Perception of Weight

[Bliss]

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.

Interesting!

Would that be an average or a minimum value during the ascent of the rep?

Also, is there a particular software used to analyse videos this way?

I've played with barsense briefly, wondering if this sort of accuracy requires something more involved...

[manveer]

As Matt Reynolds once said, he likes using RPE in online coaching so he can tell his clients how wrong their perception is.

Yeah, people are usually not good at something they haven't practiced.

Interesting!

Would that be an average or a minimum value during the ascent of the rep?

Also, is there a particular software used to analyse videos this way?

I've played with barsense briefly, wondering if this sort of accuracy requires something more involved...

Average value during the concentric.

There is software out there. Maybe Tracker (google "tracker physics" without quotes). Maybe barsense too, I don't know. I use an OpenBarbell device.

[Dalton Clark]

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.

In my opinion, the RPE must span the entire range from no exertion to a true 1rm. In my opinion there is a lose in form prior to reaching a true 1rm. Also Tuscherer's definition means nothing to me (no disrespect to him) since it relies on someone being able to perform the lift with zero spinal flexion up to that point. This assumes perfect technique. The term "grinder" is also not much better. I have seen multiple people take extremely long reps only to do another one (and they weren't tempo or paused variants).

[John Hanley]

In my opinion, the RPE must span the entire range from no exertion to a true 1rm. In my opinion there is a lose in form prior to reaching a true 1rm. Also Tuscherer's definition means nothing to me (no disrespect to him) since it relies on someone being able to perform the lift with zero spinal flexion up to that point. This assumes perfect technique. The term "grinder" is also not much better. I have seen multiple people take extremely long reps only to do another one (and they weren't tempo or paused variants).

So scale @10 however the hell you want, go forth & get strong strong, report back.

[Tim K]

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.

Mike T says to strictly rate deadlifts like that for a round back puller who is trying to convert to flat back pulling. Not a blanket prescription for everyone.

[Charlie Davies]

In my opinion, the RPE must span the entire range from no exertion to a true 1rm.

If you are judging temperature without a thermometer, it doesn't really matter whether you use degrees C or F. It's still gonna be sloppy.

But a cook who doesn't have words for temperature at all will still have great trouble communicating recipes to someone else.

[perman]

In my opinion, the RPE must span the entire range from no exertion to a true 1rm.

It still does even if you do it that way, it's just that the subset of sets that map to RPE 10 then not only includes what you just said, but everything including and above the "minimal maximal exertion" (if you catch my drift).

[perman]

Mike T says to strictly rate deadlifts like that for a round back puller who is trying to convert to flat back pulling. Not a blanket prescription for everyone.

Well, "round-backed deadlifting" exists on a spectrum, and if you are trying to have a flat back, then there is degree of rounding that is unacceptable in that scheme no matter how experienced you are with that form of deadlifting, so I'd say my point still stands. If you continue to increase the weight while you're failing sufficiently to keep your back straight, you are effectively forsaking that standard.

[Dalton Clark]

It still does even if you do it that way, it's just that the subset of sets that map to RPE 10 then not only includes what you just said, but everything including and above the "minimal maximal exertion" (if you catch my drift).

I understand what you are saying and this is just one reason why RPE is a very strange metric. As I understand you, you are essentially saying multiple very heavy things can map to an RPE 10. I am just opposed to the use of RPE as a programming metric due to the non-linearity associated with weightlifting. I would rather use percentages that have been shown to work over someone's training history because well. . . I'm a computer engineer. . I'm a robot. I just do what I'm told to do. Thinking about how heavy something was/is/could be is just not something I view as productive.

[DodgerDog]

I understand what you are saying and this is just one reason why RPE is a very strange metric. As I understand you, you are essentially saying multiple very heavy things can map to an RPE 10. I am just opposed to the use of RPE as a programming metric due to the non-linearity associated with weightlifting. I would rather use percentages that have been shown to work over someone's training history because well. . . I'm a computer engineer. . I'm a robot. I just do what I'm told to do. Thinking about how heavy something was/is/could be is just not something I view as productive.

Have you tried it?