Why is the annotation 5x3 (RepsXsets)? and not 3x5?

[JLB105]

I have to admit this confuses me sometimes when I see it. My brain always wants to read 5x3 as 5 sets of 3 reps.


Anyone else think this way? or am I just odd?

[Luke S]

135lb x 5 x 3 is three sets of five, 5 x 3 is (should be) five sets of three

[socket]

A lot of people get confused, but here's the explanation:

Because the general case - "3x5" - is read as "three sets of five." English.

But when you actually train, you load 3,150 and do 5 reps (3,150 x 5), then you do another set (3,150 x 5 x 2), then another set (3,150 x 5 x 3). One set? then 3,150 x 5 - reduces right down since reps come first and reps give you the set, but you may not have sets.

Same convention as in the other books and consistency with the fundamental books is rather important. Look up old discussions if interested.

[autumnal]

Even more confusing is the few places in the book (Barbell Rx) that are switched to the common 3 x 5 for 3 sets of 5. Hopefully those will be teased out in a future edition.

I actually got into an argument with a trainer at my gym over this when he took a look at my log. My logic was similar to the above--- you perform the given number of reps at a given weight, then at the end of those reps, a set is earned.

Also, in the case of warmup sets (or single set work sets), it's more efficient to use "300 x 5" (weight, reps) rather than "300 x 5 x 1" (weight, reps, sets).

[Karl Schudt]

It's the way God notes your sets and reps.

3x5@300lbs five sets of three at 300lbs.
300x5x3 300lbs for three sets of five. It allows you to fill in the number of sets completed when you finish.

Don't fight it. Just do it the right way.

[Tom Campitelli]

Or, consider this:

5 x 300, 5 x 300, 5 x 300

You can reverse that notation and it still conveys the same thing without confusion. It provides granularity if you miss a rep, or are not working with sets across, and gives you something to do between sets. When doing something like 5x5, it helps keep track of how many sets have been completed as you go. As a bonus, it takes longer to write and consumes more space on the page!

[Les Hahn]

It's the way God notes your sets and reps.

3x5@300lbs five sets of three at 300lbs.
300x5x3 300lbs for three sets of five. It allows you to fill in the number of sets completed when you finish.

Don't fight it. Just do it the right way.

This is what caused the Great Schism of 1054.

[Meshuggah]

I've logged my workouts - Sets, Reps, Weight for over 40 years. 3X5 @ 300 = 3 sets of 5 reps @ 300 pounds.

[Christopher Anderson]

I've logged my workouts - Sets, Reps, Weight for over 40 years. 3X5 @ 300 = 3 sets of 5 reps @ 300 pounds.

Ditto, I don't get why other people would say it as reps, sets, weight. I'm not sure how other countries do it, but it just seems self explanatory to do it as sets then reps.

[Bliss]

Its probably for the same reason you guys in USA write month-day-year, which totally makes no sense...

What would be so wrong to log as

Sets x rep x weight?

Or weight x reps, reps, reps

Like 3x5x100
Or 100 x 5, 5, 7 ?