Training is going well, kind of hoping to get back to my 5/3/1 + CrossFit routine soon, but that will depend on whether they release a phase 2. I’ll continue with the thibbs program so long as they keep us going in it though.
I kind of wish they’d change this tbh. I get why they did it, but it drives traffic down. If you have questions though, you’re always welcome to quote and/or comment them on my regular log.
But that’s it, isn’t it? Percentages allow you to get the work in regardless of how you feel. Sometimes it’ll be easy, sometimes it’ll be hard… as long as strength and percentages are trending up over time then you are making progress. That’s why you might get a program being a 12-week cycle before you hit a new max. Regardless of fluctuations, over that 12 week period your max should still have gone up. You just might not be able to express that until you peak towards that new one. Percentage work can also work to add weight to the bar every week if early enough in your training. Heavy-Light-Medium programs come in all shapes and sizes for example.
With the rep zone I can still progress each week without percentages. Some days I might smash it, some days I might not. It’s all about the trend.
Week 1: 8, 8, 8, 8
Week 2: 9, 9, 8, 8
Week 3: 10, 9, 9, 8
Week 4: 10, 10, 10, 10
Add weight.
Sometimes if it’s a new exercise it may be quicker, sometimes it might take twice as long. I don’t care as long as it’s trending the right way.
More advanced trainees might not be able to add a rep every week, and with handling heavier weights they need to structure recovery smarter. This is where percentages and a more long-term approach will pay the most dividends - especially if the weight on the bar is what’s most important. It’s important to note that adding weight isn’t the only way to measure progress. This is why you hear things like “try to move the bar faster” on your percentage days. Even slowing down the movement can give you results. Whatever you do the least is probably what will give the best results.
Everything can work for everyone. I don’t know why people just adopt a modality and think that’s the way. I don’t believe training works like that, and we could all profit from doing something completely different.
I recently read an article /on hypertrophy and progression/ where the advice was to aim to consistently be in the 9-12 rep range. If you come out of it and do less than 9, you lower the weight, if you go over 12, you increase the weight. And step by step you will increase the weight to fall into that range.
Many people prefer to progress to 5 reps because the 8-10-12 rep progression was harder and slower. I don’t know if that’s really the case, but because of the volume it might be more taxing.
Which is fine except for when:
Of course, even with the rep zone that can happen though. I’m going to a wedding on Saturday and will get royally pissed up. I might struggle to put the weights I put up last time because of this, or maybe I can but it’ll be a grind and mess with recovery. Worrying about things like that short-term completely defeats the point for a lot of us.
531 is so popular because the “training max” is a great way around these fluctuations. Life could get in the way but you can still hit the reps so the trend is going in the right direction. It’s the long-term approach.
RPE/RIR allows for these “feel better/worse than usual” days because you’re basing the weights and reps on how they are feeling, not a percentage or prescribed rep scheme.
Seeking the optimal or perfect is not a good path to go down.
I guess I’m confused… Are you in support of %based training or not (not necessarily in the way this article describes)?
Good article. This is how I have approached my training many times in the past.
Adjusting into the rep range has worked quite well for me.
(Note, did not read all 45 posts in thread)
I will fill you in… people like different things.
This only works if you put in a good effort, so I’d argue this is not for beginners as it would be easy to stay in the same reps/ weight if you don’t push yourself (but maybe this could be said for all programmes).
I’ll never say percentage based training doesn’t work, but I think RPE/RIR or similar is more practical for the majority of people
Also I’m in agreement that this “rep zone” method is pretty much just training at an RPE of 9-10 for multiple sets
I completely agree
I believe that at the top level with the top coaches, things are adjusted on a day-to-day basis governed by how well the weights are moving for the athlete. In that respect, percentage-based programs are likely only used as a “core” to work around with RPE/RIR being more effective -especially for a certain lift specialization. If I think about it down that avenue then percentage programs may actually be slightly better for the lesser trained for several reasons; they don’t have to be accountable just simply follow the percentages, an RIR/RPE estimate could be inaccurate (especially if switching variations regularly), Percentage work takes the thought out of it, which is awesome for a lot of people and is the premise behind 5/3/1.
