Weightlifting workout builder

[savis]

A couple weeks ago I posted about "imaginary" weightlifting workout builder, I was so excited to build it, so I spent days and nights coding it, and this is my first version of the tool: https://www.liftosaur.com/builder

The idea was to have a tool, that'd allow you to plan the workouts, making sure you cover all the muscles you want with necessary volume, and balance that with the time you have to spent in the gym.

For example, this is the 5/3/1 BBB I currently follow: https://www.liftosaur.com/builder?d...XUTIrYjZwNEJVQjdsdEozYmJGcHRmc0t0QWpHZzZBQUE9

And this is Stronglifts 5x5: https://liftosaur.com/builder?data=...YVDFHeEN0MktwL2oxVVp2bFU1WlA3UkFGUlc5QlFBQQ==

URLs are kinda long because it doesn't have any database or anything, and it stores all the data for the routine in the URL. So, just copy the URL from the browser to share it.

To make it easier to build programs, it supports copy/paste of the exercises, days and weeks (just do Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V) and undo/redo (Ctrl+Z/Ctrl+Shift+Z).

The muscle activation algorithm probably still needs a bit of polish, as well as making sure all the exercises are properly attributed with proper muscles.

Try it out, lemme know what you think and if you find any issues! Share your workouts here in comments. Let me know if it feels that it shows muscle volume or time wrong.

 

[dragonfruit10]

@savis Layout looks good.

Using % 1RM seems like it would just add confusion for beginners and isn't necessary. And the choice of programs you've included as examples here probably aren't well suited to this particular sub catering towards bodybuilding and aesthetics.

 

[savis]

@dragonfruit10 Yeah, probably some hypertrophy program would work better...

It's kinda hard to calculate proper weekly volume without %1RM though, because it really depends on that. With 65% 1RM you'd need to have more sets/reps than with like 85% to get enough volume...

 

[dragonfruit10]

@savis That's a problem with training RIR. We have much simpler ways to access volume backed by literature.

10-15 a week (0-2 RIR), 3+ minute rests, 5-8 per muscle group in a single workout.

And yes, if you train with less intensity or shorter rest periods the data suggests more sets will be needed up to around 20 weekly.

 

[savis]

@dragonfruit10 Yeah, I saw some research somewhere where the subjects had diminishing returns after 10-15 sets per muscle group I think with 70%RM, and the web page uses exactly that for calculating the weekly volume 100%.

If I understood you correctly, you suggest using RIR instead of reps+%RM weight, right? Basically, if you do a set with 0-2 RIR, that means it doesn't matter what's the number of reps and %RM weight. The only variable now is RIR, which is way simpler? Did I get it right?

 

[dragonfruit10]

@savis Yeah pretty much. Whilst you can get the same results and on paper 3 RIR can be better sometimes, it's so impractical to actually perform that way versus just using a higher intensity that is easy to standardise.

 

[savis]

@dragonfruit10 I like the idea, it should definitely simplify things, thank you! Lemme try it out and play around with it.

 

[johnlxyz]

@dragonfruit10 When you are doing 5-8 sets with 0-2 RiR I assume you are doing declining numbers of reps across most sets?

Just asking because I have seen a few people here say they do all sets at 0-2 RiR but they never clarify this.

 

[dragonfruit10]

@johnlxyz

When you are doing 5-8 sets with 0-2 RiR I assume you are doing declining numbers of reps across most sets?

Yeah it's totally normal to lose reps if using the same weight. If you push set to 0 RIR it's very unlikely you'll be able to replicate that. Some people try to argue for leaving reps such as 3 RIR to avoid this but there's no benefit, since you get 3 less stimulating reps on set 1 and now you're playing catchup.

A problem can sometimes arise if you're at the low end of your rep range and you push it to 0-2 RIR, you can no longer remain in the same rep range anymore. Eg. You do 5-8 reps on a press and you hit 5 reps, well on set 2 now you can only reach 4 reps which is below our minimum range for hypertrophy. A solution to this is a back off set where you drop the weight in order to stay in the same rep range, this is likely way studies show Back off sets resulting in more gains.

 

[johnlxyz]

@dragonfruit10 Your second paragraph also describes what I do when I anticipate falling out of the "hypertrophy rep range" (scare quotes used because it's not as concrete a distinction as it sounds).

But in your first paragraph it seems to me you may be leaning too heavily on the stimulating reps model. Does a set of say 8 reps to RPE 7 really have 3 fewer stimulating reps than a set of 11 to RPE 10?

Depending on where we hypothesize that the stimulating reps start that could mean that the RPE 10 set is far more stimulating. For example if we say stimulating REPS are RPE 5+, then the RPE 7 set has 2 stimulating reps versus the RPE 10 setting having 5.... but do we really believe the RPE 10 sets is worth 2.5 RPE 7 sets?

Alternatively maybe all reps might have a tiny stimulative value that goes up steadily until you approach say RPE 6 where it plateaus.

Also the concept of stimulating reps should tend to favor very heavily stuff like myoreps and drop sets, which although some people like them don't seem to have eclipsed sets with standard rep times.

