# 12 Week Strength Template - Calculation **URL:** \ **Category:** Training Q&A \[Moderated\]\ **Created:** [February 13, 2019, 5:47am UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933 "2019-02-13T05:47:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aosthed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ab992/32.png) [@aosthed](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/aosthed)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 5:47am UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/1 "2019-02-13T05:47:10Z")
Ok, I asked this question in. The unmoderated forums and there was not a consensus, so it was suggested I ask here. In the 12 Week Strength Template (1.0 & 2.0) it calls for Single @8, the -20% reduction for 5x5 on the Comp Lifts in weeks 1-2. It gives guidleines that the single is 90-93% and the 5x5’s are at 70-73%. The phrasing seems to suggest doing the calculation one way “take 20% off the single” (i.e. single weight multiplied by 80% which is ~18% drop in intensity) but the guidelines seem to imply the percentage drop is based off of multiplying off the e1RM - i.e. the single at 90-93% of the e1RM and the 5x5’s at 70-73% of the e1RM… a true 20% drop in intensity. Examples of the two possible approaches: A) 500 e1RM… single at 93% (465) and then multiplying the single by 80% (“taking 20% off”) would be 5x5’s at 74.4% (372), which is outside the guideline of 70-73%. B) 500 e1RM… single at 93% (465) and then 5x5’s at 73% of e1RM would be 365. A true 20% drop in intensity and within the guideline. The difference is between 2% and 1.4% depending on where the single is set between 90% and 93%… so if we’re stepping up the backoff intensity from -20% (weeks 1-2), -17% (weeks 3-4), -15% (weeks 5-7) … an unintentional variance in percentage of 1.4–2% by miscalculation seems significant. I think _most_ people I’ve asked seem to think “A” above is the correct way, but I’m not so sure if the intensity prescription drop and guidelines are by design (not just bad math). I noticed this in the 2.0 version when I input the backoff weights (using method A) and my backoffs were outside the prescribed intensity range. Also, I _think_ there was an example in another program that seemed to do it using method B, multiplying the e1RM by the target intensity for both the single and the backoffs. Thanks in advance for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Baraki](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/forum.barbellmedicine.com/austin_baraki/32/1095_2.png) [@Austin\_Baraki](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/Austin_Baraki)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 7:14pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/2 "2019-02-13T19:14:41Z")
When the intent is to subtract the % from the e1RM, that’s explicitly written. If it says 1@8, -20% that means to subtract the 20% from the 1@8. ---
**Author:** ![aosthed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ab992/32.png) [@aosthed](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/aosthed)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 5:30am UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/3 "2019-02-14T05:30:14Z")
Your guidelines exactly: _please don’t post our template workout stuff here_ When I did what you suggest, and put it in your program log, I fell outside the range (70-73). To stay in your guideline range I would have to take 20% of the 1RM to land in the range that it seems to imply. So, I’m not trying to be pedantic, it just confused me (and others) so I thought I’d ask. ---
**Author:** ![Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/forum.barbellmedicine.com/jordan_feigenbaum/32/1315_2.png) [@Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/Jordan_Feigenbaum)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/4 "2019-02-14T16:57:06Z")
> [@aosthed](#): > > Your guidelines exactly: > > When I did what you suggest, and put it in your program log, I fell outside the range (70-73). To stay in your guideline range I would have to take 20% of the 1RM to land in the range that it seems to imply. > > So, I’m not trying to be pedantic, it just confused me (and others) so I thought I’d ask. If you do a single @ 90-93% and then take 20% off the bar you’ll be at 70-73%. The logger has multiple functions that round, but I wouldn’t worry about that. > [@aosthed](#): > > I would have to take 20% of the 1RM No. That would then be 80% by definition. ---
