Consistency over intensity

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:35 pm

SubClaw wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:06 pm
What's the difference between RPE and RIR? I mean, they look like exactly the same thing, reversing the math.
Good question. Also, BD take a look at the article smet posted because the method they describe is pretty different than what you are talking about:

TL(A.U.) = RPE x session duration (min).

Now I don't even know who Mike T is, so I'm obviously ignorant. Is it Mike Tuscherer? I'll have to check it out. But he's worked with Boris Sheyko, right? And I didn't see any mention of RPE in Sheyko's book. He places emphasis on technique and variability of the training load, which to me is where it's at. RPE just seems like a cumbersome and subjective way of formalizing something everybody already does: carry on an internal dialogue about what is planned versus what practicable on a given day.

I admit I have a lot to learn.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:46 pm

Sangoma wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:24 pm
The book was dedicated to improving one’s performance by reducing the effort to 50%, enjoying the process, and not focusing on the result. The author cited a University of Texas in Austin study of goal-oriented and process-oriented people in the workplace. Unexpectedly, it was not the hypercompetitive Types “A” who were doing more for the company, making more money, getting more raises and promotions. It was the folks who were enjoying their job. Ironically, not getting wrapped up in the result may deliver higher gains.
I am not an authority in BJJ in any sense, but my observations confirm, at least in part, the stuff in bold. There are quite a few guys at my BJJ School who are physically strong and use their strength to get a submission. So they win every time. After a while they start lagging behind weaker guys - first not being able to submit weaker guys and then being submitted by them. The reason is, they want to win every bout and use the strength to compensate for lack of technique. When you stop caring about being submitted and focus on good posture and position you start progressing. The point of this diatribe is - when you stop caring too much about the end result and focus on the process you progress.
What's the quote from? Well BJJ is the one sport I can speak to as an authority and there's a real element of truth to it but it's frequently misunderstood.

Training is training, it's not sparring, and it's not competition.

In training you should go at about 50 percent and work on technical development of specific passes, sweeps, submissions, etc.

In sparring you should go at about 75-90 percent, combining the technical development with training with the addition of physical attributes, which also need to be developed to succeed at higher levels. You won't develop the proper timing, endurance, strength, etc. if you only ever spar at 50 percent.

Competition should be at near theoretical 100 percent for obvious reasons.

In the early phases of development, perhaps 70 percent of total training time should be "training", 25 percent or so sparring, and 0-5 percent of the time competing.

Later on, you gotta take off the training wheels, focus on your personal arsenal of tokui-waza/go-to techniques, and spend more time sparring. None of the best guys in the world spend much of their time flow rolling at 50 percent when they are preparing for high level competition. You don't need 100 techniques to be a world champion, you need 10 you can impose on anyone. Roger Gracie won a world championship in 2009 submitting the nine best guys all with one technique, lapel choke from mount: Paulo Streckert, Fernando Di Pierro, Rafael Lovato Jr., Claudio Calasans Jr. and Romulo Barral (open class) and Adrien Domingues, Bruno Bastos, Bernardo Faria and Ricardo Abreu (super heavy). He didn't get there by flow rolling at 50 percent, and in a partnered training environment, you don't get to choose the intensity arbitrarily.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

motherjuggs&speed
Sarge
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:08 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by motherjuggs&speed » Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:05 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:35 pm
RPE just seems like a cumbersome and subjective way of formalizing something everybody already does: carry on an internal dialogue about what is planned versus what practicable on a given day.
The point of the numbers is to take it from subjective to objective. Similar to the pain scale, only in this case the trainee is communicating with himself. You will feel physically and emotionally different from day to day and within a workout. For most people who aren't good at self-monitoring and self discipline, which means most people, leaving things unclear will mean doing too little or doing too much. If you know both what's needed for your goals and for your body, you will be less likely to err. For a personal example, my muscles like it just fine at a higher RPE but overall I feel gakked if I push RPE too high.

