Exodus Strength

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?

I'd include them.

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.

@Hanley If one is doing low bar squats for strength work, and high bar for hypertrophy, does one use HB e1RM or LB e1RM for hypertrophy H-value?

damufunman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:31 pm @Hanley If one is doing low bar squats for strength work, and high bar for hypertrophy, does one use HB e1RM or LB e1RM for hypertrophy H-value?

High-bar.

@unruhschuh, would it be possible to have allometric scaling added to the ranking page? Perhaps via a toggle button to switch between displaying Wilks and allometric scaling?

For more information, including its theoretical virtues and the drawbacks of Wilks, see this article:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/whos- ... werlifter/

PatrickDB wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:49 pm @unruhschuh, would it be possible to have allometric scaling added to the ranking page? Perhaps via a toggle button to switch between displaying Wilks and allometric scaling?

For more information, including its theoretical virtues and the drawbacks of Wilks, see this article:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/whos- ... werlifter/

I guess that's possible, but I don't know what allometric scaling is and I currently don't have time to read a thrity-million word article. Can you give me the TLDR?

from the article I think it would be [equation]k \times \textrm{lift weight} \times \textrm{body weight}^{-\frac 2 3}[/equation] where [math]k[/math] is "a coefficient so that the best score of all-time in a particular federation or manner of competition is equal to 100."

convergentsum wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:58 am from the article I think it would be [equation]k \times \textrm{lift weight} \times \textrm{body weight}^{\frac 2 3}[/equation] where [math]k[/math] is "a coefficient so that the best score of all-time in a particular federation or manner of competition is equal to 100."

Should be divided by body weight. And the scaling factor is unnecessary since the best lifter will just get a higher score. Whereas Wilks is a little favorable to bigger guys allometric scaling is favorable to smaller guys.

EricK wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:33 am Should be divided by body weight.

Good catch, corrected formula in grandparent.

The HNFM is linear with volume. Would it be an improvement to modify the value for a set of [math]n[/math] by comparing the intensity with that of a [math]n[/math]-rep max? something like
[equation]\textrm {reps} \times \frac {100} {(\textrm {int}_{\textrm{reps }@10} - \textrm {int})^2}[/equation]
The original formula has the feature that it blows up to infinity when you program a max effort 1rm. If this is seen as a feature, might it also be a feature to penalize max efforts in other rep ranges in the same way? Or should the 1-rep-max be a special case.

On the other hand if we don't like reaching infinity at the limit of intensity, could we add some small constant bias to the denominator?

convergentsum wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:09 pmThe original formula has the feature that it blows up to infinity when you program a max effort 1rm. If this is seen as a feature, might it also be a feature to penalize max efforts in other rep ranges in the same way? Or should the 1-rep-max be a special case.

A true 1RM lift is much more fatiguing than, say, a set of 12 @10.

TimK wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:13 pm

convergentsum wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:09 pmThe original formula has the feature that it blows up to infinity when you program a max effort 1rm. If this is seen as a feature, might it also be a feature to penalize max efforts in other rep ranges in the same way? Or should the 1-rep-max be a special case.

A true 1RM lift is much more fatiguing than, say, a set of 12 @10.

Is that true for everyone? There are some posts a couple of pages back about how singles @8 are less fatiguing than 5s @8, despite having nearly the same [math]H[/math] factor. Maybe 12s are out of scope.

My suggestion as written is silly anyway, since it rates one set of 5@8 at >1000. But still it might be fun to try using some product of powers of [math](\textrm{int}_\textrm{reps @10} - \textrm{int})[/math] and [math](100 - \textrm{int})[/math] to create a function which still penalises sets @10 but doesn't disagree more than it needs to with the original. Or is the problem with a heavy 3x5 not so much the first set but the subsequent ones, ie would we need to model accumulating fatigue? Maybe the fatigue of the [math]n[/math]'th set [math]H_n[/math] would be multiplied by eg. [math]\textrm{exp}\left(k\sum_{i<n} H_i\right)[/math], where [math]k[/math] is a measure of the lifter's MRV (how quickly the fatigue from one more set becomes prohibitively fatiguing).

