Great intensity day after stomach virus...HOW????

[Ivan Stepic]

I'm just confused by the animosity to those 3 letters.

I could also say that I'm confused about your insistence on using those 3 letters. Especially when "leaving one in the tank" is distinctly different from using RPE the way it is usually used (choosing weights for EVERY workout, estimating 1RM's, using it as "data" etc.), so why should we call it the same?

[Paul Horn]

Estimate it. Track it. Ponder it. Log it in spreadsheets. Debate it with your training partners. Write your guess in an envelope, seal it, and open it after your set. Just don't base your workouts on it until you're Ed Coan.

Also,

Programming based on bullshit is bullshit programming.

New coffee mug.

[Nockian]

EVERYONE lacks it, Nockian. I lack it, and I've been doing this professionally for 42 years.

:-) I'm buying some lucky lifting shoes next week. Bloke who's selling them tells me I still need to lift, but the shoes will do the rest.

[Russ Holmes]

You're missing the point. You CANNOT measure how far away from failure you were or are. Failure only happens when you fail. You have to fail to know, and therefore measure it. This is the equivalent of proving a negative. It is an error in logic, and we've already told you everything you need to know about why you are wrong. Until you actually fail, you don't know where this point is, because you might not fail. In order to KNOW what you can actually do, you have to try to do it. You don't know how many you left in the tank, because you cannot know this with any degree of certainty, and therefore you are not quantifying anything. Claiming you can predict failure is bullshit, because all of us have completed work sets we KNEW we couldn't do, if we merely had the balls to try. And programming based on bullshit is bullshit programming.

So once someone has failed a rep they are qualified to use RPE

[Russ Holmes]

I understand that this conversation makes me look like a RPE fanboy, which is not the case.
I just didn't understand why there was such an out of proportion negative reaction towards it. I mean for fucks sake, its just a scale to communicate how hard or easy you thought your reps were. That's all it is, you respond to it as if it's some religious cult that's going to bring about the end of the world.
You could use that was easy, that was hard, that was really hard, that was fucking hard, that was an end of LP bone on bone grind. It's just a descriptor.
People have compared bar speed to RPE. Using coaches, training partners, video, bar speed devices.
I have many times seen people post that it felt like a 9 but on reviewing their video it looked more like a 7.5 - 8.
It's not an exact science, it's just a scale to describe how a rep/set felt. It's not devil spawn.
I'm not talking about for novices. But for those who can't go up in weight every workout the decision on when to go up has to be partly based on how you feel. That weight moved well I'm going to add some next workout.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've realized what the issue really is

[Mark Rippetoe]

So once someone has failed a rep they are qualified to use RPE

No. RPE is always useless as a way to decide what you're going to do. It may be useful to describe what you did. But these are not the same thing. And you have no idea about what the issue really is.

[Ivan Stepic]

Russ you've been told that it may be useful as a descriptor if RPE scale is the one you choose to use but you keep arguing so it's clear what your intentions really are. If it makes you feel better the next time I decide to not attempt a 2RM weight for a set of 5, I'll DM you and tell you I used RPE.

[Nockian]

"you respond to it as if it's some religious cult"
"It's not an exact science"
"That weight moved well I'm going to add some next workout"

There's the problem right there.
It's isn't any kind of science, it's non objective mysticism. It says nothing to what lead to putting weight on the bar, or what stopped you putting weight on the bar. Might a well just write in the log the perception rather than a number that pretends to be sort of sciency by turning a perceptual experiential descriptor into a number code. It doesn't add anything to what any lifter puts in his log. There are sufficient strength programmes out there which use percentage of lift variations for intensity and number of rep variations for intensity, RPE adds nothing valuable.

If you run a bath and someone asks if it's the right temperature either you get out a thermometer, or you dip a hand in-the thermometer gives the accurate objective result, the hand says too hot, too cold or just right, there is no requirement for a Dewey numbering system to do that, it's making something simple far too complex. That's for people who number their socks and alphabetise their store cupboard - it appeals to that kind of mind I suspect, verging on the OCD

KISS don't fall for complexity for the sake of complexity.

[MAD9692]

Right now I've got a 40-year-old guy that has been running the straight up Texas Method for six months. Even I didn't expect it to last that long. He finished his LP with a 405x1 squat. He just did 410x5x5 for his volume day and 465x3x2 for his intensity day. .

Jesus. That is awesome. How much does he weigh now? What was his starting weight? What the hell is he eating? Just the standard 3 day TM?? Jesus.

[woodenj]

I’m up 8 lbs on Texas Method (to 295 lbs...I’m 6’3”). Body fat has actually gone down (per recent dexa scans).

Diet = I eat a shitload of protein and let the rest sort itself out.