As far as cumbersome, here's an example to illustrate the value of formalizing something. In chess there's a lot more to know about a position than how much fighting power you have vs your opponent. But if you add up the Reinfeld values of the different pieces i.e. Bishop 3 Pawns, Rook 5 Pawns, etc. , then you can see if it would be to your advantage to trade pieces or not. One could say, dude, I'm having a hard enough time here, now you want me to do all this math? But the math keeps you from making certain kinds of mistakes, like trading off all your pieces and going into a King + Pawns endgame when you're down a pawn, which is usually dead losing. Likewise RPE or RIR can help you stay in the prescribed zone for that day, without depending on a vague feeling, which for most people is not that accurate to begin with and also strongly affected by mood, environment, and so forth.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:30 am

Clearly, I will admit, I'm wrong but I still feel like I'm missing the boat. The 1-10 pain scale has always struck me as garbage, it means different things to different people, and honestly different things to the SAME person at different times. And given that, by your own admission, "most people who aren't good at self-monitoring and self discipline, which means most people" why would you depend on a system that requires that same self-monitoring that they suck at?

Don't think I'm arguing with it, just grappling with the idea. I feel like I'm missing the obvious.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

motherjuggs&speed
Sarge
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:08 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by motherjuggs&speed » Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:44 am

Let's use reps in reserve. If you've been lifting more than a few months you have to have an idea of how many more reps you could have gotten in a given set. This number will be a fairly objective measurement of "how hard you worked". Clearly, if you do a set of 5 where you could have done 10, that's a lower intensity than one where you gutted out the last rep and could not have done another. By making this a number, you can track how a given number correlates to progress, recovery, and so on.

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by newguy » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:16 am

You know who NEVER EVER NEVER EVER used RPE?

Franco motherfucking Columbu.

Image

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by newguy » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:17 am

Do you all think John Grimek spent his time pondering what his RPE was after a set?

Image

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by newguy » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:22 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:30 am
Clearly, I will admit, I'm wrong but I still feel like I'm missing the boat. The 1-10 pain scale has always struck me as garbage, it means different things to different people, and honestly different things to the SAME person at different times. And given that, by your own admission, "most people who aren't good at self-monitoring and self discipline, which means most people" why would you depend on a system that requires that same self-monitoring that they suck at?

Don't think I'm arguing with it, just grappling with the idea. I feel like I'm missing the obvious.
You're doing 5/3/1 right now. Never mind the PR sets for the moment.

You start tracking your RPE....you notice that as the weeks go on, those 70% sets (what are supposed to be 70% sets) are moving from 6 RPE....to 7 RPE....to 8 RPE..... you also see that your PR sets are going down. It's just a data point. It's a way to look back at your training log and get a sense of how hard a set was.

So instead of looking back and seeing
January 3
Bench Press 135 x 10, 155 x 10, 175 x 5, 185 x 5, 5, 5

where all you know is I did the reps, you might see
185 x 5 (RPE 6) 185 x 5 (RPE 6) 185 x 5 (RPE 8)

It would give you a bit more data regarding how hard those sets seemed and be able to determine trends over time.

Luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:19 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Luke » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:48 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:35 pm
SubClaw wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:06 pm
What's the difference between RPE and RIR? I mean, they look like exactly the same thing, reversing the math.
Good question. Also, BD take a look at the article smet posted because the method they describe is pretty different than what you are talking about:

TL(A.U.) = RPE x session duration (min).

Now I don't even know who Mike T is, so I'm obviously ignorant. Is it Mike Tuscherer? I'll have to check it out. But he's worked with Boris Sheyko, right? And I didn't see any mention of RPE in Sheyko's book. He places emphasis on technique and variability of the training load, which to me is where it's at. RPE just seems like a cumbersome and subjective way of formalizing something everybody already does: carry on an internal dialogue about what is planned versus what practicable on a given day.

I admit I have a lot to learn.
Coincidentally, I was reading about Mike T's look at Sheiko last night. He overlaid his system onto it some years ago. I've become interested in RTS again recently, but have employed RPEs to some extent since reading about it ages back.

