% for 15 reps using ~2 sets to failure...I'm fucked way beyond 48 hours.
5@8.5 is 82%. 1@8 is 92. 3x5@82% and 3x1@92 give the same HNFM, in the 460s. Both not far above 400. I don't think they're equivalent. If someone is trying to use the metric to evaluate how fatiguing a program is, 3x5@82% looks the same as 5x3@82%. They're not. That's the point I was making back here.

It is accurate for about a 15% range of intensity, and seemingly only at low reps per set.
I don't think we can say "It hardly gets any better than this."

3x5@82% would have my muscles sore, but usable after 48 hours. Joints may be okay.

3x1@92% would have my muscles fresh after 24 hours, but my tendons and joints may be pissed for up to 96.

A lot of this is also training history dependent along with general medical profiles and what is on the bar.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:29 am**

mgil wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:08 am 3x5@82% would have my muscles sore, but usable after 48 hours. Joints may be okay.

3x1@92% would have my muscles fresh after 24 hours, but my tendons and joints may be pissed for up to 96.

A lot of this is also training history dependent along with general medical profiles and what is on the bar.

In my current program I'm using this to measure fatigue:

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

with values of [math]w=0.5, x=1.1, y=2.5, z=2[/math]. %1RM is the decimal representation - e.g. .9 for 90%. Units seem to be days, for me. I'd bet tweaks could be made to cater to individuals. For instance someone more sensitive to higher percentages could bump up z. Someone who is pretty tolerant of higher volume sets might want to decrease w. Someone who is very sensitive to approaching failure in any rep range would increase y. You'd need to balance these out somehow to keep the units near days, but it'd still be a good way to get a relative feel. Fatigue and corresponding H for this week's plan:

3x5@82 would be 3.35, 3x1@92 would be 1.62, which tracks reasonably with your muscular fatigue estimates. I'd imagine something different would need to be used for tendons+joints - probably something very close to H actually, involving only reps and percent of 1RM.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:16 am**

mgil wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:08 am
3x5@82% would have my muscles sore, but usable after 48 hours. Joints may be okay.

3x1@92% would have my muscles fresh after 24 hours, but my tendons and joints may be pissed for up to 96.

Yup. Exactly the same. And I've noted that residual inflammation/pain in the joint just ruins force production (manifests as "fatigue").

Exodus Strength

Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary

Re: Formulary