# The cube



## Frenchie

Hello,

I was recommend to do the cube because I am not really progressing anymore with my bodybuilding programs (OVT at the moment).
I see you have a section on it but only found very little info except some people saying they have a mysterious pdf ^^
So after some research I ended up on this book (i guess that's the pdf people ask in PM) : thebuddyjrises.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/thecubemethod.pdf
I thought it would be useful to people like me who are lost with a "you should try the cube" and a section with very specific questions 

I went through it quickly, I will have a deeper look this we and start the program next monday !
Looking forward to my first PL program


----------



## IHI

I just began the cube monday, mother****er is all I will say about that. Showed my pissed poor cardio/endurance real fast.

Awesome so far, love feeling like I got my ass kicked.


----------



## Frenchie

I'll print that book at the office and read it carefully 
good luck !


----------



## IHI

Been training going on 4yrs, have ran a few different programs and have put on size, but size to strength ratio, as been the case even when I was younger, is pathetic. So I really dug in reading about the cube method, that lead me to really dig into west side principals, and then seems with everything I read, many guys recommended running cube method first before diving into the wsbb program since it's more/less the Jr high version and a great prep for the real deal.

This a.m. was day 6, the build your own wo on top of the preprogrammed stuff. Wasn't nearly as taxing as prior lower body stuff, but I really need help on lower half. Injury and bad joints have made me shy away from focusing on hitting lower body too much because it stays with me popping vicatin just to be able to walk, but am committed to giving it a hard shot since I believe that is what's really holding up good upper body progress because my base is patheticly weak.

It's awesome, leaves me feeling beat up, and I love that feeling lol.


----------



## ECKSRATED

The cube is a peaking program. I wouldn't suggest running it over and over. I would run it to test my maxes at the end and that's it. I've ran it a few times and liked it but like I said I wouldnt keep running it after I tested maxes.

I don't know what version u have because there are so many out there but I like how the competition lift percentages are thru out the week for the three and how they change. One thing I don't like is the accessory movement percentages. Some could be higher and some are too much IMO. But run it and test your maxes and go from there. It's fun


----------



## NbleSavage

x2, what Ecks said (Cube = Peaking)

For everyday grind, I'm a fan of Wendler's 5-3-1 or Westside.


----------



## ToolSteel

% training is ghey


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> % training is ghey



Training based on "feelings" should come with a box of tampons and Hershey's extra dark.


----------



## SuperBane

ToolSteel said:


> % training is ghey



What makes it ghey and why do you have a picture of pinkbear as your avatar?
I like the cube just like I liked 5x5. I like %
I didn't like 5/3/1 at all.
But what do I know? My maxes aren't like your guys


----------



## ToolSteel

SuperBane said:


> What makes it ghey and why do you have a picture of pinkbear as your avatar?
> I like the cube just like I liked 5x5. I like %
> I didn't like 5/3/1 at all.
> But what do I know? My maxes aren't like your guys


What makes it ghey is that it's not optimal. You never go into the gym in exactly the same condition every time. How well you ate, how well you slept, life stress, recovery from previous workouts, it all plays into what your actual training max would be for that lift on that day. So training based on a set 1rm, some days you will overshoot and some days you'll have some left in the tank. 
Rpe training puts you at the best workout you can do on that day, every time. 

THAT SAID:
Rpe does take a while to get the hang of. And the hardest part of it is being honest with yourself.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> What makes it ghey is that it's not optimal. You never go into the gym in exactly the same condition every time. How well you ate, how well you slept, life stress, recovery from previous workouts, it all plays into what your actual training max would be for that lift on that day. So training based on a set 1rm, some days you will overshoot and some days you'll have some left in the tank.
> Rpe training puts you at the best workout you can do on that day, every time.
> 
> THAT SAID:
> Rpe does take a while to get the hang of. And the hardest part of it is being honest with yourself.



Regardless of the criticisms against its use, percent training has put out more world champions and a much longer history of success than the RPE scale. Don't get me wrong, I like both and have done both, but just as RPE training lets you take advantage of good days, the % training method pushes you on bad days. Both have benefits and trade offs.


----------



## Joliver

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Regardless of the criticisms against its use, percent training has put out more world champions and a much longer history of success than the RPE scale. Don't get me wrong, I like both and have done both, but just as RPE training lets you take advantage of good days, the % training method pushes you on bad days. Both have benefits and trade offs.



The best part of percentage training is that it ultimately builds a lifter that understands his limitations by a measurable amount.  

RPE training allows for good days and bad, but there has to be something said about the Bulgarians that go to max percentages every day...some times multiple times per day--very successfully. This in itself demonstrates that lifting maximally is not in psychological preparedness and capability, but in physical capacity in highly trained athletes. 

Percentage training produces light-switch lifters that turn it on and off because they train to live and die by a chart--demonstrative maximum strength on demand. I've never done RPE training, so I can't speak to its efficacy, but it seems to favor a lifter's mental variability. That may be good for newer lifters on the whole.

Now, I know I am going to get destroyed for this, but here goes: the whole world is full of lifters that don't want to walk into a rack and single a max by percentage of some high water mark. It's mentally tough to attempt to max every week. But that's kind of the idea.  

I've said myself that I believe the future of PLing is in RPE. But truthfully that is because competitive lifting has gotten popular and more people are doing it. % training could never hope to be as popular as RPE training. It's too damn taxing. So anything that gets a lifter to follow a program is great. All the better that RPE training is a solid program.

That said, I've been injured....a lot. Take my advice at your own risk. Nothing about singles at or above 100 is safe.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

Joliver said:


> The best part of percentage training is that it ultimately builds a lifter that understands his limitations by a measurable amount.
> 
> RPE training allows for good days and bad, but there has to be something said about the Bulgarians that go to max percentages every day...some times multiple times per day--very successfully. This in itself demonstrates that lifting maximally is not in psychological preparedness and capability, but in physical capacity in highly trained athletes.
> 
> Percentage training produces light-switch lifters that turn it on and off because they train to live and die by a chart--demonstrative maximum strength on demand. I've never done RPE training, so I can't speak to its efficacy, but it seems to favor a lifter's mental variability. That may be good for newer lifters on the whole.
> 
> Now, I know I am going to get destroyed for this, but here goes: the whole world is full of lifters that don't want to walk into a rack and single a max by percentage of some high water mark. It's mentally tough to attempt to max every week. But that's kind of the idea.
> 
> I've said myself that I believe the future of PLing is in RPE. But truthfully that is because competitive lifting has gotten popular and more people are doing it. % training could never hope to be as popular as RPE training. It's too damn taxing. So anything that gets a lifter to follow a program is great. All the better that RPE training is a solid program.
> 
> That said, I've been injured....a lot. Take my advice at your own risk. Nothing about singles at or above 100 is safe.



