Since some of this material is even challenging for me, Josh and Zac have agreed to answer your questions. If you have anything you want to ask them regarding the research, submit your question below in this thread specifically, and they'll answer as many as they can. They're extremely informed. Very nice of them to do, so a big thank you to them! Ask away here ⬇️
@@datadrivenstrength Hey! I'm a little skeptical of the logic that the reps with the maximum rate of force production are also the reps with the greatest stimulus for strength. It makes sense that, under the context of force production, those reps most closely mimic sport specific performance for a powerlifter, but to me all that means is that they are better practice for competing in powerlifting, not necessarily the biggest drivers of physical improvement. (I do understand that there is a large element of strength based on muscle fiber recruitment and the nervous system operating at as high a level as possible, both of which would logically be increased by practice. But if lifting can be divided solely into practice and muscle size, wouldn't that mean the ideal training program is just singles and hypertrophy work?) On the other hand, the evidence in some of the studies you cited does seem to clearly correlate sets close to failure to lower strength gains. And as stated in the video, there does seem to be a lot of elite level lifters that do train more like this. So it's not that I think you're wrong, I'm just not sold on the reasoning.
The advantage of the high production of force and staying further away from failure only enhances the strength gains right? Hypertrophy doesn’t get the same benefit?
@@Tim_flips First and foremost this is a very well formulated question and we can appreciate the skepticism! I think this really depends on the timeframe we’re discussing. The ideas we present here we think are relevant particularly in the short to moderate term. Training farther from failure and consequently with higher force production is “good practice” but there are also physiological adaptations (morphological, neurological, etc.) associated with that potentially “driving” strength as you mention. So in a sense I think “practice” may be unfairly devalued here. However, I do agree from a birds eye view that skill and muscle size will ultimately make up someone’s strength ceiling. One thing we didn’t get a chance to touch on here was how you can organize low RPE sets to still provide a stimulus for muscle growth. Briefly, if you’re training with >75% of 1RM we’re pretty confident every rep is “effective” for growth even when performed far from failure. This presents a way to provide really specific practice, stimulate muscle growth, and do it in a way that minimizes fatigue. This both optimizes performance on the sets that are likely providing the greatest strength stimulus in the short term (top sets) and avoids some detrimental neuromuscular adaptations associated with training close to failure. Hopefully that adds some context! Thank you!
This (RPE) isn’t exercise science. Science has been absent among the exercise intellectuals since the 80’s. This is a guy putting things to the test for himself to see what works, which we should all do. Exercise science is a book learning program, not a gym learning program.
I train by the Spetsnaz pain endurance philosophy. I squat, bench, and deadlift at maximum RPE and maximum volume everyday regardless of joint pain or injuries. Im a quadriplegic.
The more experienced I become in lifting the more that training easier is true. You can make excellent progress without killing yourself abs being more strategic
Absolutely...I do now high rep deadlifts...I kinda more stop because of endurance, more than actual fatigue...with 50% body w8...and its killing the hamstrings...without killing the central nervous system...I rmbr doby is scared, and doesnt wanna do hard close to limit work...but super happy that way...
Very much know for every Powerlifter, but most do it as 5 sets of 2 or 3 and stuff like that I think. When people think of six sets they think of rpe 7 for the most part
I don't like Greg's advice on powerlifting. Too simplistic and it's clearly a suboptimal way to train. There are far better ways to train, even if you're a beginner.
Totally agree! I am an intermediate level lifter and was burying myself being stuck in that same weight mindset. I started adjusting the weight to how it felt and doing the subsequent work light enough to keep feeling like the rpe level I was supposed to be at. Bench and squat blew up.
Im having trouble because my numbers are the exact same from a month ago and I can’t push it pass im fairly new to lifting about my 2nd year of training
@@insane020 strength focused training causes greater muscle gain when in a caloric surplus. Hypertrophy focused training is loosely related to strength gains no matter the calories.
@@insane020 Also, Greg is enhanced by steroids, which absolutely helps his ability to recover. You should check out his beginner programs. Full body 3 days per week with heavy/hard high rep deadlift and heavy/hard high rep squats every session. Honestly, it's the dumbest shit I've ever seen.
@Barbell Medicine had a concept during one of their podcasts discussing programming variables such as lowering backdown volume sets to around 65-70% which could impart more stress with less fatigue. Sort of lines up with the idea that lower RPE volume work can be effective. It’s been fantastic for me. Awesome video legend!
@@danielmoore1145 late reply sorry... The barbell medicine crew got this idea and info from the 2 guys in this video. (Zach & josh from dds/data driven strength)
5:16 This reminds me of when Chad Wesley Smith talked to Mike T on Jugg Life about doing 8 sets of 3 one day with 515 which is like his 20 rep max, so that's RPE _negative 7_ Kind of mind boggling at first to think that can still be used for "training."
Really well articulated. I'm on my last week of a block with couple lighter weeks coming up, but I'll have to incorporate these ideas in the next block.
Was stuck at around 330 lbs in the squat for over two years, yet I was always the «hardest working» person in the gym grinding out reps. I obviously did not know much about programming but damn my RPE 10 sets would have made even David Goggins proud.
I’ve been stuck on an annoying plateau as well. I been keep grinding out reps hoping to get stronger. Essentially working with 2-3 RIR is best for strength gains?
I really like the data driven portion of this. I have always felt that strength response was kind of a moving target - some lower RPE efforts lead to gains and training to high RPE (approaching failure) also generate gains, but I am never clear on how this works or when. This was a bit of an eye opener for me. I appreciate it very much, John and crew!
I saw an MMA fighter talking about training at 70% of their max effort 5-6 times a week rather than going 100% then needing 2 days to recover. By training volume at a lower intensity you can do 420% a week of effort as opposed to 300%. surely bring huge gains in the long term and less stress on the body. I'm always reminded of farmer strength
@@s9209122222 Essentially it argues for a lower intensity but more frequent training. Doing a really long training session at lower RPM could still be as intense as a really heavy short session. In reality you still want to train at high intensity but infrequently. Maybe training at 60-70% for 80-90% of your training then 80-90% for 10-20% of your training. Most competitive atheletes only hit 100% effort a couple times a year. It's too hard on the body otherwise.
@@kingofchickens123 Is 75% too high for the lower intensity training? How often do you usually train at 80-90% intensity? I always train at 80-90% intensity, and I stuck.
Thanks Candy Toe! My main takeaways are that in strength work is best done with progressively heavier weight, low reps, and little effort (low RPE). Save the high RPE work for bodybuilding and hypertrophy. Cookie cutter programs like 5/3/1 just won't cut it because they really don't factor stuff like this. I'm planning on getting to true strength work in the hopes that I'll really smash some plateaus!
The study looks into only one aspect which is is improving strength over the short term. While staying away from failure may be optimal for short term strength gain by maximizing intensity to volume ration, which theoretically checks out, hypertrophy gains that contribute to the long term strength goals are overlooked by the studies.
I think its important to state what RPE10 is for some people. One could define it as having nothing else to give, dying the way up and barely completing the rep. But usually it is deemed that RPE 10 should be a technical breakdown point meaning you do not have any more controlled reps in you. You might get one or two fugly reps, but that not the point of training.
