Logging your Workouts - Reps ALWAYS Go Second | Phil Meggers

[stef]

Phil Meggers, Starting Strength Coach and Owner of Testify Strength and Conditioning in Omaha, talks about the right way to log your workouts and demonstrates the usual set/rep conventions.

[Brandon-Ward]

i use the Bulgarian Documentation Method, it came over when the iron curtain fell. It uses a / for sets.

Weight x Reps/ Sets

And there you go. Excellent PEDs weren’t the only thing hidden over there.

[Tobias Sjösten]

The distinction here is that one notation is for prescribing a lift that should happen (3x5 or 3x5@200 or 3x5@RPE8) and the other for describing a lift that already happened. I find that, for the description, a better notation is weight times a comma-separated list of reps. So in this case, the lifter would report back (to their training log or coach): 200x5,5,5. Or, if they fail: 200x5,5,4. Besides being more granular, without sacrificing time or effort, this has the added benefit of helping the lifter keep track of how many sets they've completed.

[jomercer]

specific --> general, i.e., weight x reps x sets

You have to have a weight, before you can do a rep, before you can do a set.

[tompaynter]

The distinction here is that one notation is for prescribing a lift that should happen (3x5 or 3x5@200 or 3x5@RPE8) and the other for describing a lift that already happened. I find that, for the description, a better notation is weight times a comma-separated list of reps. So in this case, the lifter would report back (to their training log or coach): 200x5,5,5. Or, if they fail: 200x5,5,4. Besides being more granular, without sacrificing time or effort, this has the added benefit of helping the lifter keep track of how many sets they've completed.

Yeah this is what I do, except that if I hit my sets and reps for the day I just write down the weight. If I miss then I use your system. I.e., Squat 255, Bench 235X5, 5, 3.

I think weight-sets-reps fits how we naturally say it in speech. "I squatted 255 for 3 sets of 5" vs. "I squatted 255 for five reps, and did three sets of that" or whatever awkward way you'd say it.

[tompaynter]

Wow I really disagree with this video. If we say it "3 sets of 5" why wouldn't we write it that way, 3X5? Why create confusion by reversing what 3X5 means depending on context? Always writing 3X5 is independent of whether one writes the weight before or after. A person might say, "200 lbs for 3 sets of 5," or "3 sets of 5 at 200 lbs." So one might write, 200 3X5 or 3X5@200, personal preference although I would put the weight first.

We don't usually say "I am going to squat 200 lbs for 5 reps, and I am going to do that for 3 sets. " We say "200 for 3 sets of 5." Especially in a world in which 5 sets of 3--5X3--is also a very real possibility, this weird context-dependent inversion is unnecessarily confusing. It's as if "I punched John" and "On Tuesday, John punched I" were held out as having the same meaning, because "the object always goes second." Maybe this is a difference between people who are accustomed to working with language and people who are accustomed to working with numbers; maybe this kind of inversion is common in mathematics? I don't know. But I am going to write it how I say it, and keep it simple.

[ChrisBuck93]

Is it only in the German version of PPST that the sets and reps at different places in the book are indicated differently?

For example: The chapter for beginners explains the SSLP. In the text it says, as we all know, 3 sets of 5 reps. So "3x5".
In the following exemplary progression it then says "Squat 138x5x3" and "Deadlift 168x5".
This mixture is running through the whole book, or have I just misunderstood something?

[Sawyer]

Wow I really disagree with this video. If we say it "3 sets of 5" why wouldn't we write it that way, 3X5? Why create confusion by reversing what 3X5 means depending on context? Always writing 3X5 is independent of whether one writes the weight before or after. A person might say, "200 lbs for 3 sets of 5," or "3 sets of 5 at 200 lbs." So one might write, 200 3X5 or 3X5@200, personal preference although I would put the weight first.

We don't usually say "I am going to squat 200 lbs for 5 reps, and I am going to do that for 3 sets. " We say "200 for 3 sets of 5." Especially in a world in which 5 sets of 3--5X3--is also a very real possibility, this weird context-dependent inversion is unnecessarily confusing. It's as if "I punched John" and "On Tuesday, John punched I" were held out as having the same meaning, because "the object always goes second." Maybe this is a difference between people who are accustomed to working with language and people who are accustomed to working with numbers; maybe this kind of inversion is common in mathematics? I don't know. But I am going to write it how I say it, and keep it simple.

I agree with your statement. In this forum I never know if people did 3 sets of 5 or 5 sets of 3 because everyone seems to write it differently. If you say "3 sets of five" the logical thing is to write 3x5 and not the other way around.

I always write it as 275(3x5) when I did 3 sets of 5 and when I did 5 sets of 3 I write 205(5x3). If i fail I write 275x5,5,4. But maybe that´s just too simple or logical :-)

[Mark Rippetoe]

If only this were discussed in one of the books.

[Sawyer]

If only this were discussed in one of the books.

That’s not the issue. The issue is the ingenious invention of writing 5x3 when you mean 3x5 and vice versa. Let’s not kid ourselves: It‘s a stupid idea and unnecessarily complicates a totally mundane detail which should have never been complicated at all.

The result can be seen all over the forum and also in the YouTube comments to the above video: Everyone is confused and some write it as 3x5 and others 5x3 so no one can be sure what anyone else means.

Complexity appeals to stupid people? Well, I agree and inventing complexity where it’s absolutely unnecessary is even more stupid.

Starting Strength‘ strength is its simplicity. This 3x5/5x3 nonsense is kind of a mess actually.