yea, but do you know how to RPE? There's more money in it if you do.
Printable View
Meh... maybe not important for a novice but I feel like some fatigue-management like RPE is a godsend for an experienced lifter who needs to increase volume to make progress. There's no reason to do basically "RPE 10" all-out sets across for volume work as you need constantly longer breaks, needlessly get drained by the workout and have to cut volume anyway to keep that intensity up.
Cutting the intensity (by percentages, RPE or whatever measure) to effectively keep around 2 reps in the tank for the work sets and simultaneously increasing volume is absolutely superior to grinding on every set and consequently doing less volume.
Practicing heavier weights and improving motor-unit recruitment has its place of course but why not just practice it regularly on slightly sub maximal singles (e.g. RPE 8-9 or some 90-95%)? It's more specific to 1RMs and thus have more carryover than sets of 5 at basically "RPE 10" anyway. Here's how I'd do the TM for instance:
VD: 5x5 across at something like RPE 7 type weights and later on something like 5-7 sets of 4-6 reps as ascending, descending or pyramid sets and stepping through ranges of RPE 6-9.
LD: e.g. the same schemes as in VD but with lighter variations of the lifts (e.g. front squats, or when closer to competition paused squats or pin squats, etc.)
ID: 1x1 at RPE 8-9, followed by 2x2 or 2x3 at RPE 8-9
I find that results in a higher overall volume and thus improved progress as well as better practice with heavier weights without draining you as much as the standard TM.
I'm not married to the RPE term or way of managing fatigue either... the only thing that's been mind opening for me is that you don't have to always perform all-out volume sets to continue progress. And that actually the opposite might be the case - something that I feel is still frowned upon around here.
Bob Hoffman was talking about a crayon simple form of what is now stylishly called RPE back in the last Century circa 1950 or so. He called it stopping short of training on your nerve by not going to failure. He didn't talk about a 0 - 10 scale, let alone what some advocates have subdivided into .5 increments for the whole numbers of that scale. It seemed to work reasonably well for the likes of the US Olympic lifters of the period like Kono and others when we dominated that event.
meh ... more of an abbreviation really.
You don't sound out "RPE" as one word like the acronym TUBOW (too+buh+oh ... all in one syllable) or NASA.
RPE: You say the letters "arrh","pee","ee" separately.
(maybe in India they try to say it like an acronym)
Note: this was the most useful post in this thread.