starting strength gym
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Why The Algorithm of Linear Progression Beats Intuition

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    764

    Default Why The Algorithm of Linear Progression Beats Intuition

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Hi Rip,

    I wondered if you were familiar with the work of Paul Meehl, the deceased Univ of Minnesota clinical psychologist? He's been popping up a lot in my reading over the last few years and it always makes me think of the rules based training approaches of Starting Strength versus other "discretionary" training approaches.

    Meehl's central insight was that well designed rule-based models consistently outperform the subjective judgments of experts across a variety of fields. For example, in finance, the S&P 500 index "algorithm" outperforms 80% or so of discretionary stock pickers. In medicine, a simple model for predicting whether a tumor was cancerous outperformed the clinical judgement of senior physicians. Frighteningly, when show the same evidence several hours apart, the doctors even contradicted their prior prediction (the algo's came to same conclusion when faced with the same evidence, which is one reason they outperform).

    I bring this up because I think Meehl's work dovetails nicely with why the SSLP works better than a novice "listening to their body" or only advancing when a given weight "feels light." The SSLP is essentially a well designed algorithm that when fucked with by inferior human judgement, creates outcomes that are less optimal that would have been achieved had people Done The Program. Meehl's work is also interesting to consider when thinking about the usefulness of RPE, but that's above my paygrade.

    Regardless, like Selye's work on biological stress work informs and supports why Starting Strength is the way it is, I thought Meehl's work might be helpful too.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    One more nail in the coffin of RPE for the vast majority of the human race.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Lol, what an absurd conclusion of a completely unfitting comparison of rational vs heuristic decision-making paradigms, because RPE is exactly the improvement to pure subjective autoregulation ("going for the feel") and of course, a training program with RPE is a planned program ("with algorithm", so to speak).

    You guys didnt quite understand RPE. Ask Jordan, Austin or directly Mike T what it really is.

    @jkolt: You will like the work of Daniel Kahneman (& Amos Tversky), unfortunately his famous book (Thinking slow and fast) is badly written. A much more readable one is Dan Ariely´s "Predictibly irrational". Also, look for the most prominent scholar for a slightly different position, Gerd Gigerenzer, who showed the value and even superiority of heuristics in certain cases (funny that you mention stock markets, because there are some experiments that show heuristics to be superior to algorithms!).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    You ridiculous, anonymous irrelevant little fuck. I'm right, you're wrong, and if you don't like it you can run to the other forums and tattle on Rippy. This ratshit will stop, I assure you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    4,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Lol, what an absurd conclusion of a completely unfitting comparison of rational vs heuristic decision-making paradigms, because RPE is exactly the improvement to pure subjective autoregulation ("going for the feel")
    I'm sorry, but isn't RPE based ENTIRELY on how reps "feel"?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Curlrack, Germany
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Lol, what an absurd conclusion of a completely unfitting comparison of rational vs heuristic decision-making paradigms, because RPE is exactly the improvement to pure subjective autoregulation ("going for the feel") and of course, a training program with RPE is a planned program ("with algorithm", so to speak).

    You guys didnt quite understand RPE. Ask Jordan, Austin or directly Mike T what it really is.

    @jkolt: You will like the work of Daniel Kahneman (& Amos Tversky), unfortunately his famous book (Thinking slow and fast) is badly written. A much more readable one is Dan Ariely´s "Predictibly irrational". Also, look for the most prominent scholar for a slightly different position, Gerd Gigerenzer, who showed the value and even superiority of heuristics in certain cases (funny that you mention stock markets, because there are some experiments that show heuristics to be superior to algorithms!).
    RPE is merely a tool for autoregulation. Thats what i hear from the three. But THEY are making money by coaching people, and RPE is the current trend, the big thing. They state its just a tool for AR, but then go on to explain why its absolutely superior to any other form of AR. Their programming utilizes RPE therefore their programming and coaching is far superior to any other, and you should rather spend your money on them.

    In the words of Dr. F.:"Wheres the data?"

    When you don't have access to a big set of data i.e Experience, or a good coach, the benefits are not that great and the potential of error is quite big. Like "The Bridge" is more optimal than the Texas Method. I'm not denying that. But there are people who had great success using TM, and there are, and will be people who will fail with The Bridge or other RPE based programs. So, how is it optimal and for whom?