RPE can be translated into percent training anyway. 

If you're against % training you're against Prilepin and if you're against Prilepin then Joliver will ride his 3 wheel lawn mower with canopy attachment to your house and e-kick your ass using your own damned wifi


----------



## Joliver

DocDePanda187123 said:


> RPE can be translated into percent training anyway.
> 
> If you're against % training you're against Prilepin and if you're against Prilepin then Joliver will ride his 3 wheel lawn mower with canopy attachment to your house and e-kick your ass using your own damned wifi


----------



## Seeker

What's so wrong with just lifting heavy shit up and putting it down? Words of Bigworm.


----------



## Joliver

Seeker said:


> What's so wrong with just lifting heavy shit up and putting it down? Words of Bigworm.



Not a god damn thing, sir. I've been quoting worm lately, myself.  

Miss that dude.


----------



## ToolSteel

I guess it's just hard for me to comprehend someone training rpe and being a bitch about it. That's the only way I see % training having an advantage. 
OR
You can train rpe and not allow being a ****ing pussy because your boss yelled at you and let that stop you from giving it your all. 
You think I'm not trying to hit a pr every ****ing session? @9 is at ****ing 9. It's one more left in the tank when I'm giving it 100%. Not one more left based on how hard I feel like going.


----------



## SuperBane

ToolSteel said:


> What makes it ghey is that it's not optimal. You never go into the gym in exactly the same condition every time. How well you ate, how well you slept, life stress, recovery from previous workouts, it all plays into what your actual training max would be for that lift on that day. So training based on a set 1rm, some days you will overshoot and some days you'll have some left in the tank.
> Rpe training puts you at the best workout you can do on that day, every time.
> 
> THAT SAID:
> Rpe does take a while to get the hang of. And the hardest part of it is being honest with yourself.



I guess I understand that point but
What do you make of this.

Anytime I felt like shit and missed a lift on a particular "day" I repeated the whole "week".
That's how I accounted for what you speak of when I ran the cube.


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> I guess it's just hard for me to comprehend someone training rpe and being a bitch about it. That's the only way I see % training having an advantage.
> OR
> You can train rpe and not allow being a ****ing pussy because your boss yelled at you and let that stop you from giving it your all.
> You think I'm not trying to hit a pr every ****ing session? @9 is at ****ing 9. It's one more left in the tank when I'm giving it 100%. Not one more left based on how hard I feel like going.



"Tool...remember, keep the wrists angled down with the @9 RPE double bicep pose. The judges are sitting below the stage." 

--Snake


----------



## ToolSteel

SuperBane said:


> I guess I understand that point but
> What do you make of this.
> 
> Anytime I felt like shit and missed a lift on a particular "day" I repeated the whole "week".
> That's how I accounted for what you speak of when I ran the cube.


IMO the fact that you weren't using it to peak for a deadline buys you a lot of leeway as far as missed-lift days go. 
My only focus in that scenereo would be the days you undershot your ability.


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> "Tool...remember, keep the wrists angled down with the @9 RPE double bicep pose. The judges are sitting below the stage."
> 
> --Snake


----------



## automatondan

Hahahaha

(400 :32 (1)


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


>



You guys see this!?!? Tool wants to go RaPE of 13 on my ass!!!! Ban him!!!


----------



## NbleSavage

Joliver said:


> You guys see this!?!? Tool wants to go RaPE of 13 on my ass!!!! Ban him!!!



Depends on how he's feeling that day - his 13 might only be a 4 or 5...


----------



## ToolSteel

NbleSavage said:


> Depends on how he's feeling that day - his 13 might only be a 4 or 5...



All jokes aside, and with all due respect, that comment in itself shows lack of comprehension of RPE. 

@X is @X. Doesn't matter how you feel.


----------



## NbleSavage

ToolSteel said:


> All jokes aside, and with all due respect, that comment in itself shows lack of comprehension of RPE.
> 
> @X is @X. Doesn't matter how you feel.



It was more a pun at the proposed buggery and yer manhood than a critique of RPE. Everyone has a 13 on the internet.


----------



## ECKSRATED

I like both styles of training. Both have its advantages.


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> All jokes aside, and with all due respect, that comment in itself shows lack of comprehension of RPE.
> 
> @X is @X. Doesn't matter how you feel.



Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) is subjective by definition.  If you have Ebola, and your training max is 400lbs, 100lbs can be an RPE of 9. Whereas 100lbs can never be more than 25% of your training max.

I think we could use a reactive training write up from some bro. It could shed some light on this. 

Any RPEists want to help old people understand?


----------



## Milo

Joliver said:


> Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) is subjective by definition.  If you have Ebola, and your training max is 400lbs, 100lbs can be an RPE of 9. Whereas 100lbs can never be more than 25% of your training max.
> 
> I think we could use a reactive training write up from some bro. It could shed some light on this.
> 
> Any RPEists want to help old people understand?



So if I am lazy but want to make gains, I give myself Ebola and don't have to lift as much weight. Profit!!!!


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) is subjective by definition.  If you have Ebola, and your training max is 400lbs, 100lbs can be an RPE of 9. Whereas 100lbs can never be more than 25% of your training max.
> 
> I think we could use a reactive training write up from some bro. It could shed some light on this.
> 
> Any RPEists want to help old people understand?



Yes it would be @9. But that's the exact point. @9 is @9. Period. You wouldn't call it @3 because you could do 400 on a good day. 

I feel you guys are leaning too hard on the "self regulation" side. @9 means ~90% of your max effort. Not 90% of how hard you feel like going. 

A guy who feels lazy and calls @7 an @9 is the same guy that's going to cheat his % a few lbs because he's feeling lazy. Or miss a lift but put it in his log anyway.


----------



## ToolSteel

Milo said:


> So if I am lazy but want to make gains, I give myself Ebola and don't have to lift as much weight. Profit!!!!


Interesting view. The weight is less, yes. But has the % effort changed?

That's the key.


----------



## PillarofBalance

Joliver said:


> Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) is subjective by definition.  If you have Ebola, and your training max is 400lbs, 100lbs can be an RPE of 9. Whereas 100lbs can never be more than 25% of your training max.
> 
> I think we could use a reactive training write up from some bro. It could shed some light on this.
> 
> Any RPEists want to help old people understand?



I have a half written article on this. There are actually a few different uses or applications of rpe. It's not always subjective and it's definitely not an excuse to be a pussy.  Just ask any of my guys lol

Although over shooting tends to be more chronic which is almost as bad.

I will try and finish this thing up soon.


----------



## Milo

ToolSteel said:


> Interesting view. The weight is less, yes. But has the % effort changed?
> 
> That's the key.