I pick an RPE 7 top single from one of my training blocks roughly every 3 to 6 months and then I AMRAP that weight to see if I'm judging my RPE correctly. I don't know if this is advised by a trainer or not, but I find it helps me to determine if I am judging my RPE correctly. it's also a good opportunity for a bit of a training reset as I will normally deload the week after and drop both the AMRAP and deload weeks to 3 days of training instead of 5
You could base your estimated 1rm based on the rep work at rpe 9.. then use percentages/ rpe calculator to somewhat give you a loading range to work in
Honestly, I run a percentage based 5/3/1, and always short myself 2-3 reps on the as many as possible last set. Grinding and running too high an RPE makes me progress slower, and just puts me at risk to injury. I progress way faster by not grinding. I prefer to focus on a lower RPE gauge and do things that increase difficulty with that lower RPE, like pause squats, longer times under tension, shorter rest times, etc.
I gotta be honest I don’t think I could distinguish rpe 6 from 4 or 5. That is why I use linear progression with block periodization wile paying attention to rpe until I can get enough experience to where I could tell exactly how much I have left. I feel that rpe is the single greatest thing a lifter could master. I have had many days where I have worked 12 hour shifts and the weight feels like it’s going to kill me but then I don’t miss a single rep.
I was an intermediate lifter before taking a 4 year break from lifting, I was killing myself in the gym and now when I got back to it, I'm making way faster, consistent gains while training easier and never going anywhere near failure on main compound lifts. Wish I had this knowledge when I started the grind.
Fantastic video, and great both anecdotal and scientific evidence for not beating yourself up. You also managed to subtly outline all the problems with RPE (perceptual measure and people lie, especially themselves).
So to put some numbers for a hypothetpical intermediate lifter: A basic program might call for deadlifts at 3x8 @rpe8 which equates to about 74% according most RPE tables. Our lifter’s max is 450 lbs. so the basic program would have the lifter do 3x8 w/ about 335lbs. However this suggests that it would be more beneficial to do 6x4 at ~335lbs (which should be about RPE 4). And maybe doing the top set at a true 4 reps at RPE8 which is ~84%=~380 before backing off to sets of 335. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, please! Personally this *sounds* really good and that the science backs it up. I’d love to implement this into my training
I am an intermediate lifter. Recently I have switched to a more bodybuilding oriented style from powerlifting (My 1st meso starts with 85% of my 10 rep) and that first week is an RPE 7 with no rep goal in mind with weight jumps and volume increases to keep the RPE relatively consistent until the last few wekks of the block where it jumps to 8 and 9. This has worked pretty well for me. for example i did incline db for 3 x RPE 7 and my reps were 12, 10, and 9. next push day i add a set. Even if im fried in thhe fourth set next week and i get like 6 i still accumulate a pretty decent amount of volume over time by using this. This isnt really on topic with the video but i already typed this out lmao
When I hit my best numbers, I used percentages, now I'm back and a bit out of shape, and I know my old 100% is useless now. An RPE cap and easier singles look like a good option for me. Thanks!
It seems that the data driven science guys were talking about force production, not hypertrophy. What I got was that the earlier reps in a set allow for more force production, as the set goes on fatigue from each rep increases disproportionately resulting In less force production. Thus by the rule of specificity the reps towards the end of the set are worse for increasing 1rpm because they are less specific to force production. I.e for the sake of increasing force production it may be more beneficial to do the same weight for less reps but the at same amount of volume. Thus you will skip out on the less efficient reps towards the end of the set. However, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with hyoertrophy. Evidence suggests that hypertrophy and strength are typically closely related (i.e athletes with more muscle tend to be stronger). To my understanding what is most important for a hypertrophic stimulus is as much volume as possible at an appropriate intensity as to not jeopardize the rest of your workouts during the week (fatigue management). It's generally easier to get more volume in with higher repetition sets that may be less efficient for force production. It makes me wonder where that balance is. It seems to suggest to me that = volume at lower repetitions will result in the same hypertrophic stimulus (based on how I understand hypertrophy) and a greater force production stimulus. However, accumulating a lot of volume with lower repetitions may be difficult. I think this is why barbell medicine programs tend to switch between higher repititions and lower repetitions in different cycles. To sort of achieve the best of both worlds.
This is crazy. Less fatiguing volume work implies more force production. We still want the weight relative to 1rpm to be sufficient enough to drive hypertrophic stimulus. This to my understanding is any weight greater than 65%~. That is from the BBM programming podcast.
So a prescription might be for a given slot 1@8, 20% off the bar for 5x5. This is brilliant. A 1@8 is estimated to be about 92%. By taking 20% off the bar it's puts the 5x5 at 72%, a weight sufficient for hypertrophic stimulus as well as force production. What may be helpful is an rpe cap for those sets just in case. So that the latter sets are still optimal for force production. The idea may be that as long as you didn't overshoot your 1@8, force production should be consistent throughout those sets. I think an RPE cap would fit in well here. I'm not sure what an appropriate one would be for this. I think the back off work is supposed to be around 6.
Higher weight = More force production. Probably want the weight to be at a manageable fatigue that is also optimal for driving hypertrophy. Thus higher weight lower reps is better for force production. Higher weight = more intense = you can handle less volume. Higher weight = more specific to 1rm, less useful for hypertrophy. How do we balance this?
You've nailed it. It's confusing to talk about force production and ignore hypertrophy given that we need both. For hypertrophy the sets need to be near failure, but we've just discussed that that's not what we want for force production. Great a conundrum, how do we solve it? I guess it's a practical solution, use the main lifts in a force production training style, then do your accessories with high RPE in a hypertrophy rep range.
This is actually so true, I was doing 4 sets to failure on bench and my bench didn’t go up at all after 2 months... hopped on this mans 6 week program and my max shot up 25 pounds first cycle
@@Mac-hv8zu possibly. They are small muscle groups that give minimal general fatique and can be okay in moderation. Elite lifters do consider RPEs in accessory work
Great video, and very insightful! This sounds like pretty standard training for high load power (higher force/lower velocity) development though with maybe more sets than normal to accumulate greater volume. It's just swapping percentages for RPE. I'm not sure if you've read the Periodization textbook by Tudor Bompa and Carlo Buzzichelli, but it delineates some of what is being discussed here in a percentage based format. The five rep difference when working at an RPE of 5 with 10RM loads is what they would call a buffer. In percentage based terms, doing 3 reps at 80% of 1RM would be a 10% buffer because 90% of 1RM would equate to about a 3RM load (obviously with significant inter-lifter variation). 5-10% buffers for strength development, 10-20% for high load power (what is basically being discussed here), and 20-40% buffer for low load power development (high velocity movements similar to conjugate programming). So doing sets of 3 at 80% of 1RM or a 10% buffer (~5RPE) and accumulating volume is just training high load power with possibly greater sets than normally used to hit the volume target. It's a good tactic for strength development as high load power and strength have significant overlap.
Gotta he honest everything candito tries to explain comes out long-winded and tangential, while I immediately understood the takeaways from the DDS section.
This is interesting that you posted this as I'm currently restructuring my training with force production being the main focus. I started this week off hitting heavily fatigued (accumulated from previous weeks training at 85-95%) singles and then backing off to 80% of said single and pressing with as much force as possible, for eg bench hit 186kg with back off sets of 148•8kg for 10x3reps and I felt like I had more in the tank even though volume and intensity were both higher than the previous week doing 5x5 at 80% of projected max, I feel much better and the rest of the week will be working on speed/velocity work at very low %.. I'm clearly a newb with programming but judging by how I feel at the moment whilst simultaneously switching from night shift last week to day shift this week (which usually makes me feel worse) it's going to be a productive few weeks, hopefully..
