In a previous post concerning rep ranges, you said, “Even this is often pretty far off. It’s better to talk in terms of 1RM – percent of weight you can lift for 1 rep in good form. You’ll see some drastic differences: one guy, on seated calf raise, will get 20 reps with 60% 1RM, and another will get 8… both are achieving the same training objective, and the guy who only gets 8, should not drop the weight further to try to get 20.”
I agree with your illustration above. For example: When doing bicep curls person A (who has lots of FT fibers and/or is neurologically efficient) will be able to do fewer reps with 80% of their 1RM than person B who has a majority of ST fibers and/or is neurologically ineffecient. That brings me too my question, how if both are lifting the same % of their 1 RM achieve the same training effect when one is potentially working more MUs and/or recruiting a different kind of fiber? This also brings the issue of time under tension as unless performed at different tempos the TUT would be drastically different. What am I missing/not getting? Personally, I would argue that assigning a % of RM for an athlete could only be done properly when a coach (or the athlete himself) know that athlete well enough (in a training sense to know the number of reps, TUT, etc. that will be achieved with it.
Thanks for your time, and of course the ton of info you provide for this board.-