RPE 10s and 9s are easy to identify. 8s I always found a bit mysterious because how many I truly have in the tank at this rate is always vague; I usually just figure "moderately hard". When the bar's flying I class them as 7s.

His load/fatigue drops generally mean you're getting your volume in.

Luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:19 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Luke » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:54 am

newguy wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:17 am
Do you all think John Grimek spent his time pondering what his RPE was after a set?

Image
No and it's something Jamie Chaos and Pain always brings up. Which is comforting, because I'm no rocket scientist (and Mike T apparently is/was)

As nerdy as it is, Mike's RTS is generally a lot more fun than other codified systems because you're not having to work to a fixed low percent on a day you feel amped and vice versa.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6803
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Sangoma » Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:44 am

Columbu never ever used RPE. He used steroids instead. That's what allowed him to work out at the limit every time.
Image

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by newguy » Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:08 am

Sangoma wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:44 am
Columbu never ever used RPE. He used steroids instead. That's what allowed him to work out at the limit every time.
As does almost every other athlete of any level.......and the ones that don't are on testosterone replacement therapy.

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19097
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:31 am

I do think you’re missing a little bit of the main thrust here. It is really very subtle. All we are talking about is the practice of systematizing self reflection. You bring up the pain scale as an example of something you think lacks value. The scale is used in a clinical setting every day and is actually extraordinarily useful. It’s made useful by the descriptors of what eachLevel actually means. 10 on the pain scale is crippling unable to move gnawing pain.

When you put it in these terms almost everyone understands that they have never or rarely ever hit 10 on the pain scale. But all of us are familiar with a five on the pain scale. This is a level of pain that most of us have experienced fairly often in our lives and we can use this to calibrate our relative sense of where we are at the time.

RPE is no different. It is simply a way to systematically evaluate where you are at a given time.

As a correction, Mike T does not work with Sheiko, rather he met Sheiko long after he developed his own program. It is instructive to note that Sheikos percentage based programs actually in many formats were described as heavy, medium heavy, medium light, light heavy. These utterly arbitrary descriptors were apparently good enough in many settings to elicit a training response.

I’m not going to try to sell you on RPE is a method. I would say that for those who find it a useful tool it is an extraordinarily useful tool. What I am saying is that the process of systematically evaluating your relative capacity at a given moment is the practice that everybody needs in order to make significant progress. The examples of all time bodybuilders are charming but let’s not forget that the parameters needed to elicit muscle growth are nowhere near as precise as the parameters needed to elicit maximal strength or maximal power. It takes a level of Precision and self-awareness that most people, as I have admitted, do not have. Nonetheless it is the most important factor, I think, and being able to make daily and weekly progress. Especially where we are talking about The single most influential factor in any strength or power program which is total amount of volume at a percentage of maximal effort that yields a response. The single most important thing to monitor as you accrue volume is understanding your relative level of fatigue. The practice whether it’s based in RPE or other of systematically doing that is important. I would argue the most important. RPE is simply a rubric to teach yourself how to self monitor.l within a workout or series of workouts. You’re right most people are not good at it. Most people are weak bitches. Learning how hard you can push yourself and still recover is how you become something other than a weak bitch.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6803
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Sangoma » Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:09 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:46 pm
Sangoma wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:24 pm
The book was dedicated to improving one’s performance by reducing the effort to 50%, enjoying the process, and not focusing on the result. The author cited a University of Texas in Austin study of goal-oriented and process-oriented people in the workplace. Unexpectedly, it was not the hypercompetitive Types “A” who were doing more for the company, making more money, getting more raises and promotions. It was the folks who were enjoying their job. Ironically, not getting wrapped up in the result may deliver higher gains.
I am not an authority in BJJ in any sense, but my observations confirm, at least in part, the stuff in bold. There are quite a few guys at my BJJ School who are physically strong and use their strength to get a submission. So they win every time. After a while they start lagging behind weaker guys - first not being able to submit weaker guys and then being submitted by them. The reason is, they want to win every bout and use the strength to compensate for lack of technique. When you stop caring about being submitted and focus on good posture and position you start progressing. The point of this diatribe is - when you stop caring too much about the end result and focus on the process you progress.
What's the quote from? Well BJJ is the one sport I can speak to as an authority and there's a real element of truth to it but it's frequently misunderstood.

