Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Jonathan (3/7) Sheiko37:w1d1

So I used my previous weights for this next round of Sheiko, since my last round was a "return to lifting" month. I may add some weight next week or so.
Weights used:
Squat: 315 (will add ~10)
Bench: 250 (slight tweak in my clavicle right now so might leave this where its at)
Dead: 441 (will add ~10)

Sorry if I don't understand the intensity rating system well. It's just, I always see only 8,9,9+, and 10, which seems to defeat the point of having a 1-7 as well. I'm dipping below 8 here, hope that's not a sin. But the first day of sheiko only goes up to 70-75% anyway.

Bench
warm ups: 125*5*1, 150*4*2, 175*3*2
190*3 @ 8
190*3 @ 8
190*3 @ 7
190*3 @ 8
190*3 @ 8

Squat
warm ups: 160*5*1, 190*5*2
220*5 @ 7
220*5 @ 8
220*5 @ 6
220*5 @ 7
220*5 @ 8

Bench Comebacks
warm ups: 125*6*1, 150*6*2
165*6 @ 8
165*6 @ 7
165*6 @ 8
165*6 @ 8
165*6 @ 8
165*6 @ 9

Fly: some on machine, some 15x10 with dumbells

7 comments:

  1. I kind of agree with you. It seems like the lowest you could ever go is 5, so why not make that a 1? And then I see a lot of 10+s, so it seems like it's kind of cramped near the top.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please consider the possibility that the world is not centered around power lifting.

    Rate of perceived Exertion ("RPE") is a scale that has been around since the 1980ies. Mike Tuchscherer picked it up in order to have a normed scientific approach to regulate intensity. He "translated" the exertion items on the scale to "reps left in the tank".

    Based on the nature of your training, you will barely ever exert yourself in the 1-5 range; yet for scientists it is still useful to cover the lower part of the scale.

    Hope that answers your questions.


    http://www.ginmiller.com/gmf06/articles/target_heart_rate/RPE_talk_test.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. wait... the world is not centered around power lifting?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I realize my comment on Brian's post is actually more appropriate here: so, cutting and pasting...

    All this discussion is nice, but realistically, unless you're implementing fatigue stops in your training, the numbered RPE system doesn't really have much more practical value than "wow, that was really hard, " or "easy peasy."

    Certainly, if your training is at a point where your RPE's vary up and down during your working sets then quite simply you derive virtually zero benefit from using the RPE system. In a case such as this, strength usually isn't the issue as much as technique.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Kik: There's something else besides powerlifting? Who knew?

    @B/K/J: You can also think of it as a percentage scale. Sure, I never really log anything below an RPE of 8, but if I subtract 7 from all my RPEs (or 8 if I'm nerdy and want to index at 0), is an RPE 1 really one third as hard as an RPE 3? Basically, and Rene says, RPEs span the whole spectrum, but since we're powerlifters, we only find the upper ranges useful.

    @Shanker: You've said this before, but I really disagree. There is value in logging whether a set is "really hard" or "easy peasy." Whether you think you should quantify it is debatable, since sometimes that just makes things more confusing. Still, a 5x5 that's RPE 10 vs. a 5x5 that's RPE 8 are very different things. You would want to adjust your future programs accordingly depending on which you experienced, and if it has that much of an impact, it's worth logging.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's worth logging yes. But it's not worth bickering about what is a 9+ versus a 9-. The differentiation between the two is too subjective at a beginner level. I'm all for logging things, I log calories and all my workouts (whether or not I post them here) and tracking them, I'm not for overkill.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @kik - Thanks for the link.

    @Shanker - I disagree for 2 reasons. First, because we do use our performance (i.e. RPE) during a cycle to adjust the numbers post cycle. Second, for communication, especially about technique.

    ReplyDelete