The way I like to calculate my sets is based on how many reps I need at a given weight to match estimated 1RM. For example, if I bench 315 1RM and my workout that day is like this, my set calculation would be as follows: Warmup: 225 * 6. 225 AMRAP ~ 12. This is 6/12 of a set. Set 1: 275 * 6. 275 AMRAP ~ 6. This is 6/6 of a set. Set 2: 275 * 3. 3/6 of a set. This day I did 2 sets to failure then if I add all those fractions up.
Very interesting. Just 3 weeks ago I started doing 10 sets of 5 for both deadlifts and squats to accumulate more volume than I’ve ever done, keeping the weights lower than ever. I’m pretty fried after doing the 10th set but the speed of the reps appear to be fast and keep the same velocity throughout all the sets. I’ll be doing the same thing for bench press going forward.
It's two years ago man I can't even remember doing this at all, now I just train hypertrophy to catch up on my arms cause I got spider physique from powerlifting focus. Stick arms with huge legs and huge upper body. Don't fall into that trap. TRAIN YOUR ARMS.@@nonduality1
Taylor Atwood's example leads me to think that absolute weight will probably have a bigger impact if it's high enough, even at low/very low RPE's. Most lifters at his strength level seem very careful with their training weights. I remember Mikhai Koklaev when he was a 900+ puller and said he normally did 5 sets of 5 with 660 and used 730-ish once a month -- it's great to see Taylor Atwood doing a meat-and-potatoes session on UA-cam -- usually they only show their most dramatic sessions!
Anything below an RPE 7 is SUPER difficult to judge. I will always prefer percentages. I just don't like the variability with RPE. I want to walk in the gym with a plan. In and out. I'm not there to waste time calculating RPE for working sets on the fly.
I trained with 100 percent RPE training for a period and made decent progress, but the backoff weight selection was so difficult for me. I tried hitting true "RPE X" for those backoff sets instead of undershooting as many do, and probably did more work than the person who wrote it intended me to do. For the last 6 months I've been on different programming that is mostly RPE top sets and then a percentage of the top set weight for backoffs. I've made much more progress with this style of programming. The mix of self regulation/skill in selecting top set weights and the objectivity of the backoff set loads is a good balance. And yes, most of the backoff work ends up being RPE 6 or lower
I have an interesting counterpoint: I lift twice a week, and only do 12-15 total sets per workout. I skip all the extra volume and lift heavy (8-3 reps) for at least half of the sets. All of my strengh levels are going up just like they used to with all the extra volume. What I have keyed into is how to do less damage to the muscle, but still create the adaptation. So strength can be gained by reducing total volume, but being very specific and targeted about those specific lifts. Adding an extra rep every 3-4 weeks is much easier when your total system is not being taxed as hard. So there is something big to consider with the total amount of work you are doing. Some people think the work has to continually go up to make gains. But it's more of a local effect: if I can cause the muscle to work harder in the lift, then I don't need to do as much work over all to get the same growth.
Wow, high sets low easy reps always helped me gain the most strength but i thought it may have been from other factors cause it ran contrary to what i knew at the time…
3x10x75% < 10x3x75% basically Will grow the same mass of muscle, but will increase Strength due to preforming the sets better. And in the longrun u Will increase a little bit more muscle due to lifting heavier weights(more volume) and a lot more Strength. I will start doing this on the compound lifts from now on Thx candito
The only problem I see with this training method. 3x10 takes like 10 minutes to complete (2-3min rest). 10x3 takes 30+ minutes. Gotta find that sweet spot or else you’ll be in the gym 2hrs every day
Honestly, all his lifts look pretty atrocious but he is doing the ‘powerlifting’ lifts where he is trying to lower range of motion and maximise leverages
This seems to align well for both squat and deadlift, in my experience. Trained all three lifts with light weights, higher reps for around 2 months. Could max my deadlift at a meet, and even though I didn't max my squat I'm sure I could have, given how smooth my current 1rm felt. Didn't really do much for my bench, I think. Did misgroove my last attempt, tho, so who knows.
@@christofu1359 No. It means waiting until you can move the weight competently for the prescribed rep/set scheme you're using before increasing the weight.
@@blackphoenix8932 so if i did 185 for bench for 5 reps and my rpe was like an 8 i shouldnt increase the weight if i wanted to hit 5 reps again? what rpe should 185 for 5 be before i add weight do you think?
I think training 'easier' is great when you're more advanced, but the problem is that I'm seeing so many relative beginners in powerlifting introducing loads of rpe 6 or lower sets into their training when they're not at a level yet where fatigue management is becoming a real issue. Fair enough doing them here and there, but surely it's not optimal to do them consistently if you're still quite new to powerlifting? Feel like a lot of lifters just use RPE cos their favourite powerlifters use it, without actually understanding why
If something works for an advanced lifter why wouldn't it work for a beginner? I think it's better to think and start working on fatigue management before it becomes a problem.
Actually its even better for beginners since they don't need as much stimulus, their recovery is slower and their risk of injury is greater. Go easy but go harder than last time
I personally find it depends on the lift. RPE 8 seems to be mostly repeatable for me on bench press, where as on squat and especially deadlift it's not at all. A lot of it could be psychological, where I just don't have the mental resilience to do multiple true RPE 8 sets on the deadlift. For deadlifts I'll usually have a higher weight first set at a real RPE 8, then bring it down around 7.5% for my remaining sets. It depends what kind of technique breakdown you're willing to allow as well, if I'm willing to let my back round to hell I could easily consider those subsequent "RPE 8" sets to be RPE 5. RPE 10 for training volume means RPE 10 with reasonable form, RPE 10 on a 1rm comp deadlift is a lot different.
I’m the same way with bench. I can bench heavy for a lot more sets than I can with squat/deadlift. Keep in mind squat/deadlift are going to stress your CNS more than a bench press will
Yes because bench is a lot less fatiguing than squat/deadlift.Thats why you can get away with training at higher rpe on bench more often than squat/dl.
Doesn't the result of the meta analysis state that whether we do a 3x10 at rpe 10 or 6x5 at rpe 5, the strength and hypertrophy gains will be the same. Which I get means less fatigue should we do the submaximal approach, but wouldn't it also mean that the traditional idea of volume (sets*reps*weight) is most important?
