Training to maintain current ability with least effort

[Phyzical]

I watched a podcast w BBM where it was said that, IIRC, you could go a couple of weeks without training and not lose any ability.
I also was reading that if you did all RPE 7 sets and slightly increased the number of sets over the normal templates which can go up to RPE 9, that you could achieve similar results to the templates as written.
For months where I had low motivation, I've ran the beginner's template but reduced the RPE by 2, so where the template lists RPE 8 I do RPE 6.
Would you mind pointing me to some information about the easiest way to maintain your current ability? It may be that the easiest way is to just set a schedule and follow it, not to half ass your lifting. But in case someone wanted to half ass their lifting, do you have any suggestions?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Phyzical,

I have not seen a good resource or how-to guide on how to reduce effort in training intelligently. A few thoughts on this:

• Significant strength decay varies between individuals, but generally takes weeks or longer to really show up. I wouldn't recommend avoiding exercise for any significant period of time unless otherwise contraindicated.
• II think sets @ 7 and @ 9 work roughly the same, but the sets @ 9 cost more in the way of fatigue- much more than any marginal improvement in fitness adaptation. Thus, I'm not 100% on board in saying people need to do more sets @ 7 than sets @ 9, even though they could
• I think people can do relatively little training and maintain most of their strength, size, and conditioning. This new, reduced training volume would still meet physical activity guidelines though.

If you have specific issues with training as it is right now, e.g. too long (duration), too hard (effort), too fatiguing, not enjoyable, etc., I would pick a different solution for each issue. Let me know what you're thinking and we can brainstorm a bit.

-Jordan

[Phyzical]

Hi Jordan, thank you for the great response. I think the hardest thing is the effort (RPE).
Also, it's hard to get myself to start workouts especially if I haven't been sticking to the schedule. It's easier to start a workout if I know the workout itself will be easier.
I could try either of these:
1- start a routine with low RPE workouts and get used to the schedule, then ramp up from there.
or
2- just design a 2x per week + 2 GPP per week LOW RPE workouts that require low effort and have low results. I enjoy the GPP workouts and I like variation of exercise selection.

Maybe I should create a schedule for idea Forums and run it for a couple of months

[Phyzical]

I meant "maybe I should create a schedule for idea number 2 and run it for a couple of months"
If you write the number symbol and 2 it gets replaced with "Forums"

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I wouldn't have a problem with a 2x/wk lower RPE training program with enough conditioning work to meet the physical activity guidelines. Perhaps this is a good idea a new template...

I think having the days be flexible to accommodate your schedule would also be advisable. As far as the lifting program, I'd think of something like:

Day 1
Squat - 3-6 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Push- 3-6 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Hinge variation- 6-10 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Row x 8-12 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets

Day 2
Hinge -3-6 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Push x 5-8 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Squat variant x 6-10 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Push x 8-12 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets

[calvintrotter]

I wouldn't have a problem with a 2x/wk lower RPE training program with enough conditioning work to meet the physical activity guidelines. Perhaps this is a good idea a new template...

I think having the days be flexible to accommodate your schedule would also be advisable. As far as the lifting program, I'd think of something like:

Day 1
Squat - 3-6 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Push- 3-6 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Hinge variation- 6-10 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Row x 8-12 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets

Day 2
Hinge -3-6 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Push x 5-8 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Squat variant x 6-10 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets
Push x 8-12 reps @ RPE 6-7 x enough sets

To figure out “enough sets”, would you start low and add on if/when necessary?

[calvintrotter]

Phyzical,

I have not seen a good resource or how-to guide on how to reduce effort in training intelligently. A few thoughts on this:

• Significant strength decay varies between individuals, but generally takes weeks or longer to really show up. I wouldn't recommend avoiding exercise for any significant period of time unless otherwise contraindicated.
• II think sets @ 7 and @ 9 work roughly the same, but the sets @ 9 cost more in the way of fatigue- much more than any marginal improvement in fitness adaptation. Thus, I'm not 100% on board in saying people need to do more sets @ 7 than sets @ 9, even though they could
• I think people can do relatively little training and maintain most of their strength, size, and conditioning. This new, reduced training volume would still meet physical activity guidelines though.

If you have specific issues with training as it is right now, e.g. too long (duration), too hard (effort), too fatiguing, not enjoyable, etc., I would pick a different solution for each issue. Let me know what you're thinking and we can brainstorm a bit.

-Jordan

The second point about RPE 7 and RPE 9 sets being equal has confused me. I saw on a recent post where you were talking about low fatigue training that you recommend mostly somewhere between low fatigue and training to failure - mostly RPE 8 sets and some @9. Why is that the case if there’s no real difference apart from extra fatigue - shouldn’t we try to avoid that?

[Phyzical]

That looks great I'm going to start on it. Thanks!

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

To figure out “enough sets”, would you start low and add on if/when necessary?

I'd pick some number of sets based on recent training and its efficacy, then go from there. One way to "calculate" this is by using the Training Stress Score. TSS is the product of RPE, Reps, and an "intensity modifier" for different zones of intensity, e.g. 1 for 50-60%, 2 for 60-70%....5 for 90-100% to represent the increase in fatigue with loading. I made this up as a way to compare different protocols and get a sense for the total training load. Other individual factors almost certainly contribute, but are less fun/clean to play with. The score is unit-less, as again, it is entirely made up.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

The second point about RPE 7 and RPE 9 sets being equal has confused me. I saw on a recent post where you were talking about low fatigue training that you recommend mostly somewhere between low fatigue and training to failure - mostly RPE 8 sets and some @9. Why is that the case if there’s no real difference apart from extra fatigue - shouldn’t we try to avoid that?

I'm not sure where the confusion lies unless it's "why do sets @ 9 instead of all sets @ 7 for improving maximal strength in the compound lifts?" Outside of periods of time where weight on the bar is the most important thing, figuring out RPE,r brief-periods of very high intensity training, etc. I don't have a great reason to choose @ 9 over @ 7 for this application.

That said, without any fatigue, you're not going to get any fitness adaptations either. We shouldn't be avoiding fatigue completely, and I'm not sure a single set @ 9 with back offs at @ 7 is too much different than all sets @ 7. Doing tons of sets @ 9 would make a big enough difference for me to be concerned about.