Texas Method: PRs on triples, doubles and singles

[Kerber]

Hi,

I'm currently reading PPST3 and I'm having trouble understanding how PR's are determined while you're rotating between triples, doubles and singles.

Here's a little example where I would rotate between triples, doubles and singles.

Week 1: Squat 150 kg x 2 x 3 reps
Week 2: Squat 155 kg x 3 x 2 reps
Week 3: Squat 160 kg x 5 x 1 reps
Week 4: Squat 152 kg x 2 x 3 reps
Week 5: Squat 157 kg x 3 x 2 reps
Week 6: Squat 162 kg x 5 x 1 reps

In this scenario, did I set new PR's in week 2 and 3? It's more weight, and the same amount of total reps, but the rep scheme is different. What about week 4? I dropped the weight compared to week 3, but I'm still lifting more weight than I did on my last triple (week 1). To determine whether or not I hit a PR, should I only compare weight between sessions that have the same rep and set scheme or should I compare strictly on a week-to-week basis?

In PPST3 you learn how to calculate the total volume of a training session (weight x set x rep) and it seems logical to me that I would use that number to see if I did better than the last time, but I also know from reading SSBBT3 that 1 x 100 kg is not the same as 100 x 1 kg (different type of adaptation). Can someone with more knowledge than me please help me out here?

[manveer]

In the examples I looked at, you would run a rep scheme on ID for several weeks in a row as long as you were making the reps. When you are barely making the sets, switch to a lower rep scheme. Eventually you'll be doing singles and maybe once you'd do a 1RM. This is what I did and it worked well.

If you want to compare different rep schemes, you could use an estimated 1RM. Just remember that it's an estimate. It should trend upwards (and it would in your example). That's one way to tell that you're making progress.

[cgeorg]

You can have a PR for a set of 5, and a PR for a set of 3, and a PR for a set of 2. Or as manveer said, you could use e1rm as your guide - there are many formulas but for the 2-5 rep range I believe they all come out close to the same, and as long as you stick with the same one, since it's an estimate, it's the trend that's important more so than the number.

[Eric Larousse]

First of all....the Texas method does not work off a 1rm estimate

You start out "running out" the reps from 5s to 3s and taper to doubles and singles

At that point you do it again

Thennn at that point some variation in the intensity day is necessary to prevent stagnation and grinding out heavier and heavier sets so you rotate 3s,2s,1s to prevent that.

That is Andys' philosophy with his programs.

[John Watson]

You're running out the rep ranges. Now you have a data point for all the rep ranges.

Then you move to cycling intensity day with 5's, 3's, and 1's. You use your previous data points for PR's.

I'm about to move to this, and this is how I understand it.

[manveer]

First of all....the Texas method does not work off a 1rm estimate

You start out "running out" the reps from 5s to 3s and taper to doubles and singles

At that point you do it again

Thennn at that point some variation in the intensity day is necessary to prevent stagnation and grinding out heavier and heavier sets so you rotate 3s,2s,1s to prevent that.

That is Andys' philosophy with his programs.

He's asking how to tell if he's making progress between rep schemes, not how to run the program. I'm not suggesting using e1RMs to determine working weights or anything, just as a way to gauge progress. He could also just compare 5s to 5s, 3s to 3s, etc.

In this scenario, did I set new PR's in week 2 and 3? It's more weight, and the same amount of total reps, but the rep scheme is different. What about week 4? I dropped the weight compared to week 3, but I'm still lifting more weight than I did on my last triple (week 1). To determine whether or not I hit a PR, should I only compare weight between sessions that have the same rep and set scheme or should I compare strictly on a week-to-week basis?

[John Watson]

You compare 5's to 5's, 3's to 3's, singles to singles to identify progress.

I believe Andy has a recent article clarifying this.