Testing 1RM at the end of novice

[Dlk93]

I agree that training heavy singles is appropriate for intermediates. But training (training) heavy singles is different than testing (testing) "1RM's."

[JTT]

I think people are way too obsessed with always doing the most efficient, effective things. Setting a new 1rm pr might not be productive in terms of GainZzZ, but it is always great motivation and a confidence boost, at least for me.

Does it really matter if it took 11 weeks instead of 12 weeks to get your squat to 315? It's about the big picture and not a few % here and there IMO.

[Dlk93]

I'll consider it a justifiable downfall to be obsessed with efficient/efficacy.

And I don't think it's that motivating setting a 1RM as a novice/super early intermediate when you can't even do so accurately at that stage. For me, and I think objectively, its motivating enough to be "productive in terms of GainzZz" and getting one's training done efficiently/effectively.

But your point is taken, do what you want with your training.

[Dalton Clark]

If you are going to test a 1rm, I wouldn't try to prepare for it by doing a large amount of intensity work prior to the attempt. This isn't something you need to meet prep for. You just want a gauge of how strong you've gotten so just set aside a week to inflate your ego and go for it. I wouldn't test a 1RM if it were me though

[thejosef]

I agree with you man. I disagree that maxing out isn't training or somehow bad for intermediates. Taking a week to max out, won't make you weaker or completely ruin your program. The bottom line is, you are training, because you want to be strong and healthy. If maxing out every now and then, will refuel your motivation and your desire to train, then do it. You have to tailor any program to your needs. If you need to max out to remain discipline or just want to max out for the sake of maxing out, then do it. Just make sure you are enjoying your training.

Yeah. I totally agree with this. This is how I roll.

[Dalton Clark]

There may or may not be. . . .oh hell. . .there definitely is. . a group of people on this forum who say "Fuck your feelings" and that you have to train optimally 100% of the time. Optimally means nothing that isn't part of your program. Maxing isn't training based off of the definition utilized by Rip since it is an isolated incident. If you were regularly performing limit sets of 1 as part of a program then you would be utilizing it as training. Testing a max is a test rather than training since it only includes a single event. Technically, taking a week off to test maxes is taking a week off from improving said maxes. For example, if I took a week to do a bone-on-bone limit squat at 405 (I'm a novice), I could have driven my squat from 350 to 360 and thus likely have increased my 1RM from 405 to 415. Is taking a week to do maxes a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. If you are convinced you REALLY need to do them, then do so; however, you can't make the argument that it isn't taking away from your typical program.

Do people overreact to these things? Yup. Definitely. This is pretty standard though since we have had YNDTP screamed at us for years.

[timelinex]

I'll consider it a justifiable downfall to be obsessed with efficient/efficacy.

And I don't think it's that motivating setting a 1RM as a novice/super early intermediate when you can't even do so accurately at that stage. For me, and I think objectively, its motivating enough to be "productive in terms of GainzZz" and getting one's training done efficiently/effectively.

But your point is taken, do what you want with your training.

You say this in a way as if you know confidently what is the most efficient. We dont. No one does. Respectable people with alot of experience have opinions on the matter. But there is no known "most efficient". Believing otherwise is the equivalent of making science into a religion.

There may or may not be. . . .oh hell. . .there definitely is. . a group of people on this forum who say "Fuck your feelings" and that you have to train optimally 100% of the time. Optimally means nothing that isn't part of your program. Maxing isn't training based off of the definition utilized by Rip since it is an isolated incident. If you were regularly performing limit sets of 1 as part of a program then you would be utilizing it as training. Testing a max is a test rather than training since it only includes a single event. Technically, taking a week off to test maxes is taking a week off from improving said maxes. For example, if I took a week to do a bone-on-bone limit squat at 405 (I'm a novice), I could have driven my squat from 350 to 360 and thus likely have increased my 1RM from 405 to 415. Is taking a week to do maxes a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. If you are convinced you REALLY need to do them, then do so; however, you can't make the argument that it isn't taking away from your typical program.

Do people overreact to these things? Yup. Definitely. This is pretty standard though since we have had YNDTP screamed at us for years.

I disagree. This is not settled science. Rip has his opinion, that holds alot more weight than most of ours just because of his experience. But it's still an opinion. There are alot of well respected names out there that have been doing it even longer and have different opinions but still had great results with themselves and their trainees. Hence the hole "it's not settled science". There is nothing magical about "the program". It's not optimized for any 1 person, rather its a pretty general. How do you know the Max week to a trainee that has never maxed before, wouldn't raise that 1RM the same as doing the regular programming would (or even more?).



Anyways, I do appreciate your guys opinion and taking the time to answer. Sometimes the dogmatism on this board does get to me though.

[Dalton Clark]

You say this in a way as if you know confidently what is the most efficient. We dont. No one does. Respectable people with alot of experience have opinions on the matter. But there is no known "most efficient". Believing otherwise is the equivalent of making science into a religion.



I disagree. This is not settled science. Rip has his opinion, that holds alot more weight than most of ours just because of his experience. But it's still an opinion. There are alot of well respected names out there that have been doing it even longer and have different opinions but still had great results with themselves and their trainees. Hence the hole "it's not settled science". There is nothing magical about "the program". It's not optimized for any 1 person, rather its a pretty general. How do you know the Max week to a trainee that has never maxed before, wouldn't raise that 1RM the same as doing the regular programming would (or even more?).



Anyways, I do appreciate your guys opinion and taking the time to answer. Sometimes the dogmatism on this board does get to me though.

No, it isn't settled science. It will never be settled science. There will never at any point in time be sufficient data to prove or disprove this kind of thing in a scientific manner. As a system becomes more and more complex and varied, science starts to fail. the best you are going to get is an anecdote from a respectable coach. It is a board for a trademarked methodology. You knew what you were signing up for.

[timelinex]

No, it isn't settled science. It will never be settled science. There will never at any point in time be sufficient data to prove or disprove this kind of thing in a scientific manner. As a system becomes more and more complex and varied, science starts to fail. the best you are going to get is an anecdote from a respectable coach. It is a board for a trademarked methodology. You knew what you were signing up for.

Agreed

[DeanT]

I wish I had tested 1RM at the end of my LP. I hired a coach for a year that helped me transition to intermediate and make progress. At the end of that year, I struggled to compare data points to see the gains earned through coaching and early intermediate training because all I had to compare was sets of 5 vs true 1RM (it didn't paint an accurate picture of progress because e1rm calculations from a set of 5 for me are highly optimistic). I now do my own programming and I test before and after each iteration of programming (generally separated by 6 months). I want to see what is working and not working and trend lines help, but 1RM testing is more important to me.