I'm just in the talking shit wagon. I'm all about RPE.


----------



## Joliver

PillarofBalance said:


> I have a half written article on this. There are actually a few different uses or applications of rpe. It's not always subjective and it's definitely not an excuse to be a pussy.  Just ask any of my guys lol
> 
> Although over shooting tends to be more chronic which is almost as bad.
> 
> I will try and finish this thing up soon.



Well, Milo told me if you didn't finish it by Friday, you were going to get dealt with....

I talked him down a bit...but he was pissed.


----------



## ToolSteel

Milo said:


> I'm just in the talking shit wagon. I'm all about RPE.



It's good for discussion though. 


I feel like grasping rpe is like learning to ride a bike. Seems impossible. You fight it over and over, till suddenly it clicks. Then you look back and say "wow, why was that so hard to understand"


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> It's good for discussion though.
> 
> 
> I feel like grasping rpe is like learning to ride a bike. Seems impossible. You fight it over and over, till suddenly it clicks. Then you look back and say "wow, why was that so hard to understand"



Tool, I'm going to call you the exception to the rule. 

But for the average guy, without a coach, how can you tell him to be objectively subjective with his autoreg training? The answer to that is difficult. 

As opposed to %ers saying "what's your best?" and plug and play.


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> Tool, I'm going to call you the exception to the rule.
> 
> But for the average guy, without a coach, how can you tell him to be objectively subjective with his autoreg training? The answer to that is difficult.
> 
> As opposed to %ers saying "what's your best?" and plug and play.


If someone is incapable of applying rpe correctly, then I'd say they need to do a daily max with % sets based on that. 
Which is in a way rpe for dummies. 

I do not think true rpe training is applicable for someone who isn't 100% dedicated. And by that I mean able to be 100% honest with themselves.


Edit:
Granted, I'm always learning. And often my mind works faster than I can put words together.


----------



## ToolSteel

I wanted to hit a few points here but needed to wait till I could sit down and think



Joliver said:


> The best part of percentage training is that it ultimately builds a lifter that understands his limitations by a measurable amount.


I don't see where rpe fails this


> RPE training allows for good days and bad, but there has to be something said about the Bulgarians that go to max percentages every day...some times multiple times per day--very successfully. This in itself demonstrates that lifting maximally is not in psychological preparedness and capability, but in physical capacity in highly trained athletes.


Is that not also going a daily max effort as well? I agree 100% that maximal lifting is about physical capacity. And your capacity is not identical down to the pound every single day


> Percentage training produces light-switch lifters that turn it on and off because they train to live and die by a chart--demonstrative maximum strength on demand.


And I am training to demonstrate maximum effort on demand. Whatever that may be. 


> I've never done RPE training, so I can't speak to its efficacy, but it seems to favor a lifter's mental variability. That may be good for newer lifters on the whole.
> 
> Now, I know I am going to get destroyed for this, but here goes: the whole world is full of lifters that don't want to walk into a rack and single a max by percentage of some high water mark. It's mentally tough to attempt to max every week. But that's kind of the idea.
> 
> I've said myself that I believe the future of PLing is in RPE. But truthfully that is because competitive lifting has gotten popular and more people are doing it. % training could never hope to be as popular as RPE training. It's too damn taxing. So anything that gets a lifter to follow a program is great. All the better that RPE training is a solid program.
> 
> That said, I've been injured....a lot. Take my advice at your own risk. Nothing about singles at or above 100 is safe.


I really think rpe lifters could be separated into two groups in relation to the rising popularity of the sport. 
You have those that will push themselves to their true max effort (or whatever is called for that day),
And you will also have those that train rpe because it's easier to "cheat"
Rpe IS a lot harder to be honest with. In % training you have a number on a paper. You either hit it or your don't. 
With rpe you have a demanded effort. If you don't "feel" like going heavy, and don't hit what you KNOW you are capable of on that day, than its no different than a % lifter skipping a rep/set or adjusting the weight. In both cases you're only hurting yourself.


----------



## SuperBane

PillarofBalance said:


> I have a half written article on this. There are actually a few different uses or applications of rpe. It's not always subjective and it's definitely not an excuse to be a pussy.  Just ask any of my guys lol
> 
> Although over shooting tends to be more chronic which is almost as bad.
> 
> I will try and finish this thing up soon.



Can you break this shit down in like a RPE for dummies?
Or maybe a brief outline you would use for a guy?
Shit I liked % base training because I know what I supposed to hit, If I miss I just repeat til I don't.
That doesn't leave me with any what If's

Tool is making me feel like I'm leaving shit on the table and I'm missing out.
But y'all are speaking French and I'm feeling remedial plus I can't remember back to any of the lessons from 8th grade
Bonjour mfer!


----------



## Milo

SuperBane said:


> Can you break this shit down in like a RPE for dummies?
> Or maybe a brief outline you would use for a guy?
> Shit I liked % base training because I know what I supposed to hit, If I miss I just repeat til I don't.
> That doesn't leave me with any what If's
> 
> Tool is making me feel like I'm leaving shit on the table and I'm missing out.
> But y'all are speaking French and I'm feeling remedial plus I can't remember back to any of the lessons from 8th grade
> Bonjour mfer!


It's simply a measurement of how many reps you had left in the tank. RPE 7 means you had 3, RPE 8 means 2 and so on.


----------



## ECKSRATED

I liked percentage based especially when peaking because I would look ahead at numbers and get ****ing amped up to hit them. You guys are right about off days where u don't feel 100% butttttt with a set % u might push just a little harder to get that weight even when u thought u couldn't. With rpe the weight might feel super fukking heavy but you'll never know if u would have got that weight if u tried. Every set is different. Some feel shitty some feel awesome. My set of 585 today felt better than my set of 545. So many factors

Bottom line is find which one u like. We can argue which training method is better forever but if one works better for u then stick with it. I know some strong guys that hate rpe and vice versa and they all have different reasons why.


----------



## Milo

ECKSRATED said:


> I liked percentage based especially when peaking because I would look ahead at numbers and get ****ing amped up to hit them. You guys are right about off days where u don't feel 100% butttttt with a set % u might push just a little harder to get that weight even when u thought u couldn't. With rpe the weight might feel super fukking heavy but you'll never know if u would have got that weight if u tried. Every set is different. Some feel shitty some feel awesome. My set of 585 today felt better than my set of 545. So many factors
> 
> Bottom line is find which one u like. We can argue which training method is better forever but if one works better for u then stick with it. I know some strong guys that hate rpe and vice versa and they all have different reasons why.


