3 x 5 or 5 x 3?

[BradBv]

Guys, sorry for asking as I'm sure it's covered somewhere on the board that I couldn't find via the search tab. If I am doing 3 sets of 5, is it written as 3x5, or 5x3?

[Steve Hill]

Guys, please forgive me for asking as I'm sure it's covered somewhere on the board that I couldn't find via the search tab. If I am doing 3 sets of 5, is it written as 3 x 5, or 5 x 3?

When writing it with a weight, I've always written it (weight)x(number of times you'll lift the weight)x(number of times the number of time you'll lift the weight).
So 315# for 3 sets of 5 is written as 315#x5x3.

[Jr_Geezer]

When writing it with a weight, I've always written it (weight)x(number of times you'll lift the weight)x(number of times the number of time you'll lift the weight.
So 315# for 3 sets of 5 is written as 315#x5x3.

And without a weight specified (and this is where I think confusion comes in), it's 3 x 5, as in "three sets of five". When weight, reps and sets are specified, I remind myself they are in alphabetical order: Pounds, Reps, Sets. Fortunately, that works for kilos as well. :-)

[Dag]

As another poster here correctly put it, when someone asks you what you did, you say "I did 3 sets of 10." Noone says I did 10 reps 3 times. I'm not a SS coach but in this case it doesn't matter. I've been around for a minute and been on training forums since Al Gore invented the Internet and here and pseudo Russians running Sheiko or Smolov are the only people who regularly write weight X reps X sets. Everyone else writes it correctly.

[Michael Wolf]

When writing it with a weight, I've always written it (weight)x(number of times you'll lift the weight)x(number of times the number of time you'll lift the weight).
So 315# for 3 sets of 5 is written as 315#x5x3.

Yes, and

And without a weight specified (and this is where I think confusion comes in), it's 3 x 5, as in "three sets of five". When weight, reps ans sets are specified, I remind myself they are in alphabetical order: pounds, reps, sets. Fortunately, that works for kilos as well. :-)

yes.

315x5x3 means 315 pounds for five reps, repeated for three sets - because if you just wrote 315x5 - that would HAVE to mean 315 for five reps. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense and conveys no useful information. So when you add x3 to the end, i.e. 315x5x3, the three must modify what came before it. It would be even more confusing and illogical for it to rearrange the meaning and order of the entire sequence.

But speaking in conversation, you say "I did three sets of fahve." So writing 3x5 makes sense because you're paralleling conversational speak. The confusion is understandable, because in conversation you'd say "I did 315 for three sets of five," or "I'm crapping my pants because I have to do 315 for three sets of five tonight."

A crucial difference is that in conversation, you have the words "for" and "of" to bridge the gap. "Three sets of five" is a complete, logical, coherent thought, which you can represent numerically by writing 3x5. But in conversation, you can say, "I did 315 for three sets of five." Whereas when writing only numerically, you don't have the words "for" and "of" to explain.

So, a little confusing? Sure. But it's logically consistent both internally and as a way to express yourself when conversing vs when only writing numerically.

So 315x5x3. Or 315 for 3x5. Both work. But 315x3x5 is a nyet if you want to say 315 lbs for three sets of five reps.

. I've been around for a minute and been on training forums since Al Gore invented the Internet and here and pseudo Russians running Sheiko or Smolov are the only people who regularly write weight X reps X sets. Everyone else writes it correctly.

Commie.

[Satch12879]

As another poster here correctly put it, when someone asks you what you did, you say "I did 3 sets of 10." No one says I did 10 reps 3 times. I'm not a SS coach but in this case it doesn't matter. I've been around for a minute and been on training forums since Al Gore invented the Internet and here and pseudo Russians running Sheiko or Smolov are the only people who regularly write weight X reps X sets. Everyone else writes it correctly.

How you write things and how you speak them are, in English, two different things. Because there are rules, Donny.

[Jr_Geezer]

Yes, and



yes.

315x5x3 means 315 pounds for five reps, repeated for three sets - because if you just wrote 315x5 - that would HAVE to mean 315 for five reps. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense and conveys no useful information. So when you add x3 to the end, i.e. 315x5x3, the three must modify what came before it. It would be even more confusing and illogical for it to rearrange the meaning and order of the entire sequence.

But speaking in conversation, you say "I did three sets of fahve." So writing 3x5 makes sense because you're paralleling conversational speak. The confusion is understandable, because in conversation you'd say "I did 315 for three sets of five," or "I'm crapping my pants because I have to do 315 for three sets of five tonight."

A crucial difference is that in conversation, you have the words "for" and "of" to bridge the gap. "Three sets of five" is a complete, logical, coherent thought, which you can represent numerically by writing 3x5. But in conversation, you can say, "I did 315 for three sets of five." Whereas when writing only numerically, you don't have the words "for" and "of" to explain.

So, a little confusing? Sure. But it's logically consistent both internally and as a way to express yourself when conversing vs when only writing numerically.

So 315x5x3. Or 315 for 3x5. Both work. But 315x3x5 is a nyet if you want to say 315 lbs for three sets of five reps.



Commie.

Actually, I think using the words "reps" and "sets" in conversation is what really bridges the gap. :-) But yeah, I completely agree with the logic.

[Michael Wolf]

How you write things and how you speak them are, in English, two different things. Because there are rules, Donny.

Actually, I think using the words "reps" and "sets" in conversation is what really bridges the gap. :-) But yeah, I completely agree with the logic.

Dammit, you may be right.

[Dag]

commie.

lol!!!

[Dag]

How you write things and how you speak them are, in English, two different things. Because there are rules, Donny.

Just because a small subset of people...(people that train>people that train seriously>people that train seriously and post on message boards>people that train seriously
and post on THIS message board)...
say something is so doesn't make it so.

Yes, I'm bored as hell today.