Training is training, it's not sparring, and it's not competition.

In training you should go at about 50 percent and work on technical development of specific passes, sweeps, submissions, etc.

In sparring you should go at about 75-90 percent, combining the technical development with training with the addition of physical attributes, which also need to be developed to succeed at higher levels. You won't develop the proper timing, endurance, strength, etc. if you only ever spar at 50 percent.

Competition should be at near theoretical 100 percent for obvious reasons.

In the early phases of development, perhaps 70 percent of total training time should be "training", 25 percent or so sparring, and 0-5 percent of the time competing.

Later on, you gotta take off the training wheels, focus on your personal arsenal of tokui-waza/go-to techniques, and spend more time sparring. None of the best guys in the world spend much of their time flow rolling at 50 percent when they are preparing for high level competition. You don't need 100 techniques to be a world champion, you need 10 you can impose on anyone. Roger Gracie won a world championship in 2009 submitting the nine best guys all with one technique, lapel choke from mount: Paulo Streckert, Fernando Di Pierro, Rafael Lovato Jr., Claudio Calasans Jr. and Romulo Barral (open class) and Adrien Domingues, Bruno Bastos, Bernardo Faria and Ricardo Abreu (super heavy). He didn't get there by flow rolling at 50 percent, and in a partnered training environment, you don't get to choose the intensity arbitrarily.
The last thing I am going to do is to argue with a black belt about BJJ. What I was getting at - there was a Gracie breakdown of Rhonda Rousy's armour in her fight against Misha Tate few years ago. Here:



It is (sort of) over when Rousey get's Misha's arm in turtle, and after that it is more or less a formality for the athlete of her level. In training a strong guy probably can force his way out of this particular position with a weaker or less technical opponent. However, doing this all the time does not teach proper technique, and I would say don't care about the submission and next time work on not getting there in the first place. That's how I see it, mostly because I cannot afford forcing my way out most of the time because of poor recovery at my age. As well as the risk of injury. And I am a pussy, but that's another topic altogether.
Image

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19097
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:22 am

FC, I'll try to frame an example.

A lot of people have had success with 531, a system which relies on an autoregulated top set. When you initially start the program, the tops sets become somewhat variable. I find many people are surprised by what they get in terms of reps..This top set is really one that is driving adaptation not because it's a strain but because you learn what to expect. Very quickly, you learn to anticipate your capabilities on a given day and push for specific PR sets. This makes for good progress. What makes for better progress is when you get a sense of where your capabilties are at and plan your downsets based not on a set percentage but based on observation. This is where people make real progress.

What you end up with in terms of programming is something much simpler because the lifter has systematized that evaluation process and hence, lswys knows what to do next. Thats when your quit programming and just train.

Here's the program Ive used for many many lifts and it's yielded huge results because I taught people how to evaluate their capabilities using RPE.

Work up to a heavy double on the day. Take off some weight, 10-15%. Do doubles at that weight until the bar slows, form changes, or fatigue increases. Then take off another 10-15% and do doubles or triples until the bar slows, form changes, or fatigue increases. Then go do soemthng else.

If I gave this to you, it would be a failure. What is heavy? what's slow? what form changes should I note? how do I know if fatigue increased. I used RPE to learn those...once I know what to look for, RPE or RIR doesn't matter. I learned how to pay attention.

