Question about Linear Progression and Micro-Loading

[Polishdude20]

Isn't this going against the advice even Mr. Thrall had in the video?

He specifically made exceptions for both home and commercial gyms with uniform plates. His concern was the hodge-podge plates that the small gyms tend to use and the tiny fractional plates.

I doubt many commercial non strength focused gyms have uniform plates.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Have you not seen my recommendation to mark a set of plates and a bar?

[MBasic]

I doubt many commercial non strength focused gyms have uniform plates.

which is funny, because Alan uses the term Calibrated Plates in the video . . . and says "-/+ 2%".

+/-2% on 45 lbs is almost a pound. These are almost as bad as the ones he has now.

Most "calibrated plates" are like within +/-10g on a 20-25 kg plate. (10g/25,000g ~ 0.05%+/-)

[Tony Moma]

In a broad sense, I would safely assume he means that 0.5 - 1.0 lb microloading on the Squat and Deadlift (and I'd go so far as to say for the Press and Bench Press too for the majority of his audience) is not optimal.

He says: "... but if you're nearing the end of your linear progression, and you are grinding out reps, and you're just adding one pound at a time or half pound at a time, even if it is accurate because you have matching plates, I still don't think it's very effective. Linear progression is not supposed to last forever, and I think that it's time to pack your bags, and move out of novice land."

Which, in my opinion, does not fly in the face of the general attitude with respect to programming found here (the community, the books, and what the coaches program and practice): that, for a mid-to-late Novice, microloading (less than or equal to 2.5 lb increments in the working weight) is going to be useful for the Press and the Bench Press (upper body lifts). However, it is not so useful for the Squat or the Deadlift, where modifications in programming will produce more efficient and a higher rate of gains versus microloading.

LP eventually experiences diminishing returns, "ideal" LP being akin to y = x^(1/2), where y = weight on the bar, x = time.
Programming that is slightly more complex but that possesses a greater rate of working weight/time (or "gainz") intersects this curve SOMEWHERE, and that slightly more complex programming is also a function of WHERE it is initiated on the LP curve. Our goal is to optimize where the curves intersect so that the rate of increase in working weight/time is maximal. For the Squat and the Deadlift, the nature of this intersection is such that microloading is outright dismissed (e.g. on the Squat, you go to increasing weight on the bar 5 lb on Monday and Friday instead of 2.5 lb Monday, Wednesday, and Friday). For the Press and Bench Press, the nature of this intersection is such that microloading is optimal. Microloading on the Press and Bench Press too will reach a tipping point when more complex programming would have to kick in in order to achieve the greater rate of increase in working weight/time.
Technically, the Squat and Deadlift would have been "microloaded" (scare quotes gesture hinging at the wrists here) if you went from 10 lb increase for the first few sessions to 5 lb increases.

Thank you for this explanation, Chris. Helps a lot.

[Pawn]

I doubt many commercial non strength focused gyms have uniform plates.

The chain commercial gyms tend to use branded equipment. This limits the main problems being discussed (supplier to supplier variation). They also tend to buy plates in large orders which will tend to limit part to part variation. (they are typically made around the same time -- aka they will likely be wrong in the same way)

[Mark Rippetoe]

Not true. Castings are inherently variable in mass, and are therefore inherently inaccurate unless they are subsequently machined to a tolerance. Isn't it interesting that we've already dealt with this topic several times, in multiple editions of both books? But I guess it's fun to discuss. Proceed.

[Pawn]

Not true. Castings are inherently variable in mass, and are therefore inherently inaccurate unless they are subsequently machined to a tolerance. Isn't it interesting that we've already dealt with this topic several times, in multiple editions of both books? But I guess it's fun to discuss. Proceed.

Yes casting have inherently variable mass.
Inherent variability does not equate to inherent inaccuracy, it depends on the problem. (in this case competition vs training)
Machining is one method (and obviously a preferred one) of bringing parts that are out of spec, into spec. The results of machining still have variable mass.

A single source single run of a product will have a higher repeatability than something multi-sourced.

I don't believe any of my statements were 'not true'.

[Polishdude20]

Have you not seen my recommendation to mark a set of plates and a bar?

It seems like any plates you mark will get mixed up and moved around and possibly in use by the time you're back in for your next session.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yes casting have inherently variable mass. Inherent variability does not equate to inherent inaccuracy, it depends on the problem.

If the part is accurate at a certain value, and the inherent variability results in excessive variation from the necessary tolerance for the target value, then the inaccuracy is inherent. In this context, precision would be the degree of deviation from the target value, and accuracy would be the net deviation from that value over the product run.

Machining is one method (and obviously a preferred one) of bringing parts that are out of spec, into spec. The results of machining still have variable mass.

Obviously, 100% precision is very expensive, and essentially impossible if you have sufficiently picky instrumentation, but it is obtainable beyond the raw casting level if you have the money. I have a set of Eleiko calibrated iron 25kg plates that are accurate to 0.01 kg by my scales -- not perfection, but acceptable for the money. We are discussing 2-pound jumps here.

A single source single run of a product will have a higher repeatability than something multi-sourced.

I don't know this to be true, because that depends entirely on the sources quality control. They are more likely to look alike, I'll give you that.

[MiddleMike]

As one who has marked the weights in my globo-gym a couple times, they do tend to roam around and it takes a bit of time to chase them down. In all honesty though, the micro-loading for me has been more mental. And likely just has allowed another day of recovery for the next round. It has kept my LP going longer than had I not used them...