important question about BB-RX programming

[Vinnie]

Is every single program in the book described as Reps x Sets ? I'm trying to figure out where to go with my training next week. I'm looking at HLM and it seems like what I'm seeing may be meaning to say Sets x Reps. I've always thought everything in the Starting Strength Canon was indicated as Reps x Sets. Please advise? (sorry if this sounds like an elementary and stupid question).. Thanks..

[Vinnie]

I'm reading BBRX as I'm posting here and just found the answer. I'm reading on Kindle and the formatting is a bit tricky. I see where it says "sets x reps". I love the book. That said, I thought everything in the "Starting Strength" world was written as "reps x sets". Kind of confusing, guys...

[Devyn Stewart]

I believe the convention is, when it is written in one statement including the weight:
315x5x3 signifies three sets of five.

But it can be written perhaps like this:

Monday: 3x5 squat. When not given on context of a weight, I believe this also means three sets of five. Could be wrong as I've never read BBRX, but that's normally the way it's done in PPTST. Good luck, dude!

[flatcat]

Sully just did a video about this. Of course, I can't remember what he said ...

[Adam Gottstein]

My experience is in line with what Devyn said (though I haven't read BBRx, so if it's different, I don't know). Generally if it's just #x#, then it's Sets x Reps. If there is a weight add to the line, then it is Weight x Reps x Sets. For examples:

3x5 = 3 sets of 5
1x5 = 1 set of 5
5x3 = 5 sets of 3
135x5x3 = 3 sets of 5 @ 135

I'm not sure why the order inverts when you add the weight, but it does make way more sense in writing, particularly when you don't get the reps for all 3 sets, in which case you might write something like 135x5x2, 4 - meaning 2 sets of 5, and then a set of 4.

[Mark E. Hurling]

But it can be written perhaps like this:

Monday: 3x5 squat. When not given on context of a weight, I believe this also means three sets of five.

That's how I've done it since high school some 50 years ago. I see no reason to change it now.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

In the book, the convention is W x R x S when the weight is specified (as in the examples).

When the weight is not specified (as in the templates/prescriptions), the convention is S x R. This biphasic approach is the Aasgaard convention. I've tried to argue that the convention should be WtxRxS whether the weight is specified or not (that is, either WxRxS or RxS), because I think it's a bit confusing, but I lost that argument. That said, it's not that confusing, once you realize the approach.

[Vinnie]

In the book, the convention is W x R x S when the weight is specified (as in the examples).

When the weight is not specified (as in the templates/prescriptions), the convention is S x R. This biphasic approach is the Aasgaard convention. I've tried to argue that the convention should be WtxRxS whether the weight is specified or not (that is, either WxRxS or RxS), because I think it's a bit confusing, but I lost that argument. That said, it's not that confusing, once you realize the approach.

You are a wise man Sully. Semper Fi! Thanks for the answers you guys.