in a given cycle they might be the same, but what about over 10 cycles? how is progression going to go? overloading the small rpe is going to be MUCH more maintainable, whereas the high rpe will just make you hit a wall
The thing about RPE that confuses me is how pretty much everything affects how I feel the set. Poor warm up, bad sleep, extra activity, poorly timed meals. Is it reasonable to adjust the training based on those very temporary, even acute factors when you have a target goal for the programming? Like most of those if experienced on Friday won't affect Monday's session, but the stimulus on Friday if not turned down will still play into the progression. I was thinking if it's different for someone who still has plenty of progress to be made and someone who's pushing his smaller peaks at more of a peak of his career, but then again wouldn't the acute performance effect still dissipate? I assume the programming has been done with great experience and experience on the lifter as an individual so it shouldn't surprise with performance dip that's not acute but dissipating. Very mysterious topic to me. My guess about the RIR was maybe around 3 because his lifting started to slow down. I can see why it could turn out like that. Like warmup sets feel really shitty at times and when you hit the top single and go for work sets, suddenly they flow like butter. Perhaps his nervous system kicked in, tough to guess without knowing the whole story. Which is why RPE confuses me, potentially he could've done more than 3 reps if that was the programming. Or not do the 6 reps if that was the programming. To my understanding the Russians created a pretty robust theory for strength training where it wouldn't hurt to not push as much as you can based on your feeling and still progress in a planned way. Personally, if I didn't connect RPE to RIR, I would have no clue what's RPE below 9. I wouldn't be able to say that this feels middle point to max effort. And similar experience with RIR in terms of more than 3. I had a powerlifting program with single at RIR 5. I resorted to looking up what's 6 reps at training load chart for % of 1 RM. There's no chance I could do a single and call out "yup, still 5 in the tank". Decided to just go for +2,5 kg increases from there. You still make a reasonable point, you don't necessarily need to push that hard, I believe there's plenty of evidence that you can also stay in certain range for a bit and still build strength, not necessarily having to move up every time. There's even been a lot of talk how progressive overload is potentially more of a consequence of progress and necessary adjustment rather than what facilitates progress.
I was just about to say hol up my man, whats with the speed work from westside then but my boy instantly spit some fax about that too. Is he getting into my head?
If I do a set of 8 with zero reps in reserve, the next set with the same weight will be 5 reps at max even after 10 minutes of rest. You can't do 3 by 8 with the same weight and say your intensity is high. Unless you are a crossfitter and have really good muscle endurance.
I’ve been seen. Three sets of triples today at 80% Lowbar. Was going to do 4 sets but was fried. Dropped 10% off the 1RM, so 70% of 1RM and squatted 2x5 as a back off.
Late to the discussion but... if one tallies volume by "hard/work" sets (what Greg Nuckols has recommended in the past), then I believe there's a problem with RPE, specifically, 10@14RM is not the same as 1@5RM even though both have 4 RIR. The former is a set taken to ~71% potential and the latter is a set taken to 20% of potential. Therefore, in terms of volume, if 3x10@14RM is the benchmark and instead you do singles @5RM, then the equivalent number of sets would be 10-11. I could be wrong, but you could test it. Just do sets of 10@14RM with something like 2 min. breaks until you tap out with 9 reps rather than 10. Some other day, do sets of 1@5RM until you can't get a rep. My guess is that you'll get somewhere in the ballpark of 3.5x more sets with singles than with sets of 10 (with conditioning and the ability to grind out reps as moderating factors).
I don’t enjoy or find benefit in trying to systematize or quantify on paper something as subjective as effort in the form of RPE or RIR or whatever. I just try to understand the general principles driving physiological adaptation to lifting and follow my intuition. That and I keep a detailed training log and describe in whole sentences how the session or set felt. I’ve made progress this way for 10 or so years, but still a very interesting video love the content. I’m not a power lifter though and I do just as much endurance and speed training
Since some of this material is even challenging for me, Josh and Zac have agreed to answer your questions.
If you have anything you want to ask them regarding the research, submit your question below in this thread specifically, and they'll answer as many as they can. They're extremely informed. Very nice of them to do, so a big thank you to them! Ask away here ⬇️
Looking forward to answering any questions!
@@datadrivenstrength Hey! I'm a little skeptical of the logic that the reps with the maximum rate of force production are also the reps with the greatest stimulus for strength. It makes sense that, under the context of force production, those reps most closely mimic sport specific performance for a powerlifter, but to me all that means is that they are better practice for competing in powerlifting, not necessarily the biggest drivers of physical improvement. (I do understand that there is a large element of strength based on muscle fiber recruitment and the nervous system operating at as high a level as possible, both of which would logically be increased by practice. But if lifting can be divided solely into practice and muscle size, wouldn't that mean the ideal training program is just singles and hypertrophy work?)
On the other hand, the evidence in some of the studies you cited does seem to clearly correlate sets close to failure to lower strength gains. And as stated in the video, there does seem to be a lot of elite level lifters that do train more like this. So it's not that I think you're wrong, I'm just not sold on the reasoning.
who are the subjects of the study? is it completely random (e.g. more likely beginners) or is it meant to represent a range of fitness level?
The advantage of the high production of force and staying further away from failure only enhances the strength gains right? Hypertrophy doesn’t get the same benefit?
@@Tim_flips
First and foremost this is a very well formulated question and we can appreciate the skepticism! I think this really depends on the timeframe we’re discussing. The ideas we present here we think are relevant particularly in the short to moderate term. Training farther from failure and consequently with higher force production is “good practice” but there are also physiological adaptations (morphological, neurological, etc.) associated with that potentially “driving” strength as you mention. So in a sense I think “practice” may be unfairly devalued here. However, I do agree from a birds eye view that skill and muscle size will ultimately make up someone’s strength ceiling. One thing we didn’t get a chance to touch on here was how you can organize low RPE sets to still provide a stimulus for muscle growth. Briefly, if you’re training with >75% of 1RM we’re pretty confident every rep is “effective” for growth even when performed far from failure. This presents a way to provide really specific practice, stimulate muscle growth, and do it in a way that minimizes fatigue. This both optimizes performance on the sets that are likely providing the greatest strength stimulus in the short term (top sets) and avoids some detrimental neuromuscular adaptations associated with training close to failure. Hopefully that adds some context! Thank you!
The more I learn about exercise science... the less it seems I know
My attention span not letting me process this right now lol
All I know, is I know nothing.
-Socrates
The more I'm confused. KISS
This (RPE) isn’t exercise science. Science has been absent among the exercise intellectuals since the 80’s.
This is a guy putting things to the test for himself to see what works, which we should all
do. Exercise science is a book learning program, not a gym learning program.
paralysis by analysis
Tfw training easier is harder than training hard.
Bro this la fucking true i can't even deload with half weight and reps. it's like take just 1 beer a friday night with Friends
I just laughed for 10 minutes at this comment lmfao I don’t know why it’s hilarious to me
Honestly, I love the endorphin rush from lifting heavy. Lifting isn't nearly fun without it.
"Whereas a LOT of intermediates slam into a wall of multi-set RPE 8 volume."
I feel personally attacked.
That was me doing the Candito 6-week program lol
@@MrSocialish Same LMAOOO. Every set felt like a grind.
@@MrSocialish HAHAHAHA AGREED. After the first AMRAP set I wanted to die.
"Whereas a LOT of intermediates slam into a wall of multi-set RPE 10 volume and epic grind where they burn themselves out."
Fixed it for you :p
I still live by this. It's the fastest way to snap city, just take a right at spinal flexion past ACL tear highway, a block away from liftbigtogetbig.
It's a good day when candito the burrito uploads
Lmao I thought this said cardio burrito
But he’s not eating a 🌯
Yes, a nice Monday
I train by the Spetsnaz pain endurance philosophy. I squat, bench, and deadlift at maximum RPE and maximum volume everyday regardless of joint pain or injuries. Im a quadriplegic.
This is the only true training
Surprised ur not signed by animal pak
The more experienced I become in lifting the more that training easier is true. You can make excellent progress without killing yourself abs being more strategic
I feel like targeted focus of hard training, with the majority in the easy range is the play. If you stay in that redline you're going to get injured.