On the other side of the coin you risk getting stapled to the floor for pushing to a percentage set for the day. I'd rather be a little short than get my confidence completely ****ed by getting DP'd by a weight. Right now I'm so fatigued I don't think I could hit 80% of my 1RM. But at least I can get equivalent work accomplished with a lower weight.


----------



## ECKSRATED

Milo said:


> On the other side of the coin you risk getting stapled to the floor for pushing to a percentage set for the day. I'd rather be a little short than get my confidence completely ****ed by getting DP'd by a weight. Right now I'm so fatigued I don't think I could hit 80% of my 1RM. But at least I can get equivalent work accomplished with a lower weight.



That is true. I've only done two peaks and one was percent based and this one rpe. I never missed a lift on the percent based. Actually I always felt like I could do more but I've always liked having that feeling after a session. Like I said u can argue both sides forever.  I like both training methods.


----------



## ToolSteel

SuperBane said:


> Can you break this shit down in like a RPE for dummies?
> Or maybe a brief outline you would use for a guy?
> Shit I liked % base training because I know what I supposed to hit, If I miss I just repeat til I don't.
> That doesn't leave me with any what If's
> 
> Tool is making me feel like I'm leaving shit on the table and I'm missing out.
> But y'all are speaking French and I'm feeling remedial plus I can't remember back to any of the lessons from 8th grade
> Bonjour mfer!


Ecks kinda covered it. Unless you're peaking for a meet or for some other reason need 100% optimal training... It probably isn't going to make a night and day difference. 

I do think rpe is the way to go for powerlifting. And I think some of the issue here is different interpretations. 
Any top level powerlifter using % is going to be using some form of auto regulation wether they realize it or not. 
But to get the most out of rpe is does take a specific mindset. The bottom line is you HAVE to spend the time learning "yourself" and your limits. You have to KNOW when you have 1/2/3 reps left in you and how much of a jump to take on your warmups to get there. 

Knowing your own rpe is a pretty individual thing in its own. For me I go off bar speed for squat and bench. When I gas, I gas hard. I know that when I start loosing speed I'm around @8. I'm a horrible grinder. If a rep has any grind to it at all, I'm @9 or higher. 
I still have trouble calling anything
Lower than a 7. 
Like @6 on a double. 

WHO THE **** CAN CALL @6 ON A DOUBLE!! That's like saying I could've done a set of 8. I DONT DO SETS OF 8!


Sorry about that. 
/rant


----------



## ECKSRATED

I'll tell u what tho with rpe I feel more beat up. Lol. Maybe its just cus I'm peaking and going hard as fukk and have high rpes but hitting 8s and 9s week after week beats me up. But its getting me strong as fukk


----------



## Milo

ToolSteel said:


> Ecks kinda covered it. Unless you're peaking for a meet or for some other reason need 100% optimal training... It probably isn't going to make a night and day difference.
> 
> I do think rpe is the way to go for powerlifting. And I think some of the issue here is different interpretations.
> Any top level powerlifter using % is going to be using some form of auto regulation wether they realize it or not.
> But to get the most out of rpe is does take a specific mindset. The bottom line is you HAVE to spend the time learning "yourself" and your limits. You have to KNOW when you have 1/2/3 reps left in you and how much of a jump to take on your warmups to get there.
> 
> Knowing your own rpe is a pretty individual thing in its own. For me I go off bar speed for squat and bench. When I gas, I gas hard. I know that when I start loosing speed I'm around @8. I'm a horrible grinder. If a rep has any grind to it at all, I'm @9 or higher.
> I still have trouble calling anything
> Lower than a 7.
> Like @6 on a double.
> 
> WHO THE **** CAN CALL @6 ON A DOUBLE!! That's like saying I could've done a set of 8. I DONT DO SETS OF 8!
> 
> 
> Sorry about that.
> /rant


I think your math is off there champ.


----------



## ToolSteel

Milo said:


> I think your math is off there champ.



See that's how much calling @6 fukks me up. It's bullshit.


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> If someone is incapable of applying rpe correctly, then I'd say they need to do a daily max with % sets based on that.
> Which is in a way rpe for dummies.
> 
> I do not think true rpe training is applicable for someone who isn't 100% dedicated. And by that I mean able to be 100% honest with themselves.



Tool, what I am trying to explain is that percentage based programs could never be RPE.  There is no subjectivity.  It is math.  Math is a science.  That is why it is the preferred method for so many lifters out there.  I don't see percentage based guys attempting to convert their lifting data to RPE.  I DO see RPE guys trying to draw tables and correlations to percentage based training because it is completely objective.




PillarofBalance said:


> Although over shooting tends to be more chronic which is almost as bad..



The lifter is always the weak link in lifting.  From my years of watching lifters, I most often see them overestimate their loading intensity and underestimate their volume intensity.  They will get stronger but it will be from primarily from hypertrophic NOT neurologic adaptation.   But there are those that blast away and regress.  They usually burn out or get hurt.  




ToolSteel said:


> I wanted to hit a few points here but needed to wait till I could sit down and think
> 
> I don't see where rpe fails this
> Is that not also going a daily max effort as well? I agree 100% that maximal lifting is about physical capacity. And your capacity is not identical down to the pound every single day
> And I am training to demonstrate maximum effort on demand. Whatever that may be.
> 
> I really think rpe lifters could be separated into two groups in relation to the rising popularity of the sport.
> You have those that will push themselves to their true max effort (or whatever is called for that day),
> And you will also have those that train rpe because it's easier to "cheat"
> Rpe IS a lot harder to be honest with. In % training you have a number on a paper. You either hit it or your don't.
> With rpe you have a demanded effort. If you don't "feel" like going heavy, and don't hit what you KNOW you are capable of on that day, than its no different than a % lifter skipping a rep/set or adjusting the weight. In both cases you're only hurting yourself.



Where RPE fails at being measurable is that it is a perception of exertion.  I hit a 105% 2 board press in a peak.  Very measurable.  What RPE is is that?  What RPE is 102%? What is 97.5%?  Are they all 9s or 10s? If so, you cannot claim precision, because 110% wont ever be 102%.  People flunk out of this business because they forget to aim small.  Aim small...miss small.  Nothing could be smaller than something by incremental percentage.  In no world can a integer derivative of how hard something feels come close to the precision of incremental percentages of your known capability.  

Yes, RPE may well take you to a training max.  But is that training max optimal?  120 years worth of optimal training precedes my sheet.  I may be up to the task that day, I may not, but how I feel about it wont be the deciding factor.  It says 100%x1x1, I attempt it because the math says so...even if I feel like I've eclipsed my training max.  