    To my understanding Mike T.'s and RTS's programming is based on TRAC and varies a lot to see what works, and for whom, because optimal is what works, not what should work.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans Bachmann View Post
    RPE is merely a tool for autoregulation. Thats what i hear from the three. But THEY are making money by coaching people, and RPE is the current trend, the big thing. They state its just a tool for AR, but then go on to explain why its absolutely superior to any other form of AR.
    They do? Who has made this claim? Mike T. is open-minded - doesn't sound like something he would say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans Bachmann View Post
    Their programming utilizes RPE therefore their programming and coaching is far superior to any other, and you should rather spend your money on them.
    You realize that RTS writes programming that doesn't use RPE as well? And they mix RPE with percentages? Again, I don't think any of those guys are making the claim that their programming is superior merely because RPE is used. I think Jordan has said on this site something to the effect that he doesn't know what's optimal - ask him again in 20 years. RTS definitely does a lot of testing and data analysis to determine good starting points for people based on certain demographics, but for their one-on-one clients there is always customization after that based on the individual.

    Mike/RTS is also rarely dealing with the novice population and he doesn't advocate using RPE to determine loading for a novice as far as I know. Just cultivating awareness of difficulty so that RPE can be used later. I don't think this has changed since his interview with Rip several years back.

    I recently saw an RTS coaching call video where someone asked Mike if they should switch from group coaching to one-on-one coaching (more expensive, obviously). He told them to stay where they were since things were working. Doesn't seem very money hungry to me. If you ever have a conversation with the guy, I think you'll find him to be very genuine and humble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans Bachmann View Post
    In the words of Dr. F.:"Wheres the data?"
    Where is the data showing that SS novice LP is more optimal than other novice programs?

    Eric Helms and Mike Zourdos have also published some papers related to RPE, with more in the pipeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans Bachmann View Post
    When you don't have access to a big set of data i.e Experience, or a good coach, the benefits are not that great and the potential of error is quite big. Like "The Bridge" is more optimal than the Texas Method. I'm not denying that. But there are people who had great success using TM, and there are, and will be people who will fail with The Bridge or other RPE based programs. So, how is it optimal and for whom?
    I had decent success with Texas Method. My PRs were 565/355/555 at the end of it (BW ~240 lbs, 6'1", 31 y/o at the time). That doesn't mean it was optimal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans Bachmann View Post
    To my understanding Mike T.'s and RTS's programming is based on TRAC and varies a lot to see what works, and for whom, because optimal is what works, not what should work.
    Their programming is not "based on TRAC". TRAC is an athlete monitoring system that tells you when to add or subtract a little bit of volume based on how you have been recovering. Mike uses the analogy that if you're going to launch a rocket, you need a great plan, but you also need to make small course corrections along the way. TRAC and RPE give you a way to make small changes based on your recovery and readiness. He's put out at least a few videos advocating using an athlete monitoring system, but not necessarily TRAC (TRAC is free, by the way) - he mentions alternatives.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyRed View Post
    I'm sorry, but isn't RPE based ENTIRELY on how reps "feel"?
    That would be the "Perceived" part.

    Mike T, himself acknowledges repeatedly that success with his programming that uses RPE is very much dependent on the lifter being of a certain temperament which he calls "controlled aggressive".

    Ironically, many of the assholes losing their shit over what they perceive to be attacks on Mike and his methods are demonstrating that they may very well be disqualified from successfully using it because of their overemotional temperaments.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    598

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by jkolt View Post
    I think Meehl's work dovetails nicely with why the SSLP works better than a novice "listening to their body" or only advancing when a given weight "feels light." The SSLP is essentially a well designed algorithm that when fucked with by inferior human judgement, creates outcomes that are less optimal that would have been achieved had people Done The Program. Meehl's work is also interesting to consider when thinking about the usefulness of RPE, but that's above my paygrade.

    Regardless, like Selye's work on biological stress work informs and supports why Starting Strength is the way it is, I thought Meehl's work might be helpful too.
    tUxkJK6.jpg
    Still can't figure how to post bigger images but this is what you refer to. A fixed template will work better for a novice. In fact, pretty much any template will do for a novice. An advanced trainee will need to learn how to personalize his program specific to him. You can see the number of variations in HLM, which is a general intermediate program.
    Attached Images Attached Images

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •