T Nation

The Bench RM Calculator Project

[quote]Synthetickiller wrote:
The problem is this. I know guys who can rep 225 more times than me, but I all out bench more weight. Its all in training. If I work on doing 225x20, it’ll look like I can make 400 enough though most guys who work for ONLY endurance will not bench 405 or anything close.

There’s a guy I talk to on another forum who trains for triathlons. He has squatted 225x20, x4. That’s insane volume. He cannot squat 300, I think he can do 275x1.

The problem is you’re assuming that math is ALL you need to consider when estimating a 1RM.

If this is research, are you ONLY considering the mathematical portion or are you actually asking people what thier style of training is, how many singles, doubles, triples, they do in training and how often they bench 80%, 85%, 90% and higher?

I think leaving this out makes the research incomplete. Its a LOT more work, but its much more complete. I’ll be honest. I’d disregard any research like this b/c there’s just not enough info other than the 1RM and how many times someone can do a certain weight below the 1RM. Also, how many people can honestly bench 95% of his max x2.

I max about every 5 weeks (I don’t care if people don’t like this). You can look @ my log if you care to get some data. I just believe its way too individual and based on genetics, conditioning, the routine, rest, diet, etc. [/quote]

I definitely agree with the individuality thing here. A lot of this will have to do with your specific style of training as well as genetic make up.

However, I do like the idea of someone coming up with a better 1RM calculator, although I’m not sure that this is a real possibility for the general masses. I think there are far too many factors and variation between trainees. It might be possible to come up with an algorithm that is ideal for each individual based on their own results, but I’m all for the research, so if someone wants to give this a try, by all means go ahead.

I hate it when people read a post, and look for the one thing they disagree with, and that seems to be a common theme on this site, so don’t take it this way Synthetickiller, but I’d say 95% for a double is just about right for me. And I’d say that I could hit a triple at 90%, but not much more than that. Again, an individual thing, but that just goes to show that we are all different.

[quote]2274 wrote:
Hello. I’m thinking of making my own version of the RM calculator, and I’ll need your help. Basically, I’ll be using statistics to determine the “best” coefficients for reach RM% range. It definitely won’t be 100% accurate, but with your help, it could become more accurate than a lot of calculators you can find in the internet.

Here’s all you need to do. Determine the the MAXIMUM number of unassisted reps w/ good form you can do for the bench press using the ff. 1RM percentages: 90%, 85%, 80%, 75%, 70%, 65% and 60%. The format would look something like this:

90%: 3 reps
85%: 5 reps
80%: 7 reps
75%: 10 reps
70%: 13 reps
65%: 17 reps
60%: 22 reps

No need to give me your poundages. With enough data, I can make coefficients that are statistically accurate up to 20+ reps, so I’ll be needing a lot of your help. To make your data sound, determine everything in one workout that looks like this:

  1. Make sure you OPTIMALLY rested and nourished yourself.
  2. Obtain a safety rack and/or a spotter.
  3. Using multiple sets of singles, work up to your 1RM for the day.
  4. Rest 5-10 minutes after your 1RM set and do your 90% set to failure.
  5. Rest 5-10 minutes and do your 85% set to failure.
  6. Rest 5-10 minutes and do your 80% set to failure.
  7. Etc… until you finish your 60% set to failure.

Make sure you do everything in maximum controlled speed so you can maximize your reps. If anything, this workout is a great way to condition your bench press, so you really won’t be wasting your time doing this.

As soon as I have enough data, I’ll be releasing the coefficients to you guys. Thanks. :)[/quote]

If you want to make a good calculator make the coefficient selectable. Charts and calculators are rarely right. For each lift (they will all be different) hit 2 diff rep maxes. Divide the diff in weight by the diff in reps. You now have a weight addr per rep for that exercise. This still might be a bit innaccurate for the higher rep ranges but it will be a hell of a lot closer than a one-size-fits-all coefficient.

[quote]Modi wrote:
Synthetickiller wrote:
The problem is this. I know guys who can rep 225 more times than me, but I all out bench more weight. Its all in training. If I work on doing 225x20, it’ll look like I can make 400 enough though most guys who work for ONLY endurance will not bench 405 or anything close.

There’s a guy I talk to on another forum who trains for triathlons. He has squatted 225x20, x4. That’s insane volume. He cannot squat 300, I think he can do 275x1.

The problem is you’re assuming that math is ALL you need to consider when estimating a 1RM.

If this is research, are you ONLY considering the mathematical portion or are you actually asking people what thier style of training is, how many singles, doubles, triples, they do in training and how often they bench 80%, 85%, 90% and higher?

I think leaving this out makes the research incomplete. Its a LOT more work, but its much more complete. I’ll be honest. I’d disregard any research like this b/c there’s just not enough info other than the 1RM and how many times someone can do a certain weight below the 1RM. Also, how many people can honestly bench 95% of his max x2.

I max about every 5 weeks (I don’t care if people don’t like this). You can look @ my log if you care to get some data. I just believe its way too individual and based on genetics, conditioning, the routine, rest, diet, etc.

I definitely agree with the individuality thing here. A lot of this will have to do with your specific style of training as well as genetic make up.

However, I do like the idea of someone coming up with a better 1RM calculator, although I’m not sure that this is a real possibility for the general masses. I think there are far too many factors and variation between trainees. It might be possible to come up with an algorithm that is ideal for each individual based on their own results, but I’m all for the research, so if someone wants to give this a try, by all means go ahead.

I hate it when people read a post, and look for the one thing they disagree with, and that seems to be a common theme on this site, so don’t take it this way Synthetickiller, but I’d say 95% for a double is just about right for me. And I’d say that I could hit a triple at 90%, but not much more than that. Again, an individual thing, but that just goes to show that we are all different.[/quote]

Come to think of it, looking at my current max, I CAN do 95% for a double and I know I can do 90% for a triple. Once I put pencil to paper, I see what you mean. I just think its hard to do it for the general masses.

Maybe to say somethign like this

1 rep = 100%
2 reps = 95% - 97.5%
3 reps = 90% - 92.5%
4 reps = 85% - 87.5%

I know these are not correct, but just as an example. Maybe a range is much better than a single number? I would wonder if a 2.5% or 5% range would yield a 95% confidence interval more accurately than a single percentage? Just a thought…