The mad Russian statisticians also noted the following: Lifter useful life was between 7-10 years with an average of 8.  Afterwards, progress will be observed at a rate of about 1% per year...hopefully.  You are brand new and piss and vinegar.  You are staring 2000 in the face with speed and momentum.  What happens in year 8? It took me a lifetime of ****ing around to get close to my PR dead.  The last 10% damn near took me longer than the first 90%.  These are the moments when percentages matter and a perceived feeling of exertion is as unimportant as an amputated leg on a millipede. 

My wife used to ask me about my sessions: "How'd it go tonght?"....."Hard day at work...just a check in the box."  These days happen.  I cannot tell you how many times I ****ing knew I was going to get stapled.  But I did it because it was to be done.  Sometimes I surprised myself...others, not so much.  But the point is...if its on the list...you do it and miss.  

Nobody does this to cheat.  Weak willed men don't endanger themselves to be cool, but fatigue makes cowards of us all.  I know to follow the sheet.  The sheet was made when I was cool and comfortable in my chair at home...probably with a beer...thinking with a clear mind.  I approached my training max with the AC on the fritz and I lost my wraps and had to borrow...two guys just finished fighting/arguing over something...whatever god awful scenario.

If somebody does this to cheat for instagram, they are just tourists....they'll be gone soon and nobody will be the wiser.  They are of no count...and shouldn't be.

You say RPE is a lot harder.  It could be on any variable day, but is that optimal?  Or could that be like those gymrats that proclaim their good workout was just so because they got sore? On the good days, RPE should always seem more intense.  On average days...after a divorce...dog died...got fired....friend died....got audited...got scorching case of herpes with a side of clap....percentage based training is the compass that leads the masses.  It is one word: methodical. 

Percentages are undoubtedly the fundamental base of the program that led Mike Tuchscherer to be a champion. Mike developed reactive autoregulation after he was an elite lifter.  The lillybridges developed their method after they were champions.  Westside stole percentage based training...admittedly so.  You name a lifter worth knowing, they got there on percentages.  Now they realized that percentages were a google away and decided that they could package and sell their method....there is a thought.  And that thought doesn't take away from the efficacy of what they preach, but a profit motive is a heavy drive to piss on something else.  But of all of the things you can piss on, percentage as a measurement of progress isn't one of them.    




ECKSRATED said:


> I liked percentage based especially when peaking because I would look ahead at numbers and get ****ing amped up to hit them. You guys are right about off days where u don't feel 100% butttttt with a set % u might push just a little harder to get that weight even when u thought u couldn't. With rpe the weight might feel super fukking heavy but you'll never know if u would have got that weight if u tried. Every set is different. Some feel shitty some feel awesome. My set of 585 today felt better than my set of 545. So many factors
> 
> Bottom line is find which one u like. We can argue which training method is better forever but if one works better for u then stick with it. I know some strong guys that hate rpe and vice versa and they all have different reasons why.



This is true.  There is no "one best way."  But there is always the "out with the old and in with the new" schools of thoughts out there.  So many of these guys piss down on the known and proven only because it is profitable to sell their "new and improved" whatever it is.  I like most of these methods.  The reason I like them is they are never far away from AS Prilepin and his percentage table.


----------



## PillarofBalance

One of the things I cover in the article Joliver is the advent of the new tendo units. Like squat and science open barbell. Very cheap accessible devices that measure barspeed.

We can correlate rpe and percents using this.  But it uses the Russian max - that is the max ON THAT DAY. Or was that bulgarian? Shit... 

Your board press example if I were coaching you I wouldn't care what % that is.  I would be looking for you to reach an intensity level.  

I think that's what gets lost in translation.  I am after intensity levels first. From there we get into volume. 

I don't knock percentage based training at all though. I still use it for some clients particularly anyone I am doing a weekly DUP for.


----------



## ECKSRATED

U can't say one method is harder. That's not possible to say that. It depends on your program and what u are required to do. I said I feel more beat up but that's because I'm in a peak hitting high rpe week after week. Same would go for a peak with high percentages.


----------



## ECKSRATED

And this made me laugh out loud 

"unimportant as an amputated leg on a millipede"


----------



## Joliver

PillarofBalance said:


> One of the things I cover in the article Joliver is the advent of the new tendo units. Like squat and science open barbell. Very cheap accessible devices that measure barspeed.
> 
> We can correlate rpe and percents using this.  But it uses the Russian max - that is the max ON THAT DAY. Or was that bulgarian? Shit...
> 
> Your board press example if I were coaching you I wouldn't care what % that is.  I would be looking for you to reach an intensity level.
> 
> I think that's what gets lost in translation.  I am after intensity levels first. From there we get into volume.
> 
> I don't knock percentage based training at all though. I still use it for some clients particularly anyone I am doing a weekly DUP for.



Good point POB.  I have been using a tendo unit since I broke my Nin-tendo....clever...I know.  I have always monitored speed.  My speed at a given percent is a driver of my training philosophy.  

On that given board press example, it was an overload.  It was beyond a 10 on the RPE scale.  It was a maximum effort...beyond my maximum effort in a competition press.  It was measurable only by percentage. 

When I label the disparity between RPE and percentage based programs, the maximum intensity component is 6 to 5 and pick 'em.  Dead even.  Intensity is intensity.  Max to max.  

Where RPE can falls short of prescribed percentages is in the days that the perception of maximum falls short of what a percentage based program would call for from an intensity standpoint--overreaches in particular.  When a 9 is below the prescribed maximum effort in a comparative program.  I know those days happen.  I've been there.  Where does an autoregulator benchmark on those days? 

I've never argued against RPE.  I've stated that it is for advanced guys that know themselves.  Guys that can be objective in their subjectivity.  Or guys that have a coach.  If you didn't guide some of your lifters, would they always hit mandatory intensity levels every time?


----------



## PillarofBalance

Joliver said:


> Good point POB.  I have been using a tendo unit since I broke my Nin-tendo....clever...I know.  I have always monitored speed.  My speed at a given percent is a driver of my training philosophy.
> 
> On that given board press example, it was an overload.  It was beyond a 10 on the RPE scale.  It was a maximum effort...beyond my maximum effort in a competition press.  It was measurable only by percentage.
> 
> When I label the disparity between RPE and percentage based programs, the maximum intensity component is 6 to 5 and pick 'em.  Dead even.  Intensity is intensity.  Max to max.
> 
> Where RPE can falls short of prescribed percentages is in the days that the perception of maximum falls short of what a percentage based program would call for from an intensity standpoint--overreaches in particular.  When a 9 is below the prescribed maximum effort in a comparative program.  I know those days happen.  I've been there.  Where does an autoregulator benchmark on those days?
> 
> I've never argued against RPE.  I've stated that it is for advanced guys that know themselves.  Guys that can be objective in their subjectivity.  Or guys that have a coach.  If you didn't guide some of your lifters, would they always hit mandatory intensity levels every time?



