1. Member
Join Date
Nov 2018
Location
Louisiana
Posts
39

## important question about BB-RX programming

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..

2. Member
Join Date
Nov 2018
Location
Louisiana
Posts
39
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...

3. ✓ Member
Join Date
Feb 2018
Location
Iowa
Posts
433
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!

4. Member
Join Date
Mar 2015
Posts
31

5. ✓ Member
Join Date
Oct 2018
Location
Sahuarita, AZ
Posts
327
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.

6. ✓ Member
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Murphysboro, IL
Posts
30,148
Originally Posted by Devyn Stewart
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.

7. 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.

8. Member
Join Date
Nov 2018
Location
Louisiana
Posts
39
Originally Posted by 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.
You are a wise man Sully. Semper Fi! Thanks for the answers you guys.

#### Posting Permissions

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