**Author:** ![cmoney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f9b8f/32.png) [@cmoney](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/cmoney)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/5 "2019-02-14T21:22:15Z")
I was one of the ones in the unmoderated forums who said “it’s obviously A, it’s pretty clearly stated.” However, OP is correct, your math is a little off, and I understand his confusion. Subtracting 20% off of a lift at 92% doesn’t result in an intensity of 72%. It results in ~74% intensity lift (73.6% to be exact). 0.92 \* 0.8 = 0.736 So the resulting range is really 72-74.5%. ---
**Author:** ![aosthed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ab992/32.png) [@aosthed](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/aosthed)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 4:12pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/6 "2019-02-15T16:12:35Z")
Ok, so I’m Week 2 of the program. If I have a 100 kg 1RM, and did a single for 90 kg - setting the @8 at the bottom of the range. What do I do the 5x5 backoffs at? A) 70kg (less 20% of the 1RM), or B) 72kg (less 20% of the weight on the bar) If the answer is B, then it would be clearer to put the guideline range 72-75 instead of 70-72 because of it’s a calculation of the bar weight you will never mathematically have a weight below 72%. ---
**Author:** ![Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/forum.barbellmedicine.com/jordan_feigenbaum/32/1315_2.png) [@Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/Jordan_Feigenbaum)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/7 "2019-02-15T18:28:17Z")
> [@cmoney](#): > > I was one of the ones in the unmoderated forums who said “it’s obviously A, it’s pretty clearly stated.” However, OP is correct, your math is a little off, and I understand his confusion. Subtracting 20% off of a lift at 92% doesn’t result in an intensity of 72%. It results in ~74% intensity lift (73.6% to be exact). 0.92 \* 0.8 = 0.736 > > So the resulting range is really 72-74.5%. I see what you’re saying now re: load vs. percentages. ---
**Author:** ![Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/forum.barbellmedicine.com/jordan_feigenbaum/32/1315_2.png) [@Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/Jordan_Feigenbaum)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/8 "2019-02-15T18:30:13Z")
> [@aosthed](#): > > Ok, so I’m Week 2 of the program. If I have a 100 kg 1RM, and did a single for 90 kg - setting the @8 at the bottom of the range. What do I do the 5x5 backoffs at? > > A) 70kg (less 20% of the 1RM), or > > B) 72kg (less 20% of the weight on the bar) > > If the answer is B, then it would be clearer to put the guideline range 72-75 instead of 70-72 because of it’s a calculation of the bar weight you will never mathematically have a weight below 72%. You could do either. I want 70-73% to be the range. ---
**Author:** ![aosthed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ab992/32.png) [@aosthed](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/aosthed)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/9 "2019-02-15T18:55:36Z")
> [@Jordan\_Feigenbaum](#): > > You could do either. I want 70-73% to be the range. Thanks, makes sense. BTW, I’ve used your programs for about 2 years and love them - it got me past the grind of Texas Method in my mid-40s… where I felt pretty beat up most of the time. I’ve also made faster progress while feeling a lot better. ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Baraki](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/forum.barbellmedicine.com/austin_baraki/32/1095_2.png) [@Austin\_Baraki](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/Austin_Baraki)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2019, 3:18am UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/10 "2019-02-16T03:18:37Z")
> [@aosthed](#): > > Thanks, makes sense. > > BTW, I’ve used your programs for about 2 years and love them - it got me past the grind of Texas Method in my mid-40s… where I felt pretty beat up most of the time. > > I’ve also made faster progress while feeling a lot better. Interesting. We’ve been informed by the folks over there that this is not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/forum.barbellmedicine.com/jordan_feigenbaum/32/1315_2.png) [@Jordan\_Feigenbaum](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/u/Jordan_Feigenbaum)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/t/12-week-strength-template-calculation/4933/11 "2019-02-16T17:50:22Z")
> [@aosthed](#): > > Thanks, makes sense. > > BTW, I’ve used your programs for about 2 years and love them - it got me past the grind of Texas Method in my mid-40s… where I felt pretty beat up most of the time. > > I’ve also made faster progress while feeling a lot better. That’s really cool. Thanks for the note as well, I’ll amend this in the update!