You’ll end up with less injuries to deal with also which means more time actually training and less destroying your body
Absolutely...I do now high rep deadlifts...I kinda more stop because of endurance, more than actual fatigue...with 50% body w8...and its killing the hamstrings...without killing the central nervous system...I rmbr doby is scared, and doesnt wanna do hard close to limit work...but super happy that way...
Ahhhh sub maximal training 🧐
Great vid JC
Very much know for every Powerlifter, but most do it as 5 sets of 2 or 3 and stuff like that I think. When people think of six sets they think of rpe 7 for the most part
@@moshy2291 You actually out here lecturing my boy, silencio Mike on sub maximal training??
Oh well, your heart is in the right place.
@@Seb4asti4n oh just noticed he's the facility manager dude from the bigger stronger faster documentary yeah he probably knows his way around weights
Can we get some more likes for silent mike?? What’s going on here. Show a little respect.
@@kazemian C'Mon, I wasn't being serious.. Absolutely got nothing but respect for all of them
I'm going to use an empty barbell and leave a couple hundred reps in the tank. Should get max gains
Just dont ever squat again and you'll set a new WR
@@rolandverde8771 hahaha
Almost a year later and this still makes me laugh
Johnny: Train EASIER than last time!
Coach Greg in the background: *NANI??*
Train harder than last time! REEEEEEEEEE! /Iago
"Train about the same relatively easy difficulty as last time, except hopefully with a little bit more weight." Damn, that's catchy.
I don't like Greg's advice on powerlifting. Too simplistic and it's clearly a suboptimal way to train. There are far better ways to train, even if you're a beginner.
@M B This. Maybe some intermediates, but for a very limited time.
@M B 5 words but still a need for a edit 🤭🙄 I can tell you are black. 🤣🤣😏
Totally agree! I am an intermediate level lifter and was burying myself being stuck in that same weight mindset. I started adjusting the weight to how it felt and doing the subsequent work light enough to keep feeling like the rpe level I was supposed to be at. Bench and squat blew up.
Blew up?! Omgawd r u ok??
Hey so did you just decrease your weight reps and increase the sets?
Im having trouble because my numbers are the exact same from a month ago and I can’t push it pass im fairly new to lifting about my 2nd year of training
What were you numbers before and after
greg doucette: train harder than last time
chongie bandito: train easier than last time
Candito is right tho. You don’t go 100% every time
Greg talks about muscle gain candito talks about strength gain two different goals
@@insane020 not really how that works, they are just 2 different methodologies
@@insane020 strength focused training causes greater muscle gain when in a caloric surplus. Hypertrophy focused training is loosely related to strength gains no matter the calories.
@@insane020 Also, Greg is enhanced by steroids, which absolutely helps his ability to recover.
You should check out his beginner programs. Full body 3 days per week with heavy/hard high rep deadlift and heavy/hard high rep squats every session. Honestly, it's the dumbest shit I've ever seen.
Dare u to drop the 7 week program
the guy squatting at 10 minutes turning the bar into complete jello is super satisfying
the dude in the back mirin is also great
Thumbnail time has me crying. I appreciate your dedication to this.
Louie Simmons smirking in dynamic effort day
17:09 That note hit hard. This might prove to be one of Jonnie’s most impactful videos. Thanks for all the awesome content!
@Barbell Medicine had a concept during one of their podcasts discussing programming variables such as lowering backdown volume sets to around 65-70% which could impart more stress with less fatigue. Sort of lines up with the idea that lower RPE volume work can be effective. It’s been fantastic for me. Awesome video legend!
I wonder where Jordan got this idea 🤔💡yup. The dds boys and Hanley
@@maxxfury13 who are the they mate not herd of them
@@danielmoore1145 late reply sorry... The barbell medicine crew got this idea and info from the 2 guys in this video. (Zach & josh from dds/data driven strength)
@@maxxfury13 oh right niceone thanks for getting back to me 👍
@@maxxfury13 Hanley was the first guy I ever saw doing it tbh. The man deserves way more credit for this stuff
Well this went far over my head. I'll be back after a nights sleep.
I’m lowkey confused but I also get it
english is not my first language so i had to rewind some parts of the video, but i get it 100% after that
Thanks for what you do for the community. Have a good one Candito!
Train to get stronger... or train to make the depressive thoughts and feelings go away...
2nd please
1st is why we started, 2nd is what kept us going ✊
5:16 This reminds me of when Chad Wesley Smith talked to Mike T on Jugg Life about doing 8 sets of 3 one day with 515 which is like his 20 rep max, so that's RPE _negative 7_ Kind of mind boggling at first to think that can still be used for "training."
What is your opinion on this?
So basically dynamic effort.
@@mattjackson2799 I think the context was markedly different from dynamic effort as used in westside, which the JTS channel has criticized extensively
Really well articulated. I'm on my last week of a block with couple lighter weeks coming up, but I'll have to incorporate these ideas in the next block.
Was stuck at around 330 lbs in the squat for over two years, yet I was always the «hardest working» person in the gym grinding out reps. I obviously did not know much about programming but damn my RPE 10 sets would have made even David Goggins proud.
I’ve been stuck on an annoying plateau as well. I been keep grinding out reps hoping to get stronger. Essentially working with 2-3 RIR is best for strength gains?
@@drekfeast when your stuck on a plateau try more volume, also go for heavier weight
I really like the data driven portion of this. I have always felt that strength response was kind of a moving target - some lower RPE efforts lead to gains and training to high RPE (approaching failure) also generate gains, but I am never clear on how this works or when. This was a bit of an eye opener for me. I appreciate it very much, John and crew!
The Datadrivenstrength is revolutionary in both content and coaching. - Happy client
Oh yeah, well I'll have you now I can preacher curl 135 lb on Hammer strength machine at my local gymnasium to rpe 10 with high fatigue.
Yea but USE SOME GODDAMN LEG DRIVE MAN
I saw an MMA fighter talking about training at 70% of their max effort 5-6 times a week rather than going 100% then needing 2 days to recover. By training volume at a lower intensity you can do 420% a week of effort as opposed to 300%. surely bring huge gains in the long term and less stress on the body. I'm always reminded of farmer strength
Isn’t that how Russians train? Like in wrestling, they train more often at lower intensity.
I buy this approach much more than the high intensity with lower frequency for strength
Does it mean that I should train at 75% or 60% 1RM for 3 to 5 reps as many sets as possible?
@@s9209122222 Essentially it argues for a lower intensity but more frequent training. Doing a really long training session at lower RPM could still be as intense as a really heavy short session. In reality you still want to train at high intensity but infrequently. Maybe training at 60-70% for 80-90% of your training then 80-90% for 10-20% of your training. Most competitive atheletes only hit 100% effort a couple times a year. It's too hard on the body otherwise.
@@kingofchickens123 Is 75% too high for the lower intensity training? How often do you usually train at 80-90% intensity? I always train at 80-90% intensity, and I stuck.
Louie Simmons: "You could not live with your high RPE sets for power development. Where did that bring you? Back to me."
Omg 💀😂 but also, you’re right
😂😂😂😂😂
18:31
Thanos quote?
Thanks Candy Toe! My main takeaways are that in strength work is best done with progressively heavier weight, low reps, and little effort (low RPE). Save the high RPE work for bodybuilding and hypertrophy.
Cookie cutter programs like 5/3/1 just won't cut it because they really don't factor stuff like this. I'm planning on getting to true strength work in the hopes that I'll really smash some plateaus!
Alpha Destiny has left the lobby
Athlean x: Why training easier is killin ya gainz
Athlean X: training is killing your gains
Athlean x: why deadlifting with real plates is killing your gains
@@tannerbrittenham4038 Athlean X: Why Coach Greg is killing your gains
@@justjay8165 while creating this thread, jeff gained 2 inches of lean bizep mass
@@phil3813 By carrying a bunch of fake weights
Thanks! I did this for years without having words to describe it.
The study looks into only one aspect which is is improving strength over the short term. While staying away from failure may be optimal for short term strength gain by maximizing intensity to volume ration, which theoretically checks out, hypertrophy gains that contribute to the long term strength goals are overlooked by the studies.
Fantastic vid mate.
I'm already excited for Coach greggs angry answer to this
If coach Greg did every set to RPE 9, he wouldn't be able to yell as much!
i don't think he means powerlifting specific training with his philosophy, more like bodybuilding
@@CrapefruitEdits no... He literally tells people to do 1-2 rpe 10 sets when training for powerlifting
I think its important to state what RPE10 is for some people. One could define it as having nothing else to give, dying the way up and barely completing the rep.
But usually it is deemed that RPE 10 should be a technical breakdown point meaning you do not have any more controlled reps in you.
You might get one or two fugly reps, but that not the point of training.
Wow. Thanks for posting this! I was looking for information on this exact topic this week and was having trouble finding anything on it
The only problem with this approach that I personally have is the inability to accurately judge RPEs bellow 9.
I pick an RPE 7 top single from one of my training blocks roughly every 3 to 6 months and then I AMRAP that weight to see if I'm judging my RPE correctly.
I don't know if this is advised by a trainer or not, but I find it helps me to determine if I am judging my RPE correctly.
it's also a good opportunity for a bit of a training reset as I will normally deload the week after and drop both the AMRAP and deload weeks to 3 days of training instead of 5
You could base your estimated 1rm based on the rep work at rpe 9.. then use percentages/ rpe calculator to somewhat give you a loading range to work in
So true, I do not know how to estimate any Rpe lower than 9
Videos going to be a banger!! Checking it out right now man!
This is great information. It’s something I’ve intuitively known to be true for a while, but have never conceptualised it so clearly
Honestly, I run a percentage based 5/3/1, and always short myself 2-3 reps on the as many as possible last set. Grinding and running too high an RPE makes me progress slower, and just puts me at risk to injury. I progress way faster by not grinding. I prefer to focus on a lower RPE gauge and do things that increase difficulty with that lower RPE, like pause squats, longer times under tension, shorter rest times, etc.
Johnny got the strongest eyebrows for sure.
Crazy you just uploaded a video on RPE. I'm really getting into it and downloaded a great chart tonight.
This is what coach Ray preaches to me.
I gotta be honest I don’t think I could distinguish rpe 6 from 4 or 5. That is why I use linear progression with block periodization wile paying attention to rpe until I can get enough experience to where I could tell exactly how much I have left. I feel that rpe is the single greatest thing a lifter could master. I have had many days where I have worked 12 hour shifts and the weight feels like it’s going to kill me but then I don’t miss a single rep.
I was an intermediate lifter before taking a 4 year break from lifting, I was killing myself in the gym and now when I got back to it, I'm making way faster, consistent gains while training easier and never going anywhere near failure on main compound lifts. Wish I had this knowledge when I started the grind.
We all learn, man
Of course it's easier to regain where you were as you went backwards
Fantastic video, and great both anecdotal and scientific evidence for not beating yourself up. You also managed to subtly outline all the problems with RPE (perceptual measure and people lie, especially themselves).
So to put some numbers for a hypothetpical intermediate lifter:
A basic program might call for deadlifts at 3x8 @rpe8 which equates to about 74% according most RPE tables. Our lifter’s max is 450 lbs. so the basic program would have the lifter do 3x8 w/ about 335lbs. However this suggests that it would be more beneficial to do 6x4 at ~335lbs (which should be about RPE 4). And maybe doing the top set at a true 4 reps at RPE8 which is ~84%=~380 before backing off to sets of 335.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, please! Personally this *sounds* really good and that the science backs it up. I’d love to implement this into my training
I am an intermediate lifter. Recently I have switched to a more bodybuilding oriented style from powerlifting (My 1st meso starts with 85% of my 10 rep) and that first week is an RPE 7 with no rep goal in mind with weight jumps and volume increases to keep the RPE relatively consistent until the last few wekks of the block where it jumps to 8 and 9. This has worked pretty well for me. for example i did incline db for 3 x RPE 7 and my reps were 12, 10, and 9. next push day i add a set. Even if im fried in thhe fourth set next week and i get like 6 i still accumulate a pretty decent amount of volume over time by using this. This isnt really on topic with the video but i already typed this out lmao
What up candito!
You make great videos Jonnie. Keep it up
What a good video. Educational, informative, applicable, just excellent!
Absolutely quality Johnny
When I hit my best numbers, I used percentages, now I'm back and a bit out of shape, and I know my old 100% is useless now. An RPE cap and easier singles look like a good option for me. Thanks!
Good stuff. Turns out I have been applying this concept to my training already. Now I finally understand how and why it works. Thanks!
This is the content the powerlifting world needs right now. Amazing work, Jonnie boy.
It seems that the data driven science guys were talking about force production, not hypertrophy. What I got was that the earlier reps in a set allow for more force production, as the set goes on fatigue from each rep increases disproportionately resulting In less force production. Thus by the rule of specificity the reps towards the end of the set are worse for increasing 1rpm because they are less specific to force production. I.e for the sake of increasing force production it may be more beneficial to do the same weight for less reps but the at same amount of volume. Thus you will skip out on the less efficient reps towards the end of the set.
However, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with hyoertrophy. Evidence suggests that hypertrophy and strength are typically closely related (i.e athletes with more muscle tend to be stronger). To my understanding what is most important for a hypertrophic stimulus is as much volume as possible at an appropriate intensity as to not jeopardize the rest of your workouts during the week (fatigue management). It's generally easier to get more volume in with higher repetition sets that may be less efficient for force production. It makes me wonder where that balance is.
It seems to suggest to me that = volume at lower repetitions will result in the same hypertrophic stimulus (based on how I understand hypertrophy) and a greater force production stimulus. However, accumulating a lot of volume with lower repetitions may be difficult. I think this is why barbell medicine programs tend to switch between higher repititions and lower repetitions in different cycles. To sort of achieve the best of both worlds.
This is crazy. Less fatiguing volume work implies more force production. We still want the weight relative to 1rpm to be sufficient enough to drive hypertrophic stimulus. This to my understanding is any weight greater than 65%~. That is from the BBM programming podcast.
So a prescription might be for a given slot 1@8, 20% off the bar for 5x5. This is brilliant. A 1@8 is estimated to be about 92%. By taking 20% off the bar it's puts the 5x5 at 72%, a weight sufficient for hypertrophic stimulus as well as force production. What may be helpful is an rpe cap for those sets just in case. So that the latter sets are still optimal for force production. The idea may be that as long as you didn't overshoot your 1@8, force production should be consistent throughout those sets. I think an RPE cap would fit in well here. I'm not sure what an appropriate one would be for this. I think the back off work is supposed to be around 6.