They certainly would not always hit required intensity no. On the flip side what happens when you have SARS and can't even bench 80% for 5 or 6 triples? But that's what it requires? 

I have experimented though with alphaD using both. I would give him a minimum weight to use that was based off a %1rm.  But it almost always turned out to be too light. He was then free to add weight.

But Jesus that was a pain in the ass to write and manage! Correlating rpe to a % is a ****ing nightmare.


----------



## Joliver

PillarofBalance said:


> They certainly would not always hit required intensity no. On the flip side what happens when you have SARS and can't even bench 80% for 5 or 6 triples? But that's what it requires?
> 
> I have experimented though with alphaD using both. I would give him a minimum weight to use that was based off a %1rm.  But it almost always turned out to be too light. He was then free to add weight.
> 
> But Jesus that was a pain in the ass to write and manage! Correlating rpe to a % is a ****ing nightmare.



I've subscribed to what john broz has always said--"You can't listen to your body because it is lying to you." Not withstanding injuries of course. 

If you have SARS....get in there and lift...with a mask, of course. I've walked the walk on this, I benched 85% for sets of triples 72 hours before I had the end of my clavical chopped off so it would fit in my AC joint again. It accomplished nothing. But it was on the list. 

Tool should get SARS.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> Yes it would be @9. But that's the exact point. @9 is @9. Period. You wouldn't call it @3 because you could do 400 on a good day.
> 
> I feel you guys are leaning too hard on the "self regulation" side. @9 means ~90% of your max effort. Not 90% of how hard you feel like going.
> 
> A guy who feels lazy and calls @7 an @9 is the same guy that's going to cheat his % a few lbs because he's feeling lazy. Or miss a lift but put it in his log anyway.



Incorrect. An @9 only means about 90% of your max effort when it's 3reps. A x5 @9 is less than 85% of your max for example.


----------



## ToolSteel

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Incorrect. An @9 only means about 90% of your max effort when it's 3reps. A x5 @9 is less than 85% of your max for example.


Incorrect. It has zero correlation to %1rm. 
@9 is ~90% of the maximum effort you could possibly put into a given set regardless of the rep range.


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> Tool, what I am trying to explain is that percentage based programs could never be RPE.  There is no subjectivity.  It is math.  Math is a science.  That is why it is the preferred method for so many lifters out there.  I don't see percentage based guys attempting to convert their lifting data to RPE.  I DO see RPE guys trying to draw tables and correlations to percentage based training because it is completely objective.
> 
> The lifter is always the weak link in lifting.  From my years of watching lifters, I most often see them overestimate their loading intensity and underestimate their volume intensity.  They will get stronger but it will be from primarily from hypertrophic NOT neurologic adaptation.   But there are those that blast away and regress.  They usually burn out or get hurt.
> 
> *Where RPE fails at being measurable is that it is a perception of exertion.  I hit a 105% 2 board press in a peak.  Very measurable.  What RPE is is that?  What RPE is 102%? What is 97.5%?  Are they all 9s or 10s? If so, you cannot claim precision, because 110% wont ever be 102%.  *
> 
> People flunk out of this business because they forget to aim small.  Aim small...miss small.  Nothing could be smaller than something by incremental percentage.  In no world can a integer derivative of how hard something feels come close to the precision of incremental percentages of your known capability.
> 
> Yes, RPE may well take you to a training max.  But is that training max optimal?  120 years worth of optimal training precedes my sheet.  I may be up to the task that day, I may not, but how I feel about it wont be the deciding factor.  It says 100%x1x1, I attempt it because the math says so...even if I feel like I've eclipsed my training max.
> 
> The mad Russian statisticians also noted the following: Lifter useful life was between 7-10 years with an average of 8.  Afterwards, progress will be observed at a rate of about 1% per year...hopefully.  You are brand new and piss and vinegar.  You are staring 2000 in the face with speed and momentum.  What happens in year 8? It took me a lifetime of ****ing around to get close to my PR dead.  The last 10% damn near took me longer than the first 90%.  These are the moments when percentages matter and a perceived feeling of exertion is as unimportant as an amputated leg on a millipede.
> 
> My wife used to ask me about my sessions: "How'd it go tonght?"....."Hard day at work...just a check in the box."  These days happen.  I cannot tell you how many times I ****ing knew I was going to get stapled.  But I did it because it was to be done.  Sometimes I surprised myself...others, not so much.  But the point is...if its on the list...you do it and miss.
> 
> Nobody does this to cheat.  Weak willed men don't endanger themselves to be cool, but fatigue makes cowards of us all.  I know to follow the sheet.  The sheet was made when I was cool and comfortable in my chair at home...probably with a beer...thinking with a clear mind.  I approached my training max with the AC on the fritz and I lost my wraps and had to borrow...two guys just finished fighting/arguing over something...whatever god awful scenario.
> 
> If somebody does this to cheat for instagram, they are just tourists....they'll be gone soon and nobody will be the wiser.  They are of no count...and shouldn't be.
> 
> You say RPE is a lot harder.  It could be on any variable day, but is that optimal?  Or could that be like those gymrats that proclaim their good workout was just so because they got sore? On the good days, RPE should always seem more intense.  On average days...after a divorce...dog died...got fired....friend died....got audited...got scorching case of herpes with a side of clap....percentage based training is the compass that leads the masses.  It is one word: methodical.
> 
> Percentages are undoubtedly the fundamental base of the program that led Mike Tuchscherer to be a champion. Mike developed reactive autoregulation after he was an elite lifter.  The lillybridges developed their method after they were champions.  Westside stole percentage based training...admittedly so.  You name a lifter worth knowing, they got there on percentages.  Now they realized that percentages were a google away and decided that they could package and sell their method....there is a thought.  And that thought doesn't take away from the efficacy of what they preach, but a profit motive is a heavy drive to piss on something else.  But of all of the things you can piss on, percentage as a measurement of progress isn't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  There is no "one best way."  But there is always the "out with the old and in with the new" schools of thoughts out there.  So many of these guys piss down on the known and proven only because it is profitable to sell their "new and improved" whatever it is.  I like most of these methods.  The reason I like them is they are never far away from AS Prilepin and his percentage table.


I kind of lost my attention span halfway through. You cannot attempt to debate the pros/cons of two systems when you only understand one of them. STOP trying to relate rpe to %1rm. 
You're trying to directly compare Lbs and Kg. At sea level, sure, there's a relation. That's one scenereo out of many. They both are quantifiable with precision yet measure two completely different things. Lbs change based on surroundings. A kg is ALWAYS a kg. 

You're basing your lifts off of a number that may or may not at one point in time in one specific scenereo been your 1rm. So sure you can write down % dumbers. But what purpose do they have? Nothing any more significant than the numbers that I log. I still track the weight and compare week to week. The only significance to % here is you're basing from a theoretical set point. 


