Mathematical Modeling of Attempt Selection | Jeff Russell

[K9ZAZ]

If you guys are going to pull a shiny new word out of your asses, coordinate the definition first. What would be the purpose of allowing a meet to function as a training session?

*shrug.* I'm not the one committed to this masturbatory mathematical exercise.

[Fulcrum]

Allowing attempts to decrease (rather than just increase or remain the same) could allow lifters to hit higher totals via more rational attempt selection.
The optimal strategy for a 2-attempt meet decreases the 2nd attempt if the 1st was not hit; I haven’t analyzed the 3-attempt meet.

I think a meet allowing optimal attempt selection would be a better demonstration of strength. But as you mentioned, it would be more impractical to run.

What's the thinking here? I don't think you lift, compete, or ever have seen a meet.

Say in your theoretical two attempt meet, if you take a weight that is just too heavy, and struggle with it for a few seconds...
...you loose a certain amount of, shall we say "mojo", that will not be recouped in enough time (or in some cases never) for your 2nd attempt.
Depending on how much you do or don't drop down in weight, you might actually have a worse chance at failing a 2nd lighter attempt because you shot your wad on the first attempt.

The only exception would be a gross over estimation of a 1st attempt; where you don't even really try hard and let spotters re-rack it.
OR, say a minor technical rule violation, and the 1st attempt didn't require much effort.

We are all dumber for having heard this.
I award you no points for your answer.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I’m not sure I understand. Do you believe that the current rule, encouraging conservative 1st and 2nd attempts, tends to result in the highest possible totals? Or do you wish to encourage conservative, more-easily-repeatable attempts at the expense of performance?

Careful attempt selection results in the highest possible totals. I wish to encourage the lifter to take a 1st attempt that he can triple, a second attempt that he can single, and a 3rd attempt at 1RM, thus resulting in the highest possible total.

*shrug.* I'm not the one committed to this masturbatory mathematical exercise.

You are correct in this assessment.

We are all dumber for having heard this.
I award you no points for your answer.

Points should be deducted.

[Shiva Kaul]

What's the thinking here? I don't think you lift, compete, or ever have seen a meet.

Say in your theoretical two attempt meet, if you take a weight that is just too heavy, and struggle with it for a few seconds...
...you loose a certain amount of, shall we say "mojo", that will not be recouped in enough time (or in some cases never) for your 2nd attempt.
Depending on how much you do or don't drop down in weight, you might actually have a worse chance at failing a 2nd lighter attempt because you shot your wad on the first attempt.

The only exception would be a gross over estimation of a 1st attempt; where you don't even really try hard and let spotters re-rack it.
OR, say a minor technical rule violation, and the 1st attempt didn't require much effort.

You don’t agree with the assumption of independence of the attempts. I didn’t propose that; the article on startingstrength.com did. I think it’s invalid for advanced lifters, who don’t fail lifts for silly reasons, and could bury themselves with a miss, as you point out. Novices/intermediates (i.e. our target audience) might fail for truly random reasons (e.g. poor stance, bad bar position), and recover faster for the same reason that they do during training.

Also, the strategy I derived suggests a *mildly* aggressive 1st attempt that is only slightly higher than what you’d safely pick for just 1 attempt. It’s not a shot for the moon. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Shiva Kaul]

Careful attempt selection results in the highest possible totals. I wish to encourage the lifter to take a 1st attempt that he can triple, a second attempt that he can single, and a 3rd attempt at 1RM, thus resulting in the highest possible total.

I think this is reasonable advice. If any math or logic that contradicts this advice is unrealistic, then why did Starting Strength publish an article doing just that?

The article suggests 520 and 528 as 2nd and 3rd attempts for a squat. Do you think if my 1RM is 528, that I could hit 520 for a double? That is hardly a conservative 2nd attempt, or not quite a 1RM for a 3rd.

I’m being called out as some kind of geek for building upon the ideas on the website. I don’t think they’re totally realistic, but I thought they might encourage fruitful study of alternative strategies. If you take serious issue with my assumptions, you should have the same worries about the article.

My original post/derivation was intended for Jeff Russell, since I thought he would appreciate it. Jeff, if you’re still out there, I’m still glad to discuss.

[Shiva Kaul]

Let us consider the lifter from the article, who can definitely squat 485 and can’t do anything above 535, and consider what their optimal strategy would be for a 2-attempt meet. I set B=485 and λ=0.06 for a neglible chance of hitting 535.

It is: open with 504 (which has 6.6% chance of being missed). If hit, go up to 520 (which has 12% chance of miss). Else, go down to 502 (which has 5.5% chance of miss).

That doesn’t seem reckless or inconsistent with practice. The non-monotonicity is very mild and can basically be ignored. No, I don’t think coaches should abandon all reason in favor of a silly little calculator.

[Mark Rippetoe]

You are being called out for suggesting that meets should allow the lowering of a second or third attempt, having never been to a meet and knowing absolutely nothing about what this would do to the flow of the competition.

[Shiva Kaul]

I recognized the impracticality from the beginning, deferring to your experience. But you made a stronger claim unrelated to "flow": that conservatively increasing (i.e. 3 RM, 2 RM, 1 RM) attempts maximize performance. "Conservative" is not what the article suggests. "Increasing" seems supported by the fact that failing a lift hurts subsequent attempts -- which again, is not what the article recognizes.

I understand that competition is a guarded topic. As I mentioned, the article seems realistic for novices & intermediates, and it is reasonable to believe that they should choose their attempts (and do everything else) differently than advanced lifters. Instead, consider a training session where a trainee has 10 minutes (i.e. 2 attempts) to hit a 1RM. How should they do this?

[stef]

I understand that competition is a guarded topic. As I mentioned, the article seems realistic for novices & intermediates, and it is reasonable to believe that they should choose their attempts (and do everything else) differently than advanced lifters. Instead, consider a training session where a trainee has 10 minutes (i.e. 2 attempts) to hit a 1RM. How should they do this?

Are you sure you read the article? You seem to have missed entirely what it is all about.

I think this is reasonable advice. If any math or logic that contradicts this advice is unrealistic, then why did Starting Strength publish an article doing just that? .....That doesn’t seem reckless or inconsistent with practice. The non-monotonicity is very mild and can basically be ignored. No, I don’t think coaches should abandon all reason in favor of a silly little calculator.

Yep, you've clearly "read" your own version of the article.

[Fulcrum]

Let us consider the lifter from the article, who can definitely squat 485 and can’t do anything above 535, and consider what their optimal strategy would be for a 2-attempt meet. I set B=485 and λ=0.06 for a neglible chance of hitting 535.

It is: open with 504 (which has 6.6% chance of being missed). If hit, go up to 520 (which has 12% chance of miss). Else, go down to 502 (which has 5.5% chance of miss).

That doesn’t seem reckless or inconsistent with practice. The non-monotonicity is very mild and can basically be ignored. No, I don’t think coaches should abandon all reason in favor of a silly little calculator.

....you understand that in a meet only the top lift of each movement is counted in the lifter's total?

The "total" not the aggregation of all the attempts.