This same pattern works with powerlifts, weightlifitng, throws, intervals, SM movements, skills. I've used the exact same patterns...They work because my folks learned to pay attention to the right things.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21140
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:53 pm

I don't know if I can add anything to the conversation

However, as auto regulation is near and dear to my heart, here is a pretty solid explanatory piece about autoreg and specifically how Mike Tuchsherer used to approach it. I think he's gone a bit of a different direction in recent years with his focus on modern trends in powerlifting, but this is how he basically built himself up early on in his career.

https://www.powerliftingtowin.com/autoregulation/

Here is an explanation of how you can use the RTS RPE system along with fatigue percents from this piece. There are a few points made in this article that a lot of people have never thought about. Mainly how your actual true max in any given lift is a floating value, very dependent on many factors, therefore finding a way to adapt the work to your current state of readiness is what drives long term adaptation.
Using RPEs, we can now do that through a concept called “fatigue percents”. For example, let’s say our workout prescription calls for x5@9 (five reps with one rep left in the tank). Instead of telling a lifter to do five sets at x5@8-9 or something like that, we can prescribe them “5% fatigue” instead.

Here is how it works:
1) The lifter works up to their initial top set. Let’s say 500×5@9
2) The lifter then subtracts 5% from this number to get 475.
3) The lifter will repeat sets at 475 until he hits an RPE 9. This may take one set or it may take ten sets.
4) Once an RPE 9 is reached at 475, we know that “5% fatigue” has occurred because he is now doing 5% less weight with the exact same difficulty as he did 500. In simple terms, his lifting ability has dropped 5%.

Boom! We now have a way to measure fatigue instead of volume.

Theoretical Example:
455×5@7
480×5@8
500×5@9, this is the “initial”
475×5@8, 5% weight subtracted
475×5@8.5
475×5@9, 5% fatigue reached – workout over / move to next exercise
This is what BD has organically incorporated with his coaching. But first you need to get familiar with your RPEs.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:26 pm

Sangoma wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:44 am
Columbu never ever used RPE. He used steroids instead. That's what allowed him to work out at the limit every time.
I have some bad news for you. Everybody at the highest levels of every sport use PEDs.

That said, having read a couple of Colombu's books, he did not train to his limit every time. Both he and Arnold incorporated quite a bit of variation in load and sometimes would straight up bag a session and go eat if they felt like that was the wise move.
Last edited by Fat Cat on Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:33 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:31 am
I’m not going to try to sell you on RPE is a method. I would say that for those who find it a useful tool it is an extraordinarily useful tool. What I am saying is that the process of systematically evaluating your relative capacity at a given moment is the practice that everybody needs in order to make significant progress. The examples of all time bodybuilders are charming but let’s not forget that the parameters needed to elicit muscle growth are nowhere near as precise as the parameters needed to elicit maximal strength or maximal power. It takes a level of Precision and self-awareness that most people, as I have admitted, do not have. Nonetheless it is the most important factor, I think, and being able to make daily and weekly progress. Especially where we are talking about The single most influential factor in any strength or power program which is total amount of volume at a percentage of maximal effort that yields a response. The single most important thing to monitor as you accrue volume is understanding your relative level of fatigue. The practice whether it’s based in RPE or other of systematically doing that is important. I would argue the most important. RPE is simply a rubric to teach yourself how to self monitor.l within a workout or series of workouts. You’re right most people are not good at it. Most people are weak bitches. Learning how hard you can push yourself and still recover is how you become something other than a weak bitch.
I can dig that and thank you for the detailed responses. Before I can respond with anything informed, I just need to keep playing with the idea, I guess. I do notice that the longer I have used 5/3/1 or 3/5/1 programming, the more I do have an exact sense of how many reps I can get at a given intensity before I do it, whereas when I first started using programming and AMRAPs it was more, "let's find out!" So I can grasp, at some level, that auto-regulation becomes a skill that you can develop and perfect.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:35 pm

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:53 pm
I don't know if I can add anything to the conversation

However, as auto regulation is near and dear to my heart, here is a pretty solid explanatory piece about autoreg and specifically how Mike Tuchsherer used to approach it. I think he's gone a bit of a different direction in recent years with his focus on modern trends in powerlifting, but this is how he basically built himself up early on in his career.