In general there's the problem of mechanical tension vs metabolic stress. The higher your average RPE (assume you will have to reduce reps at some point) the higher the metabolic stress but the lower the total mechanical tension. Is metabolic stress more of a threshold you need to cross or something that linearly stimulates more hypertrophy the higher it gets?

I personally don't read any studies so these questions are not me trying to win an argument but genuine uncertainty. My own experience suggests RPE 5+ sets across are comparable to RPE 8+ sets across, although it's hard to really be sure. (I could elaborate more on the different schemes I've tried but don't want to get bogged down yet.)

I did hear in a SBS podcast Greg Nuckols says his hunch is that RPE 7+ sets are of about equal value and that one of his colleagues at MASS thinks RPE 5+. (This is for population averages, both would agree individual variation is likely.)

Sorry for the long post, just happens to be a topic that interests me.

tl;dr I lean to RPE 5-6 being a better starting point for sets across than RPE 8.

 

[dragonfruit10]

@johnlxyz

Does a set of say 8 reps to RPE 7 really have 3 fewer stimulating reps than a set of 11 to RPE 10?

Yes, doesn't necessarily mean all stimulating reps are equal, but on paper yes.

Also the concept of stimulating reps should tend to favor very heavily stuff like myoreps and drop sets, which although some people like them don't seem to have eclipsed sets with standard rep times.

Intensifiers like Myo and Dropsets are just super short rest times and will prevent you being able to achieve the same number of stimulating reps on the subsequent set. This doesn't mean they don't work but you will need more of these sets to achieve the same stimulus which unfortunately adds to total fatigue which we would seek to minimise.

In general there's the problem of mechanical tension vs metabolic stress.

favor very heavily stuff

As far as heavy stuff, yes. The higher the rep range in general the more calcium ion build-up and other forms of metabolic fatigue accumulate that will make it harder to hit some of those stimulating reps. The optimal rep range in the literature seems to be around 5-8 reps for this reason but obviously it's not practical for every single exercise.

RPE 7-8 (2-3RIR) might be best overall to minimise fatigue for a similar stimulus, it can be interpreted that this stimulus-fatigue is better and there's no problem with training this way. From effective reps model more sets will be required most likely over the training week. But the fatigue that you may save by not going all the way to failure is essentially made pointless once you do that extra set which will result in a similar amount of fatigue regardless. So on paper the difference is very small.

The reason I'd advocate going closer to failure is mainly for one reason: Practically it's impossible to consistently gage your RIR over time. Trying to guess if you're 2 reps or 4 reps from failure is just not something that's going to work very well on at least a good portion of their lifts. It's been shown in studies how inaccurate people are when it comes to doing this. This is why I eye-roll at programs that base all progression on RPE. So say you do 8 reps at 7 RPE and the next workout you up the weight or add a rep, did you actually progress or just train harder? It's gunna be almost impossible to determine for a lot of people, I know I can't do this.

So since training to failure is just as effective and balances out overall, you have a standardised way of knowing if you're 0-1 RIR because that last rep slows down considerably. And it's worth noting that EVEN if you tell someone to train to failure, there's a good chance they're still 2 RIR, people are just so bad at pushing reps unless they've really pushed themselves a lot already in the past.

This explains the effective reps model a little better

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiSRkLBXkAAP-O5?format=jpg&name=small

This is a good illustration of how fatigue accumulates as you approach RIR 0. You can see that leaving 2 reps in the tank and doing another set may be optimal for reducing calcium ion fatigue, but will be less optimal for the other forms of fatigue so in terms of fatigue management it all balances out mostly. But since you're already minimising calcium ions if using low reps of 5-8, the best strategy is likely the failure approach with that range, and perhaps the RIR 2 approach if using very high reps as then you'd want to prioritise the calcium ion fatigue.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKg-yGRXIAU7BYU?format=jpg&name=small

And finally this is just another visual about how important the last few reps are in a set

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj1vDtYX0AEYUie?format=png&name=large

 

[johnlxyz]

@dragonfruit10 Thanks I will read your links.

Here is an analysis by Greg Nuckols that I found useful. He critiques the mechanistic reasoning behind the effective reps model then reviews the literature to see whether the effective reps model is well supported (I think he concludes not except with single joint movements with untrained lifters).

There are also several studies toward the end specifically finding better results in within subject studies where e.g. one leg goes to failure on all sets and the other leg does the same sets x reps while keeping reps per set constant (so one leg does say 10,8,6 while the other does 8/8/8).

 

[tsujido]

@savis This is very cool, thank you for building this. I consider myself a beginner. I understand each person will have different individual goals and may be focusing on a particular muscle or muscle group depending on their needs, but for someone who is just trying to build muscle all over, is it safe to say that you should ideally hit 100% for each muscle/muscle group per week?

 

[savis]

@tsujido No, if you're a beginner, you probably better to stick to proven existing programs, like the ones from thefitness.wiki.

IMHO you don't really need to hit 100% for each muscle group. I mean it's nice if you could, and have enough volume for each muscle group, but that probably will make your workouts pretty long.

That 100% per muscle group means more like when you're close or hit 100% - after that if you add more sets, you gonna get diminishing returns for that muscle group.