Joliver said:


> Good point POB.  I have been using a tendo unit since I broke my Nin-tendo....clever...I know.  I have always monitored speed.  My speed at a given percent is a driver of my training philosophy.
> 
> On that given board press example, it was an overload.  It was beyond a 10 on the RPE scale.  It was a maximum effort...beyond my maximum effort in a competition press.  It was measurable only by percentage.
> 
> When I label the disparity between RPE and percentage based programs, the maximum intensity component is 6 to 5 and pick 'em.  Dead even.  Intensity is intensity.  Max to max.
> 
> Where RPE can falls short of prescribed percentages is in the days that the perception of maximum falls short of what a percentage based program would call for from an intensity standpoint--overreaches in particular.  When a 9 is below the prescribed maximum effort in a comparative program.  I know those days happen.  I've been there.  Where does an autoregulator benchmark on those days?
> 
> I've never argued against RPE.  I've stated that it is for advanced guys that know themselves.  Guys that can be objective in their subjectivity.  Or guys that have a coach.  If you didn't guide some of your lifters, would they always hit mandatory intensity levels every time?


Did you complete the rep? Then it wasn't beyond @10

Flame me if you want but I really think the issue here is you only love what you understand; you will never be able to compare the two until you actually understand what rpe means.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> Incorrect. It has zero correlation to %1rm.
> @9 is ~90% of the maximum effort you could possibly put into a given set regardless of the rep range.



Yiu don't understand RPE then. Read up on how Tuchscherer correlates RPE to percentages.


----------



## ToolSteel

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Yiu don't understand RPE then. Read up on how Tuchscherer correlates RPE to percentages.


No, the problem is you misunderstanding what I said in the first place. I was never speaking about % 1rm, I was talking about % maximal effort on a given set. 

In relation to percentages, even Tuchscherer gives ranges. There is no exact correlation.


----------



## ToolSteel

So attempt to say there's an exact correlation is foolish. Every lifter is different. Take me and Ecks for example in the squat. Where we stand currently, 1rm is probably pretty damn close. But I have and have always had shit for endurance. Put 405 on the bar for reps, and he'd embarrass me. 
So even though we could do the same workout at the same rpe, given we were both performing at our best, his % would be higher than mine. Likewise if we were to do the same % based workout, my perceived effort would be higher than his.


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> Incorrect. It has zero correlation to %1rm.
> @9 is ~90% of the maximum effort you could possibly put into a given set regardless of the rep range.



Of all of the shit we've typed, this is the most helpful. There is a perceived disconnect between the methods when they are more alike than not. 

You see zero correlation between your max RPE efforts and 1rm. Of all the things it may or may not be--uncorrelated isn't one of them. If you RPE of 10 isn't within a few percent of your training max......you have issues with not being that "light-switch" lifter that can produce on-demand. 

A training max can be adjusted every hour if need be. It's not some number from 3 months ago when you were drol'd out. I think most people misunderstand that. It is a current number, or it should be.


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> Of all of the shit we've typed, this is the most helpful. There is a perceived disconnect between the methods when they are more alike than not.
> 
> You see zero correlation between your max RPE efforts and 1rm. Of all the things it may or may not be--uncorrelated isn't one of them. *If you RPE of 10 isn't within a few percent of your training max......you have issues with not being that "light-switch" lifter that can produce on-demand. *


 I agree @10

(100%) 


> A training max can be adjusted every hour if need be. It's not some number from 3 months ago when you were drol'd out. I think most people misunderstand that. It is a current number, or it should be.


Is that or is that not auto-regulation, which is EXACTLY what rpe is.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> No, the problem is you misunderstanding what I said in the first place. I was never speaking about % 1rm, I was talking about % maximal effort on a given set.
> 
> In relation to percentages, even Tuchscherer gives ranges. There is no exact correlation.





ToolSteel said:


> So attempt to say there's an exact correlation is foolish. Every lifter is different. Take me and Ecks for example in the squat. Where we stand currently, 1rm is probably pretty damn close. But I have and have always had shit for endurance. Put 405 on the bar for reps, and he'd embarrass me.
> So even though we could do the same workout at the same rpe, given we were both performing at our best, his % would be higher than mine. Likewise if we were to do the same % based workout, my perceived effort would be higher than his.



That's why I said there's a correlation not a specific formula to swap RPE's into a percentage. It is different for each lifter but given you know your 1RM, 4RM, and 8RM you can convert all RPEs and reps into a percent FOR YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL with simple math. Sure it may be off a percent or two but that's hardly a significant deviation. 

And working to a percent of your maximal effort is a roundabout way of working a percent of your training max for that day which is then a percent of your mad as I stated above.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> I kind of lost my attention span halfway through. You cannot attempt to debate the pros/cons of two systems when you only understand one of them. STOP trying to relate rpe to %1rm.
> You're trying to directly compare Lbs and Kg. At sea level, sure, there's a relation. That's one scenereo out of many. They both are quantifiable with precision yet measure two completely different things. Lbs change based on surroundings. A kg is ALWAYS a kg.
> 
> You're basing your lifts off of a number that may or may not at one point in time in one specific scenereo been your 1rm. So sure you can write down % dumbers. But what purpose do they have? Nothing any more significant than the numbers that I log. I still track the weight and compare week to week. The only significance to % here is you're basing from a theoretical set point.
> 
> Did you complete the rep? Then it wasn't beyond @10
> 
> Flame me if you want but I really think the issue here is you only love what you understand; you will never be able to compare the two until you actually understand what rpe means.



You're confusing weight and mass where mass is constant and weight varies depending upon gravitational force. Pounds is a measure of mass just like kilograms and thus doesn't change regardless of altitude. The disconnect is you thinking like everyone else that you weigh an X amount of pounds. You don't. You have a mass of X amount of pounds. A pound is always 453.59237 grams and A pound is always 0.45359237 kilograms. That never changes.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> I agree @10
> 
> (100%)
> 
> Is that or is that not auto-regulation, which is EXACTLY what rpe is.



And RPE isn't the only form of auto regulation out there.


----------



## ToolSteel

DocDePanda187123 said:


> And RPE isn't the only form of auto regulation out there.



Correct. It's not. The other forms are rpe translated into something other people can understand. 

I truly don't care which method you prefer. I just want people to ACTUALLY understand the difference. 

% based training DOES have its place. And that's with lifters that for whatever reason cannot use rpe optimally.


