I Would like to know your thoughts about programming the training volume by prescribed sets at a certain %/RPE for example: 4x5@8 or 4x5@81% vs programming it with a percentage of fatigue for example: Top set 5x@8, drop weight 5% and perform as many sets as necesary (Without any number of max sets, could be 3 sets, could be 7 sets) until you hit the same RPE for example: 100x5x@8, Load drop 5% 95x5@7, 95x5@7, 95x5@7,5, 95x5@8 (Move to next exercise)
What do you guys think are the pros and cons of the two methods?
Isn,t using fatigue percents more accurate in the amount of training stress that we are generating?
Yes, you are correct: prescribing exercise volume with fatigue percents theoretically allows for more precise dosing of stress. However, given the literature on volume, I think it is more important to have full control over the total number of repetitions performed. Furthermore, I question the need for real-time volume autoregulation since a given quantity of work is irrelevant without also considering the quality of the work (i.e., the intensity & effort of a given number of lifts [NL]). It is much easier, in my opinion, to keep NL fixed and then use RPE and/or percentage of 1RM to determine the quality of work performed. Continued monitoring of a lifter’s training log would then allow you to fine-tune the prescription of RPE and/or percentage of 1RM to achieve the desired effect.
since a given quantity of work is irrelevant without also considering the quality of the work
Wouldn’t this not be a problem when you are also monitoring the RPE of the back-down sets?
You would perform sets at a prescribed RPE (i.e. 5@7) until you hit another prescribed RPE (i.e. 5@8) and theoretically the numbers of sets would depend of your readiness for the day, once you have monitoring and control over the relative effort, wouldn’t be “”“Better”“” to have a volume autoregulation as well?
Here is a link to a response I made a while back about the pros and cons of different volume prescription methods
Still i agree with you that it has some limitations, for example the lifter who doesn’t have that much experience using RPE would not take any advantage of this volume-autorregulation thing, since he could do 1-2 set more/less that he has to.
Also you don’t get that much “RPE practice” since you can’t know that’s your “@8” if you never try or have tried to do that 2 extra reps.
In my personal case, i feel like it’s easier to program and control a fixed NL for other trainees (Specially online ones), but in my own training, i do prefer to have a fixed fatigue percent, number of reps and relative intensity for the day
In any case, Thank you for your answer and your time Alex, I really appreciate it :)
The phrasing of this sentence is a bit confusing to me, but I’m failing to see how also monitoring the RPE of down sets can be a problem in any way. Can you formulate a more precise question for this idea?
As I mentioned: theoretically, yes, it would be better. As I also mentioned: I don’t think this is necessary or most optimal in practice given the literature on volume and how the coach can easily control the effect of a given NL. I am just unsure of the need to autoregulate to this degree with all factors considered. The load assigned to a given amount of volume mostly limits a lifter’s ability to complete this volume, so I can’t see why we also need volume autoregulation if the load is prescribed reasonably and the coach is monitoring the lifter’s response to training.
Feel free to program for yourself and your clients however you wish; I can’t say that you’re “wrong” since there is no real evidence on this exact topic. I am just explaining my/our thinking on the subject.
The phrasing of this sentence is a bit confusing to me, but I’m failing to see how also monitoring the RPE of down sets can be a problem in any way. Can you formulate a more precise question for this idea?
Sorry, i will try to explain it a little bit better xD
Before, you made this point:
I question the need for real-time volume autoregulation since a given quantity of work is irrelevant without also considering the quality of the work
What i meant is that when autorregulating volume via “a fixed % load drop applied to a top set at a given RPE and then repeats sets until hitting the same RPE” we would still know the quality of the work of that back-down sets (Because we’re still using RPE/% to monitor it), the range of relative intensity (i.e. @7 to @8) would remain the same, what may differ is the NL performed at that range of effort between individuals and/or between sessions
I agree with you that control of the volume without also a control of the Intensity, isn’t practical (Duh, hahaha)
I thought that you mean it wouldn’t be a monitoring of the intensity in that down sets, so they would be “Impractical”
But reading it again, I see that I just didn’t get your point right, and took that phrase a little bit out of context, sorry haha