https://www.powerliftingtowin.com/autoregulation/

Here is an explanation of how you can use the RTS RPE system along with fatigue percents from this piece. There are a few points made in this article that a lot of people have never thought about. Mainly how your actual true max in any given lift is a floating value, very dependent on many factors, therefore finding a way to adapt the work to your current state of readiness is what drives long term adaptation.
Using RPEs, we can now do that through a concept called “fatigue percents”. For example, let’s say our workout prescription calls for x5@9 (five reps with one rep left in the tank). Instead of telling a lifter to do five sets at x5@8-9 or something like that, we can prescribe them “5% fatigue” instead.

Here is how it works:
1) The lifter works up to their initial top set. Let’s say 500×5@9
2) The lifter then subtracts 5% from this number to get 475.
3) The lifter will repeat sets at 475 until he hits an RPE 9. This may take one set or it may take ten sets.
4) Once an RPE 9 is reached at 475, we know that “5% fatigue” has occurred because he is now doing 5% less weight with the exact same difficulty as he did 500. In simple terms, his lifting ability has dropped 5%.

Boom! We now have a way to measure fatigue instead of volume.

Theoretical Example:
455×5@7
480×5@8
500×5@9, this is the “initial”
475×5@8, 5% weight subtracted
475×5@8.5
475×5@9, 5% fatigue reached – workout over / move to next exercise
This is what BD has organically incorporated with his coaching. But first you need to get familiar with your RPEs.
The "here's how it works" is very helpful, thanks man.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:41 pm

Sangoma wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:09 am
Fat Cat wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:46 pm
Sangoma wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:24 pm
The book was dedicated to improving one’s performance by reducing the effort to 50%, enjoying the process, and not focusing on the result. The author cited a University of Texas in Austin study of goal-oriented and process-oriented people in the workplace. Unexpectedly, it was not the hypercompetitive Types “A” who were doing more for the company, making more money, getting more raises and promotions. It was the folks who were enjoying their job. Ironically, not getting wrapped up in the result may deliver higher gains.
I am not an authority in BJJ in any sense, but my observations confirm, at least in part, the stuff in bold. There are quite a few guys at my BJJ School who are physically strong and use their strength to get a submission. So they win every time. After a while they start lagging behind weaker guys - first not being able to submit weaker guys and then being submitted by them. The reason is, they want to win every bout and use the strength to compensate for lack of technique. When you stop caring about being submitted and focus on good posture and position you start progressing. The point of this diatribe is - when you stop caring too much about the end result and focus on the process you progress.
What's the quote from? Well BJJ is the one sport I can speak to as an authority and there's a real element of truth to it but it's frequently misunderstood.

Training is training, it's not sparring, and it's not competition.

In training you should go at about 50 percent and work on technical development of specific passes, sweeps, submissions, etc.

In sparring you should go at about 75-90 percent, combining the technical development with training with the addition of physical attributes, which also need to be developed to succeed at higher levels. You won't develop the proper timing, endurance, strength, etc. if you only ever spar at 50 percent.

Competition should be at near theoretical 100 percent for obvious reasons.

In the early phases of development, perhaps 70 percent of total training time should be "training", 25 percent or so sparring, and 0-5 percent of the time competing.

Later on, you gotta take off the training wheels, focus on your personal arsenal of tokui-waza/go-to techniques, and spend more time sparring. None of the best guys in the world spend much of their time flow rolling at 50 percent when they are preparing for high level competition. You don't need 100 techniques to be a world champion, you need 10 you can impose on anyone. Roger Gracie won a world championship in 2009 submitting the nine best guys all with one technique, lapel choke from mount: Paulo Streckert, Fernando Di Pierro, Rafael Lovato Jr., Claudio Calasans Jr. and Romulo Barral (open class) and Adrien Domingues, Bruno Bastos, Bernardo Faria and Ricardo Abreu (super heavy). He didn't get there by flow rolling at 50 percent, and in a partnered training environment, you don't get to choose the intensity arbitrarily.
The last thing I am going to do is to argue with a black belt about BJJ. What I was getting at - there was a Gracie breakdown of Rhonda Rousy's armour in her fight against Misha Tate few years ago. Here:



It is (sort of) over when Rousey get's Misha's arm in turtle, and after that it is more or less a formality for the athlete of her level. In training a strong guy probably can force his way out of this particular position with a weaker or less technical opponent. However, doing this all the time does not teach proper technique, and I would say don't care about the submission and next time work on not getting there in the first place. That's how I see it, mostly because I cannot afford forcing my way out most of the time because of poor recovery at my age. As well as the risk of injury. And I am a pussy, but that's another topic altogether.
If that's all you mean then there's no difference of opinion. In a proper training environment, you wouldn't want to force your way out just because you can, but in hard sparring preparing for competition, you might. In training you would want to go back and figure out how you got there and learn to avoid that situation in the future. But, learning how to eke your way out of tight spots and developing the mindset to do so is a skill in its own right that can only be developed under pressure.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19097
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:08 pm

I think the anecdote about Arnold and Columbo intuitively knowing when to hold em and when to fold em, is the end point in that learning process.

Mike T, by fleshing ouT RPE, gives a micro view into how you self monitor. Gym goers everywhere skip workouts, knowing which ones to skip takes a long time and a lot of skill.

Jacks advice above re: fixed progressions and repeating warm ups as rubric for self monitoring is another area we’ve both made huge progress with.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7955
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by powerlifter54 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:45 pm

If you think you can go all out all the time you are a.Not 30 yet, b.Gifted, and/or c.about to experience your first of many setbacks.

What gets you to the next level is not the willingness to go hard but the regular practice of doing it. Over and over and over.

Then to be a dominant force in your sport you have to learn when NOT to go hard.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 38584
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Fat Cat » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:38 pm

Good discussion guys there’s a lot to consider.
Image
"Remember that you have no companion but your shadow." -Genghis Khan

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6803
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by Sangoma » Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:21 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:26 pm
Sangoma wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:44 am
Columbu never ever used RPE. He used steroids instead. That's what allowed him to work out at the limit every time.
I have some bad news for you. Everybody at the highest levels of every sport use PEDs.

That said, having read a couple of Colombu's books, he did not train to his limit every time. Both he and Arnold incorporated quite a bit of variation in load and sometimes would straight up bag a session and go eat if they felt like that was the wise move.
So they used some sort of assessment of how they feel on the day and adjusted their training accordingly. RPE is simply a more formalised way to do it.

If you train at the limit every time you have to take reasonable PED support. That's why I mentioned steroids. Someone not on drugs will not get good results continuously rushing himself. No progress at best, overtraining and/or injury at worst. Once again, there is a reason why polarised training is in right now.
Image

User avatar
SubClaw
Top
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:01 pm

Re: Consistency over intensity

Post by SubClaw » Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:47 am

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Here is how it works:
1) The lifter works up to their initial top set. Let’s say 500×5@9
2) The lifter then subtracts 5% from this number to get 475.
3) The lifter will repeat sets at 475 until he hits an RPE 9. This may take one set or it may take ten sets.
4) Once an RPE 9 is reached at 475, we know that “5% fatigue” has occurred because he is now doing 5% less weight with the exact same difficulty as he did 500. In simple terms, his lifting ability has dropped 5%.
I have two questions regarding the above:

- You work up to a top set of 500x5@9. Then you follow the -5% guideline and start doing sets with 475 until @9 is achieved. And, for the sake of the argument, let's say you did just three sets until the prescribed fatigue level kicked in. Wouldn't it be useful to try and increase the number of -5% sets in subsequent sessions until you can do, I don't know, five sets (or ten, or whatever) before the workout is over?

- What if you did an initial set of 475x5@6 and then kept pounding the same load until @9 was reached, with no back-off sets?

I'm basically talking out my ass here and quite probably nothing I wrote make sense, but I'm curious nonetheless.

Post Reply