I guess an "improvement" would have to be quite profound for it to be worth the extra complexity.

convergentsum wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:05 am

TimK wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:13 pm

convergentsum wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:09 pmThe original formula has the feature that it blows up to infinity when you program a max effort 1rm. If this is seen as a feature, might it also be a feature to penalize max efforts in other rep ranges in the same way? Or should the 1-rep-max be a special case.

A true 1RM lift is much more fatiguing than, say, a set of 12 @10.

Is that true for everyone? There are some posts a couple of pages back about how singles @8 are less fatiguing than 5s @8, despite having nearly the same [math]H[/math] factor. Maybe 12s are out of scope.

Maybe not. Maybe I'm just flat out wrong. Now that I think about it, while I have done all-out 1RM grinders on squats and deadlifts that impacted my performance for a week or more, I've never actually done an all-out 12RM on those lifts. So maybe it would be just as bad if not worse. Although for bench, it seems that going to failure on a set of 3, for instance, sets me back more than on a set of 8 or 9. But that's just my anecdotal recollection which is far from scientific.

TimK wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:12 am

convergentsum wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:05 am

TimK wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:13 pm

convergentsum wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:09 pmThe original formula has the feature that it blows up to infinity when you program a max effort 1rm. If this is seen as a feature, might it also be a feature to penalize max efforts in other rep ranges in the same way? Or should the 1-rep-max be a special case.

A true 1RM lift is much more fatiguing than, say, a set of 12 @10.

Is that true for everyone? There are some posts a couple of pages back about how singles @8 are less fatiguing than 5s @8, despite having nearly the same [math]H[/math] factor. Maybe 12s are out of scope.

Maybe not. Maybe I'm just flat out wrong. Now that I think about it, while I have done all-out 1RM grinders on squats and deadlifts that impacted my performance for a week or more, I've never actually done an all-out 12RM on those lifts. So maybe it would be just as bad if not worse. Although for bench, it seems that going to failure on a set of 3, for instance, sets me back more than on a set of 8 or 9. But that's just my anecdotal recollection which is far from scientific.

Pretty sure it'd be lift dependent for me. A 5 to 10 rep testicle smashing squat set, complete with big rests between the last few reps, is going to put me in a hole for way longer than my grindiest ever single. For Bench, I'd rate the horribleness as 1-5 range rep max: most horrible, anything above that: less horrible. Maybe its because there's more muscle mass involved in the squat, and more ways to eke out the last few reps by redistributing the load with technique changes, and just standing there breathing helps you rally enough to get a couple more shit-spooning reps in a way that won't work for bench due to losing tightness and ongoing fatigue from holding the bar at arms length.

I think H is more about joint/tendon fatigue, which is much more dependent on absolute intensity. If you look up my fatigue formula in this thread it does (IMO) a better job at muscular fatigue - 1@82%=.41 and 5@82%=.73. I've found the units correspond roughly to days.

cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:46 am I think H is more about joint/tendon fatigue, which is much more dependent on absolute intensity. If you look up my fatigue formula in this thread it does (IMO) a better job at muscular fatigue - 1@82%=.41 and 5@82%=.73. I've found the units correspond roughly to days.

Good point, need to pay attention to which type of fatigue is the limiting factor.
I was looking at muscular fatigue using your formula, do the values on the Montana Method seem very low? (under 0.5 for each lift except on power day). Does it correspond to days when you add each lift together?

convergentsum wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 4:27 am

cgeorg wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:46 am I think H is more about joint/tendon fatigue, which is much more dependent on absolute intensity. If you look up my fatigue formula in this thread it does (IMO) a better job at muscular fatigue - 1@82%=.41 and 5@82%=.73. I've found the units correspond roughly to days.

Good point, need to pay attention to which type of fatigue is the limiting factor.
I was looking at muscular fatigue using your formula, do the values on the Montana Method seem very low? (under 0.5 for each lift except on power day). Does it correspond to days when you add each lift together?

I add s+d and keep bench separate. My personal HPS plan didn't seem to generate that much muscular fatigue for me, nor did the first week under Hanley. The past couple of weeks have had a couple of outlier days but they've corresponded with other confounding activity outside the gym.

I combined both the HNFM and the e1RM equations in this example sheet. Input: Weight, Reps, RPE, and it outputs e1RM and HNFM.

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

(I fed the intensity value from the RPE equation into the Hanley normalized fatigue metric equation.)

Hanley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:30 am

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%).

Have you been tracking weekly H values for SBD for your clients?