Progress on pressing movements

[Joe Jaloszynski]

I...

I am actually upset with myself for getting into this mess. I just want to ask you a question just so we can build a good steelman. What exactly is "Aasgaard style programming"?

[perman]

In other words, you know nothing about this other than what you have read on the internet. Thank you for your honesty. Now, stop typing.

Nah, this is just a piffy way of you to dismiss anyone who's not a coach. Which is an authority fallacy. I will stop typing now though.

[Mark Rippetoe]

You may answer Joe's question, and then stop. Your problem is that because you lack any experience with training heavy, you lack the bullshit filter provided by this experience. And have no idea that such a bullshit filter exists.

[凤凰来仪]

So believe it or not, I started this thread pretty agnostic. Then I tried to reformulate Rip’s argument. I was just going to ask if I understood it. It was more complicated than I thought and I had to do it a few times. But when I finally understood it, I realized some things, and then I thought about my own experience and what I’ve seen, and I started to get prickly.

I don’t think anyone has come to this discussion with bad intentions, and I don’t mind if RPE keeps individuals in the gym and training - for me, that falls into the same category as foam rolling. But there is a faction of people who have an incentive to argue that prescriptive RPE makes training outcomes better, not the same and certainly not worse. It’s hard to get the counter arguments across, so before echoing their message, please take a look at the training logs of the people who are using prescriptive RPE programs, then of the people who are not using these programs, then formulate the argument of the pro-RPE people, then do the same for Rip’s argument, making sure you really understand both arguments. Square it all with your own experience, too.

I am impressed with the substance and logical cohesion of your posts.

[perman]

Your problem is that because you lack any experience with training heavy, you lack the bullshit filter provided by this experience. And have no idea that such a bullshit filter exists.

It's convenient that you banned every strong person or coach who agrees with me. That way you can just dismiss any argument I say of coming from a lack of experience instead of actually addressing the substance of it. It's a shame that you don't seem to be willing to engage people in sincere debate on the internet anymore. Every discussion about programming has you appearing dismissive, haughty or outright hateful nowadays, you used to be more respectful.

You may answer Joe's question, and then stop.

I am actually upset with myself for getting into this mess. I just want to ask you a question just so we can build a good steelman. What exactly is "Aasgaard style programming"?

IMO, it's that you need to do hard sets to elicit growth instead of accumulating volume with submaximal sets. Rip for instance keeps harping on about the accuracy of RPE while ignoring the fact that RPE doesn't need to be very accurate to accomplish it's goal of being submaximal such that you can accumulate more useful volume per session.

[Joe Jaloszynski]

IMO, it's that you need to do hard sets to elicit growth instead of accumulating volume with submaximal sets. Rip for instance keeps harping on about the accuracy of RPE while ignoring the fact that RPE doesn't need to be very accurate to accomplish it's goal of being submaximal such that you can accumulate more useful volume per session.

Awesome. You seem like a person that cares about learning.

Since it is now obvious that your perception of what "Aasgaard style programming" is, let me refer you to a nice piece on programming recently published by Aasgaard.

https://startingstrength.com/content...ming-part1.pdf

[Joe Jaloszynski]

IMO, it's th...

Please permit me to ask another question, in your understanding, what is the difference between a "rep max" (rm) and a "personal record" (pr)?

To phrase it differently, what's the difference between a 5rm and a 5 rep PR?

[perman]

Please permit me to ask another question, in your understanding, what is the difference between a "rep max" (rm) and a "personal record" (pr)?

Nah, I've annoyed this forum enough for one day. I'll stop now.

[Rob Waskis]

a nice piece on programming recently published by Aasgaard.

https://startingstrength.com/content...ming-part1.pdf

The entire premise of that article is flawed. Intensity, as defined by Reynolds in that very article, does not change in the NLP.

Also, changing multiple variables can give excellent data, provided a properly designed experiment. That’s what Design of Experiments (DOE) and Analysis of Variance is all about.

Finally, simply stating that RPE is “almost always inaccurate” does not make it true. In fact, The Literature suggests the exact opposite.

[Joe Jaloszynski]

The entire premise of that article is flawed. Intensity, as defined by Reynolds in that very article, does not change in the NLP.

Also, changing multiple variables can give excellent data, provided a properly designed experiment. That’s what Design of Experiments (DOE) and Analysis of Variance is all about.

Finally, simply stating that RPE is “almost always inaccurate” does not make it true. In fact, The Literature suggests the exact opposite.

Intensity does not change session to session in the novice linear progression?

I'm not going to refute anything else you posted because it's besides the point of my linking that article. There's another thread up in Rip's Q&A for that article. The purpose of me linking that article is that it more accurately details the "Aasgaard programming style". I'm not even saying the Aasgaard style is correct. I am simply saying that it's not:

you need to do hard sets to elicit growth instead of accumulating volume with submaximal sets.