Ultimately it’s about what’s already been said. It’s personal. I’m the kind of person who thinks the way of “shit man, I really think I ended that set too soon, I may have been able to get more out of that”. With that in mind right now the rep zone suits me perfectly. With my overthinking, I’m just not suited to RPE/RIR as it stands. But I know at some point down the line it might be the magic bullet that smashes a plateau. Not because it’s better, or that it’s worse, it’s that it’s different.
For someone that has always trained 6 days a week, cutting down to 3 might be their magic bullet for a while. For someone who’s always trained 8-12 reps, training 1-5 might be theirs. Maybe focusing on a close-grip bench for a while is the best thing to get your bench up because you’ve never programmed it before. Marrying oneself to a single training idealogy is just a needless limitation.
I think percentage-based can be useful for less trained lifters, if anything because it teaches them about structure and “trusting the process”
However, I flatly disagree that RPE/RIR estimates are intrinsically inaccurate. People complain that young lifters don’t understand RPE 10. The solution is simple: teach them what an RPE10 feels like.
I completely understand and agree. To reiterate a previously-made point however, “rep zones” are basically just training to an RPE 9-10.
Absolutely
Better yet, teach them what an RPE 11 feels like
That’s a totally legitimate way to do it, sure. Can they differentiate a 7 or an 8 though? I’ve been training a few years and I’m not sure I even could. Especially not on Squats. That has a lot to do with how I train though, if I were to train a few months using RPE I’d get the hang of it and it would feel like the answer the everything. There’s more nuance to all these styles of programming, each con has a potential fix, and each benefit has a potential drawback. Up to us as the individual (or a coach if you have one) to figure out which one will work for us at any given time.
I’ve always seen this kind of thing as common sense…I mean, all training is percentage based the way I look at it, it’s just easier to see it that way if you’ve been training for a good while and think in terms of: So, I know I can bench 200lbs for 8, so my bench 1RM max is probably around 240-245lbsish OR the other way round, I squatted 250lbs for 3 last week, so that means my max squat is probably around 265lbs-270lbs etc.
Couldnt agree more 
This is a “so what?” to me though. Kinda like the percentage is never going to be the real percentage of your true ability on any given day, and your caloric needs are an average estimate, it’s all close enough kinda stuff and we’re just looking to trend over time.
Yeah that’s an excellent point that I’ve been unable to articulate forever
There is so much room for error and variability of the person for program that accurately predicting training effects is challenging.
I feel that, in the presence of a such a chaotic system (the human body), forcing percentage-based training is almost disrespecting the mess. To me, it almost feels like forcing a neat, predictable, binary world onto something chaotic and unpredictable.
Philosophically, I like the idea of RPE/RIR/zones/autoregulated training because it accounts for the mess
Firstly, on the plus side, after lurking on here for almost a decade, this article has finally led me to actually sign up for a T-Nation account!
Secondly, I need to clarify that I’m working a slow weekend shift so I’m already in a bad mood.
Thirdly, I truly love this website and have learnt so much from it in the past.
Finally, this is a gross misrepresentation of the source article.
Yes the participants used an auto-regulated method of training to ensure they were working at the desired intensity. But both groups used this same method of regulation.
Nothing in this study had anything to do with working off of percentage based intensities.
Group 1 performed 22 sets per week, and used the autoregulating method to control/progress their loading. Their prior training history was not accounted for when choosing their training volume.
Group 2 performed 120% of their pre-study reported number of sets per week, they also used the same autoregulating method to control/progress their loading. Their prior training history was accounted for when choosing their training volume.
Group two (in 65% of the subjects) achieved statistically significant cross sectional growth compared to Group 1. Due to the fact that they had increased their training volume in the study when compared to their pre study training volume.
The point of the study was to clarify that test subjects prior training history needs to be accounted for when creating training protocols for future studies. It didn’t have anything to with autoregulation vs other percentage based training, other than the fact that they decided to utilize autoregulation as their training method for both training groups.
The irony is that the sighted study was trying to illustrate the importance of understanding all the variables involved when assessing the results and possible benefit of studied training methodologies.
Post Script Addendum, I’m truly sorry if I’ve violated community guidelines. I do intend for this to be ‘constructive criticism’. I will accept my day 1 ban if deemed necessary.
Honestly, keep up the good work. I love the depth that T-Nation brings to the world of fitness discussion!