Perception of Weight

[Pawn]

The perception may be proportional to the natural logarithm of the stimulus. Your eyes and ears work this way, I believe. I just now googled to find a page about the eye's response, and found a wikipedia page that I think is interesting (mostly because it has math!).

Weber?Fechner law - Wikipedia

The claim is all perception may be logarithmic. There's a section in the linked article, with references, about the perception of weight.

This link is highly relevant. It is particularly interesting that they use light weights for their research with respect to weight. I wonder how repeatable the results are with heavy weight.

Here's an interesting study: Novel Resistance Training?Specific Rating of Perceived Exert... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

I can probably tell you the velocity of my last squat rep in a set within .02 m/s after 1.5 years of tracking actual bar speeds.

This is interesting as well. Movement speed becomes the more useful feedback. This makes sense given the accuracy and power of the human vision system. (Its also an external sensor.)

Question, can you use this feedback to predict success with a higher weight? (aka 12 cm/s at 390# means 400# should be okay but 6 cm/s at 390# means no more?)

[John Hanley]

By "mindfulness" I meant, "living in a perpetual and dizzying mess of inverse function calculation given sensory input". Bro fist-bump.

Question, can you use this feedback to predict success with a higher weight? (aka 12 cm/s at 390# means 400# should be okay but 6 cm/s at 390# means no more?)

Those numbers are totally crazy, but, yes, you can. Nerd out with Mladen:

Velocity-Based Strength Training | Complementary Training

[damufunman]

I was thinking that week to week, I could be pulling 405 lb ± 8 lb, but that's wrong, right?! The uncertainties should add in quadrature (take the square root of the sum of the squares). So, the total value for the weight W is W ± 0.9√n lb, where n is the number of plates. The uncertainty is smaller than I thought. It's not 405 lb ± ≈8 lb, it's 405 lb ± 2.5 lb. Huh. Wow. I guess I need to think about that now.

I believe the first statement is correct. The quadrature (not entirely sure of this meaning in this context, but same as RMS I believe. Not sure what significance that has...) I think is related to a statistical distribution, right? So you could end up with +/- 8 lbs, but more likely you are in the +/- 2.5 lbs range. I think this is also dependent on if the +/- 2% per plate is a 1 sigma or 3 sigma number.

[manveer]

Very interesting! So, if I assume a bar speed of 1 m/s (is that too fast?), then you have a precision of 2%. Pretty good!

Yeah, 1 m/s is too fast. I think I move an empty bar at around 0.8 m/s on the squat. Work sets on the squat will be around .15-.55 m/s. .15 m/s is a hellish grind. The range of velocities is very much lift-specific. I have pushed a bench press at .07 or .06 m/s.

[manveer]

Question, can you use this feedback to predict success with a higher weight? (aka 12 cm/s at 390# means 400# should be okay but 6 cm/s at 390# means no more?)

Yeah. Higher weights give me a better idea of what I'm capable of. This is how I call attempts in a meet. Obviously I don't have bar speed, but I have RPE (and can also get an idea of bar speed based on video or third party observation).

[Dalton Clark]

As a novice, I go off the sound the plates make since I don't record my stuff yet. . . I should I know.

[Pawn]

Nerd out with Mladen:

Velocity-Based Strength Training | Complementary Training

I know what I'm reading between sets tonight...

Yeah. Higher weights give me a better idea of what I'm capable of. This is how I call attempts in a meet. Obviously I don't have bar speed, but I have RPE (and can also get an idea of bar speed based on video or third party observation).

Okay, this stuff is very cool. I'm still somewhat in shock about my first failed squat set and how at no point did it 'feel' too heavy or any heavier than normal. This looks like a much better way to track effort or strain.

I'm a little hesitant on using personal feedback due to the 'painscale' and its general use / misuse. I had an impacted tooth partially extracted with only topical freezing (yeehaw medical mistakes)... chipped bones, burns and nutshots aren't even comprehendable on the same scale.

[manveer]

Okay, this stuff is very cool. I'm still somewhat in shock about my first failed squat set and how at no point did it 'feel' too heavy or any heavier than normal. This looks like a much better way to track effort or strain.

I'm a little hesitant on using personal feedback due to the 'painscale' and its general use / misuse. I had an impacted tooth partially extracted with only topical freezing (yeehaw medical mistakes)... chipped bones, burns and nutshots aren't even comprehendable on the same scale.

If you just failed the first squat rep of your life, you don't need bar speed tracking or RPE.

More generally, I find the comparison of RPE to the pain scale ridiculous. Most people might experience a 10 in pain once or twice in their life. You will fail a lot of sets over years of lifting and get used to working within 0-2 reps of failure week in and week out. You'll learn what that feels like.

[Dalton Clark]

As Matt Reynolds once said, he likes using RPE in online coaching so he can tell his clients how wrong their perception is. He then referenced an RPE 10 as being your eyeballs popping out of your head.

[perman]

As Matt Reynolds once said, he likes using RPE in online coaching so he can tell his clients how wrong their perception is. He then referenced an RPE 10 as being your eyeballs popping out of your head.

I think this is higher than what most people who use RPE commonly call RPE 10. Leah Lutz called an RPE 10 a real grinder or something like that, Tuscherer says round-backed deadlift while lifting flatbacked is an RPE 10. Technical failure does not have to mean "eyeballs popping out of your head", so I suppose the question is whether taking your training there is productive or not.