----------



## ToolSteel

DocDePanda187123 said:


> You're confusing weight and mass where mass is constant and weight varies depending upon gravitational force. Pounds is a measure of mass just like kilograms and thus doesn't change regardless of altitude. The disconnect is you thinking like everyone else that you weigh an X amount of pounds. You don't. You have a mass of X amount of pounds. A pound is always 453.59237 grams and A pound is always 0.45359237 kilograms. That never changes.


When referring to pound mass, it's generally abbreviated as lbm. I was speaking of the difference between lb force and kg (mass), which you knew.


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> When referring to pound mass, it's generally abbreviated as lbm. I was speaking of the difference between lb force and kg (mass), which you knew.



We'll forgive you for the misunderstanding. But don't let it happen again...or we'll pound your mass.


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> We'll forgive you for the misunderstanding. But don't let it happen again...or we'll pound your mass.


Since there was an apparent misunderstanding, let me clarify the analogy I was trying to make. This is just to perhaps help other people understand rpe vs %, not specifically doc/jol:

I assumed people readily understand the difference between weight and mass. And since I can only take so long of a poop break, I'm keeping that assumption. 

Lb force -> RPE
Lb mass -> %1rm

If you are in a hole (both figuratively and literally), or better said far below sea level, more force will be required to move a set mass. 
Likewise if you're standing on a mountain top, again both figuratively and literally, less force will be required to move that same mass. 

RPE training calls for you to put forth a set amount of force regardless of where you're standing. 
% based training calls for you to move a set mass regardless of where you're standing. 

That's the difference. The "reps left in the tank" and rpe->% correlations are simply guidelines to try and get people to grasp the concept. 

I fully understand that for a lot of people it will be simpler for them to have a weight on a piece of paper that says move this X times. In the end that may be optimal for them all things considered. 

But true RPE training when being completely honest with yourself will always put you at the best you can perform on any given day.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> Correct. It's not. The other forms are rpe translated into something other people can understand.
> 
> I truly don't care which method you prefer. I just want people to ACTUALLY understand the difference.
> 
> % based training DOES have its place. And that's with lifters that for whatever reason cannot use rpe optimally.



The other forms of auto regulation are not all RPE translated into something else. As Joli stated, RPE is purely a subjective method to auto regulating. Ok the other hand, auto regulating with velocity curves and equipment is as objective as one can get. 



ToolSteel said:


> When referring to pound mass, it's generally abbreviated as lbm. I was speaking of the difference between lb force and kg (mass), which you knew.



Now I see what you're saying. My bad.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> Since there was an apparent misunderstanding, let me clarify the analogy I was trying to make. This is just to perhaps help other people understand rpe vs %, not specifically doc/jol:
> 
> I assumed people readily understand the difference between weight and mass. And since I can only take so long of a poop break, I'm keeping that assumption.
> 
> Lb force -> RPE
> Lb mass -> %1rm
> 
> If you are in a hole (both figuratively and literally), or better said far below sea level, more force will be required to move a set mass.
> Likewise if you're standing on a mountain top, again both figuratively and literally, less force will be required to move that same mass.
> 
> RPE training calls for you to put forth a set amount of force regardless of where you're standing.
> % based training calls for you to move a set mass regardless of where you're standing.
> 
> That's the difference. The "reps left in the tank" and rpe->% correlations are simply guidelines to try and get people to grasp the concept.
> 
> I fully understand that for a lot of people it will be simpler for them to have a weight on a piece of paper that says move this X times. In the end that may be optimal for them all things considered.
> 
> But true RPE training when being completely honest with yourself will always put you at the best you can perform on any given day.



You want to be pooping buddies? I'm in the stall right next to you.../


----------



## ToolSteel

DocDePanda187123 said:


> The other forms of auto regulation are not all RPE translated into something else. As Joli stated, RPE is purely a subjective method to auto regulating. Ok the other hand, auto regulating with velocity curves and equipment is as objective as one can get.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see what you're saying. My bad.


Velocity measurement is something I'll be integrating as soon as I save up a few pennies. I think it will work REALLY well for me since observed bar speed is how I roughly judge my rpe already.


----------



## Joliver

So you're saying RPE is subjective like weight.

% is absolute like mass.

Got it.


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> So you're saying RPE is subjective like weight.
> 
> % is absolute like mass.
> 
> Got it.


Ehhh.... Kind of. It somewhat becomes a game of semantics. 

RPE is absolute in terms of perceived force. The mass is subjective. 

% is absolute yes, but only to a theoretical 1rm. You yourself said training maxes could be updated every 3 hours, which makes it then subjective based on the current estimated trainin max.


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> Ehhh.... Kind of. It somewhat becomes a game of semantics.
> 
> RPE is absolute in terms of perceived force. The mass is subjective.
> 
> % is absolute yes, but only to a theoretical 1rm. You yourself said training maxes could be updated every 3 hours, which makes it then subjective based on the current estimated trainin max.



You have to hit a training max to make it your benchmark. It can't be theoretical, though. I see guys cock this up all the time with online lift calculators.

But you have to see the oxymoronic nature of "absolute perception."


----------



## Milo

Someone just tell me how to bench 405.


----------



## DocDePanda187123

Milo said:


> Someone just tell me how to bench 405.



Do you want to absolutely bench 405 or do you want to perceive to bench 405 lol?


----------



## Milo

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Do you want to absolutely bench 405 or do you want to perceive to bench 405 lol?


Which one will get me laid?


----------



## DocDePanda187123

Milo said:


> Which one will get me laid?



Is that a trick question? Everyone knows powerlifter a don't get laid. That's reserved for Bodybuilders lol


----------



## Joliver

Milo said:


> Which one will get me laid?



Becca Swanson digs powerlifters....


----------



## automatondan

Joliver said:


> Becca Swanson digs powerlifters....



Shes got a purdy mouth


----------



## Joliver

automatonDan said:


> Shes got a purdy mouth



Sure do! She totaled 2,050, equipped.


----------



## ToolSteel

Joliver said:


> Sure do! She totaled close to 1900, equipped.



So.. Like 750 raw?


----------



## Joliver

ToolSteel said:


> So.. Like 750 raw?



#EquippedLivesMatter


----------



## ToolSteel

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Do you want to absolutely bench 405 or do you want to perceive to bench 405 lol?


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


>



Hahahaha. Your memes are always on point!


----------



## ToolSteel

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Hahahaha. Your memes are always on point!



I put way more effort into it than I should. But it's the little things in life...


----------



## DocDePanda187123

ToolSteel said:


> I put way more effort into it than I should. But it's the little things in life...



It looks like you and I get to "poop" at work a lot..... I dig it.


----------



## BigJohnny

I have always done more of a BB split, hitting rep ranges 3-12. Next week I'll be starting a workout from POB and I'm really looking forward to it. Hopefully I'll figure it out pretty quick and make some good progress.


----------