Higher weight = More force production. Probably want the weight to be at a manageable fatigue that is also optimal for driving hypertrophy. Thus higher weight lower reps is better for force production. Higher weight = more intense = you can handle less volume. Higher weight = more specific to 1rm, less useful for hypertrophy. How do we balance this?
You've nailed it. It's confusing to talk about force production and ignore hypertrophy given that we need both. For hypertrophy the sets need to be near failure, but we've just discussed that that's not what we want for force production. Great a conundrum, how do we solve it? I guess it's a practical solution, use the main lifts in a force production training style, then do your accessories with high RPE in a hypertrophy rep range.
This is actually so true, I was doing 4 sets to failure on bench and my bench didn’t go up at all after 2 months... hopped on this mans 6 week program and my max shot up 25 pounds first cycle
I think every lifter knows to never lift to failure
@@American_Moscovite except for bicep and tricep isolation exercises
@@Mac-hv8zu possibly. They are small muscle groups that give minimal general fatique and can be okay in moderation. Elite lifters do consider RPEs in accessory work
"80% for a set of 8 RPE 7.5".. Googles RTS RPE Chart: 8 @ 10 = 79%
Great video, and very insightful! This sounds like pretty standard training for high load power (higher force/lower velocity) development though with maybe more sets than normal to accumulate greater volume. It's just swapping percentages for RPE.
I'm not sure if you've read the Periodization textbook by Tudor Bompa and Carlo Buzzichelli, but it delineates some of what is being discussed here in a percentage based format. The five rep difference when working at an RPE of 5 with 10RM loads is what they would call a buffer. In percentage based terms, doing 3 reps at 80% of 1RM would be a 10% buffer because 90% of 1RM would equate to about a 3RM load (obviously with significant inter-lifter variation). 5-10% buffers for strength development, 10-20% for high load power (what is basically being discussed here), and 20-40% buffer for low load power development (high velocity movements similar to conjugate programming). So doing sets of 3 at 80% of 1RM or a 10% buffer (~5RPE) and accumulating volume is just training high load power with possibly greater sets than normally used to hit the volume target. It's a good tactic for strength development as high load power and strength have significant overlap.
Gotta he honest everything candito tries to explain comes out long-winded and tangential, while I immediately understood the takeaways from the DDS section.
15:33 for key insight
Thanks Johnny. This is probably the biggest flaw with rpe as we know it, and why I tend to use percentages.
Great video Johnny
This is interesting that you posted this as I'm currently restructuring my training with force production being the main focus.
I started this week off hitting heavily fatigued (accumulated from previous weeks training at 85-95%) singles and then backing off to 80% of said single and pressing with as much force as possible, for eg bench hit 186kg with back off sets of 148•8kg for 10x3reps and I felt like I had more in the tank even though volume and intensity were both higher than the previous week doing 5x5 at 80% of projected max, I feel much better and the rest of the week will be working on speed/velocity work at very low %.. I'm clearly a newb with programming but judging by how I feel at the moment whilst simultaneously switching from night shift last week to day shift this week (which usually makes me feel worse) it's going to be a productive few weeks, hopefully..
RPE 1 guys to get strong AF!!!!!
Chloe Ting was right after all
The way I like to calculate my sets is based on how many reps I need at a given weight to match estimated 1RM. For example, if I bench 315 1RM and my workout that day is like this, my set calculation would be as follows:
Warmup: 225 * 6. 225 AMRAP ~ 12. This is 6/12 of a set.
Set 1: 275 * 6. 275 AMRAP ~ 6. This is 6/6 of a set.
Set 2: 275 * 3. 3/6 of a set.
This day I did 2 sets to failure then if I add all those fractions up.
Very interesting. Just 3 weeks ago I started doing 10 sets of 5 for both deadlifts and squats to accumulate more volume than I’ve ever done, keeping the weights lower than ever. I’m pretty fried after doing the 10th set but the speed of the reps appear to be fast and keep the same velocity throughout all the sets. I’ll be doing the same thing for bench press going forward.
on the same day?
It's two years ago man I can't even remember doing this at all, now I just train hypertrophy to catch up on my arms cause I got spider physique from powerlifting focus. Stick arms with huge legs and huge upper body. Don't fall into that trap. TRAIN YOUR ARMS.@@nonduality1
Taylor Atwood's example leads me to think that absolute weight will probably have a bigger impact if it's high enough, even at low/very low RPE's. Most lifters at his strength level seem very careful with their training weights. I remember Mikhai Koklaev when he was a 900+ puller and said he normally did 5 sets of 5 with 660 and used 730-ish once a month -- it's great to see Taylor Atwood doing a meat-and-potatoes session on UA-cam -- usually they only show their most dramatic sessions!
Drop the 7 Week eyebrow prince
also check ur email
Anything below an RPE 7 is SUPER difficult to judge. I will always prefer percentages. I just don't like the variability with RPE. I want to walk in the gym with a plan. In and out. I'm not there to waste time calculating RPE for working sets on the fly.
Having a plan B is still helpful. That’s where the RPE cap is useful.
Just go until it stops being somewhat easy
I trained with 100 percent RPE training for a period and made decent progress, but the backoff weight selection was so difficult for me. I tried hitting true "RPE X" for those backoff sets instead of undershooting as many do, and probably did more work than the person who wrote it intended me to do.
For the last 6 months I've been on different programming that is mostly RPE top sets and then a percentage of the top set weight for backoffs. I've made much more progress with this style of programming. The mix of self regulation/skill in selecting top set weights and the objectivity of the backoff set loads is a good balance. And yes, most of the backoff work ends up being RPE 6 or lower
I have an interesting counterpoint: I lift twice a week, and only do 12-15 total sets per workout. I skip all the extra volume and lift heavy (8-3 reps) for at least half of the sets. All of my strengh levels are going up just like they used to with all the extra volume. What I have keyed into is how to do less damage to the muscle, but still create the adaptation. So strength can be gained by reducing total volume, but being very specific and targeted about those specific lifts. Adding an extra rep every 3-4 weeks is much easier when your total system is not being taxed as hard. So there is something big to consider with the total amount of work you are doing. Some people think the work has to continually go up to make gains. But it's more of a local effect: if I can cause the muscle to work harder in the lift, then I don't need to do as much work over all to get the same growth.
I'm gonna have to watch this a couple timea
Wow, high sets low easy reps always helped me gain the most strength but i thought it may have been from other factors cause it ran contrary to what i knew at the time…
3x10x75% < 10x3x75% basically
Will grow the same mass of muscle, but will increase Strength due to preforming the sets better. And in the longrun u Will increase a little bit more muscle due to lifting heavier weights(more volume) and a lot more Strength.
I will start doing this on the compound lifts from now on
Thx candito
okay this makes more sense
The only problem I see with this training method. 3x10 takes like 10 minutes to complete (2-3min rest).
10x3 takes 30+ minutes.
Gotta find that sweet spot or else you’ll be in the gym 2hrs every day
@@someoneelse4740 true
ehhh more like 3x10 at 55-60%
Seans squat looks horrendous lol.
