Why use %1RM instead of RPE for back off sets?

Training Q&A [Moderated]
, ,
1

I just purchased the bridge template, and have noticed that some of the work is not specified in terms of RPE, specifically when back off sets are involved. Here is one example:

• 1 rep @ RPE 8 (90-93%)
• 4 reps @ RPE 8 (84%)
• 78% e1RM x 4 reps x 3 sets

My first question is: why is it preferable to use %1RM here instead of RPE? Given the benefits of RPE (adjusting for the daily variability in performance), why not just specify the backoff sets using RPE? So in this case, something like 4 reps @ RPE 6 x 3 sets.

And if I prefer to use RPE / not need to calculate e1RM, is there a way I can “translate” a spec like this into RPE terms? Alternatively, can I use a simple adjustment on the existing weight (e.g. 5% weight removed from the set of 4 reps at 8 RPE)?

2

In this setting, after two RPE-focused sets have identified performance for the lift on that day, the percentage-based back offs control average intensity a little more tightly. These sets are generally far enough from RPE that I think the precision AND accuracy can suffer. These should feel like RPE 4-5, but I’d advise using the percentages here.

1 Like