Honestly, all his lifts look pretty atrocious but he is doing the ‘powerlifting’ lifts where he is trying to lower range of motion and maximise leverages
Was going to comment this, but I'll give this post a thumbs up instead.
@@a.julian3770 Right back atcha.
This seems to align well for both squat and deadlift, in my experience. Trained all three lifts with light weights, higher reps for around 2 months. Could max my deadlift at a meet, and even though I didn't max my squat I'm sure I could have, given how smooth my current 1rm felt. Didn't really do much for my bench, I think. Did misgroove my last attempt, tho, so who knows.
babe wake up. new candito vid
An "RPE Cap" is a great idea.
There's no point in moving up in weight until you've actually mastered the weight.
wait so you only move up in weight once a weight like 225 for example gets to easy?
@@christofu1359 No. It means waiting until you can move the weight competently for the prescribed rep/set scheme you're using before increasing the weight.
@@blackphoenix8932 so if i did 185 for bench for 5 reps and my rpe was like an 8 i shouldnt increase the weight if i wanted to hit 5 reps again? what rpe should 185 for 5 be before i add weight do you think?
OK DDS YOU GET THAT CANDITO FEATURE
Love the thumbnail time.
I think training 'easier' is great when you're more advanced, but the problem is that I'm seeing so many relative beginners in powerlifting introducing loads of rpe 6 or lower sets into their training when they're not at a level yet where fatigue management is becoming a real issue. Fair enough doing them here and there, but surely it's not optimal to do them consistently if you're still quite new to powerlifting? Feel like a lot of lifters just use RPE cos their favourite powerlifters use it, without actually understanding why
If something works for an advanced lifter why wouldn't it work for a beginner? I think it's better to think and start working on fatigue management before it becomes a problem.
Actually its even better for beginners since they don't need as much stimulus, their recovery is slower and their risk of injury is greater.
Go easy but go harder than last time
Thanks for this man.
Atwood’s deadlift is literally perfect
I personally find it depends on the lift. RPE 8 seems to be mostly repeatable for me on bench press, where as on squat and especially deadlift it's not at all. A lot of it could be psychological, where I just don't have the mental resilience to do multiple true RPE 8 sets on the deadlift. For deadlifts I'll usually have a higher weight first set at a real RPE 8, then bring it down around 7.5% for my remaining sets. It depends what kind of technique breakdown you're willing to allow as well, if I'm willing to let my back round to hell I could easily consider those subsequent "RPE 8" sets to be RPE 5. RPE 10 for training volume means RPE 10 with reasonable form, RPE 10 on a 1rm comp deadlift is a lot different.
I’m the same way with bench. I can bench heavy for a lot more sets than I can with squat/deadlift. Keep in mind squat/deadlift are going to stress your CNS more than a bench press will
Yes because bench is a lot less fatiguing than squat/deadlift.Thats why you can get away with training at higher rpe on bench more often than squat/dl.
Doesn't the result of the meta analysis state that whether we do a 3x10 at rpe 10 or 6x5 at rpe 5, the strength and hypertrophy gains will be the same. Which I get means less fatigue should we do the submaximal approach, but wouldn't it also mean that the traditional idea of volume (sets*reps*weight) is most important?
in a given cycle they might be the same, but what about over 10 cycles? how is progression going to go? overloading the small rpe is going to be MUCH more maintainable, whereas the high rpe will just make you hit a wall
easier than last time baby
Where is your 7 week program jonieeee??!!!!
Wish I would’ve seen this before my shoulder injury
😢
The thing about RPE that confuses me is how pretty much everything affects how I feel the set. Poor warm up, bad sleep, extra activity, poorly timed meals. Is it reasonable to adjust the training based on those very temporary, even acute factors when you have a target goal for the programming? Like most of those if experienced on Friday won't affect Monday's session, but the stimulus on Friday if not turned down will still play into the progression. I was thinking if it's different for someone who still has plenty of progress to be made and someone who's pushing his smaller peaks at more of a peak of his career, but then again wouldn't the acute performance effect still dissipate? I assume the programming has been done with great experience and experience on the lifter as an individual so it shouldn't surprise with performance dip that's not acute but dissipating. Very mysterious topic to me.
My guess about the RIR was maybe around 3 because his lifting started to slow down. I can see why it could turn out like that. Like warmup sets feel really shitty at times and when you hit the top single and go for work sets, suddenly they flow like butter. Perhaps his nervous system kicked in, tough to guess without knowing the whole story. Which is why RPE confuses me, potentially he could've done more than 3 reps if that was the programming. Or not do the 6 reps if that was the programming. To my understanding the Russians created a pretty robust theory for strength training where it wouldn't hurt to not push as much as you can based on your feeling and still progress in a planned way. Personally, if I didn't connect RPE to RIR, I would have no clue what's RPE below 9. I wouldn't be able to say that this feels middle point to max effort. And similar experience with RIR in terms of more than 3. I had a powerlifting program with single at RIR 5. I resorted to looking up what's 6 reps at training load chart for % of 1 RM. There's no chance I could do a single and call out "yup, still 5 in the tank". Decided to just go for +2,5 kg increases from there.
You still make a reasonable point, you don't necessarily need to push that hard, I believe there's plenty of evidence that you can also stay in certain range for a bit and still build strength, not necessarily having to move up every time. There's even been a lot of talk how progressive overload is potentially more of a consequence of progress and necessary adjustment rather than what facilitates progress.
I was just about to say hol up my man, whats with the speed work from westside then but my boy instantly spit some fax about that too. Is he getting into my head?
If I do a set of 8 with zero reps in reserve, the next set with the same weight will be 5 reps at max even after 10 minutes of rest. You can't do 3 by 8 with the same weight and say your intensity is high. Unless you are a crossfitter and have really good muscle endurance.
If you put all of this info in a program/workout guide I will give you my soul
I’ve been seen. Three sets of triples today at 80% Lowbar. Was going to do 4 sets but was fried. Dropped 10% off the 1RM, so 70% of 1RM and squatted 2x5 as a back off.
Late to the discussion but... if one tallies volume by "hard/work" sets (what Greg Nuckols has recommended in the past), then I believe there's a problem with RPE, specifically, 10@14RM is not the same as 1@5RM even though both have 4 RIR. The former is a set taken to ~71% potential and the latter is a set taken to 20% of potential. Therefore, in terms of volume, if 3x10@14RM is the benchmark and instead you do singles @5RM, then the equivalent number of sets would be 10-11.
I could be wrong, but you could test it. Just do sets of 10@14RM with something like 2 min. breaks until you tap out with 9 reps rather than 10. Some other day, do sets of 1@5RM until you can't get a rep. My guess is that you'll get somewhere in the ballpark of 3.5x more sets with singles than with sets of 10 (with conditioning and the ability to grind out reps as moderating factors).
Submax training, most of us has been on that program UNINTENTIONALLY.
candito is literally the goat
I think Greg Nuckols strength program (Stronger by Science) is programmed with a lot of lower RPE work.
I don’t enjoy or find benefit in trying to systematize or quantify on paper something as subjective as effort in the form of RPE or RIR or whatever. I just try to understand the general principles driving physiological adaptation to lifting and follow my intuition. That and I keep a detailed training log and describe in whole sentences how the session or set felt. I’ve made progress this way for 10 or so years, but still a very interesting video love the content. I’m not a power lifter though and I do just as much endurance and speed training