Top Set % of 1RM for 1 to 5 straight sets

[Oscar_Actuary]

Top Set %

Code: Select all

	Number of Top Sets				
Reps	1	2	3	4	5
1	100.0%	98.6%	97.2%	95.8%	94.4%
2	96.5%	94.9%	93.3%	91.8%	90.3%
3	93.4%	91.6%	89.8%	88.1%	86.5%
4	90.5%	88.5%	86.6%	84.8%	83.0%
5	87.7%	85.6%	83.5%	81.6%	79.7%
6	85.1%	82.8%	80.6%	78.5%	76.5%
7	82.6%	80.1%	77.8%	75.6%	73.5%
8	80.2%	77.5%	75.1%	72.8%	70.6%
9	77.8%	75.0%	72.5%	70.1%	67.8%
10	75.5%	72.6%	70.0%	67.5%	65.1%

Vertical axis is Reps per set (Max 10)
Horizontal is number of sets (Max 5)

Use this without charge.

For opinions, please pay $3
To give yours, please pay $10

[KenDowns]

Where'd you get 1.4% per set across? (for singles)

[Jungledoc]

Interesting.

How'd you come up with this? This looks quite actuarial to me. I have no idea what that means, but I thought it sounded smart.

[Oscar_Actuary]

I go thru phases where I want to have a strict program ( 85% of the time ) and interspersed with periods of "do big lifts, and figure out the rep/set/weight scheme once I get out there". This grew out of the former.
While mixing high volume into a mostly 3x5 or 3x3 straight sets, and 5x5 ramped sets scheme/program, I wanted to have a standard for those 5x10 and 8x8 days as well.

Doc you're right about it being Actuarial. In this case that means it's better to be precisely wrong than haphazardly accurate.
Ken, for the singles, each additional set lowers the weight less, but rounding it does look like 1.4% atleast for this 10x5 chart.

Extending the formula (yes it's a formula I derived(?) ) to 10x10, you get 54.5%. That is lower than the %60 I see out on the interwebz. For me, I've tended to fade more with high reps relatvie to the standard charts (in other words the 2-4 RMs belie my 10RM)

Clearly, another dimension is Rest periods. Subconsciously, this fits a "Rest more for lower Rep ranges", as that is how most operate. No one goes into a 7x7 thinking, I'll rest 5 minutes between sets. Some reasonable checks were such as "5x2 can handle more weight on the bar than 2x5", and likewise with similar pairings.

Finally, I figured there is
1a. I started the 1 set formula keeping in mind the (37-R)/36 one I've used/seen around. My values end up close to that one.
1. Within each set range, A diminshing impact of each addtional rep
2. Within each rep range, A diminshing impact of each addtional set
3. That said, the formula is also set so that if you compare the %'s between two colums or rows, it's clear that the impact of an additonal rep/set causes a bigger change in the higher one... an example

Considers the %s for 3x5 vs 3x6 as we add a set

Code: Select all

83.5%	81.6%
80.6%	78.5%

For the 5 reps, we drop 1.9%, from 83.5 to 81.6
For the 6 reps, we drop 2.1%, from 80.6 to 78.5

All 3 of those principles make sense.

I might be a nerd

[Jungledoc]

I assume that you have been testing it in practice.

Wouldn't it make sense to round to the even percent? I'm pretty sure that I could not load with 81.6% of my max! Not even to the exact even percent, for that matter.

Did you use any of the rep max calculators to give you starting points for any of this?

[ephs]

so this chart is an inverse based on the common 1rm max formula? great stuff!

[KenDowns]

Wouldn't it make sense to round to the even percent?

Round after you calculate. 81.6% of 245 comes out to 199.92, or 200.

[ephs]

i would always round down, cause with less weight you are on the safer side to really handle the weight, if you have the right plates for the weight.

[Oscar_Actuary]

I assume that you have been testing it in practice.?

I find these are guidelines that help drive a progression plan that includes multiple rep/set schemes. Especially across sets, with rest times left undetermined, testing for absolute accuracy would be futile. I used the 3 guidelines noted and historical experience to give it a eyeball test for reasonableness. I'd say these values may tend to be a bit low toward the right quartile if you rest awhile between or are in good condition (younger) and too high if not. If your recov is better, I would tweak a factor or two in the formula to make it drop less as you add sets

Wouldn't it make sense to round to the even percent? I'm pretty sure that I could not load with 81.6% of my max! Not even to the exact even percent, for that matter.

see Ken's reply.

so this chart is an inverse based on the common 1rm max formula? great stuff!

but this is infinitely more bloated.
Truly, it just saves me time when deciding what weights to lift and gives me a decent starting point. Whether or not lifting 10x1 really tells me what my 1x1 Max is within 5 lbs, is of less importance. Ive never tested any 1 RM. I do plan on putting in some 10x1 sessions, so that value will be tested for "ball park".

[ephs]

if your charts work this would also prove the 1rm formula right in some way. thanks for the work!

[KenDowns]

if your charts work this would also prove the 1rm formula right in some way. thanks for the work!

Well the funny thing about the 1RM formula is that it does not matter if it successfully predicts a 1RM, it can still be used. Imagine you just did 5 reps that seemed about the limit of what you could do, and you are trying to figure out how many to do next week for 4 reps. The steps are:

1) Calculate 1RM from 5 reps
2) Inverse calculate 4-rep weight from 1RM

It doesn't matter if the predicted 1RM is correct, what matters is that number you get for 4 reps. If that is right, then the formula is useful.

[ephs]

if your charts work this would also prove the 1rm formula right in some way. thanks for the work!

Well the funny thing about the 1RM formula is that it does not matter if it successfully predicts a 1RM, it can still be used. Imagine you just did 5 reps that seemed about the limit of what you could do, and you are trying to figure out how many to do next week for 4 reps. The steps are:

1) Calculate 1RM from 5 reps
2) Inverse calculate 4-rep weight from 1RM

It doesn't matter if the predicted 1RM is correct, what matters is that number you get for 4 reps. If that is right, then the formula is useful.

yes, that is the point! but, it would be interesting, if one could really finish a rep with the predicted 1rm.

[Oscar_Actuary]

1) Calculate 1RM from 5 reps
2) Inverse calculate 4-rep weight from 1RM

It doesn't matter if the predicted 1RM is correct, what matters is that number you get for 4 reps. If that is right, then the formula is useful.

Are you saying, as long as the reps you are using are related properly, then the formula is useful? Maybe the 5 to 4 rep is correct, but the 4 to 3 or 5 to 2 or 9 to 1 is wrong.

[ephs]

1) Calculate 1RM from 5 reps
2) Inverse calculate 4-rep weight from 1RM

It doesn't matter if the predicted 1RM is correct, what matters is that number you get for 4 reps. If that is right, then the formula is useful.

Are you saying, as long as the reps you are using are related properly, then the formula is useful? Maybe the 5 to 4 rep is correct, but the 4 to 3 or 5 to 2 or 9 to 1 is wrong.

if everybody would test the different combinations, we could create our own, better formula! but i think the creator of the 1rm formula did a good estimate over some big bunch of data.

[KenDowns]

1) Calculate 1RM from 5 reps
2) Inverse calculate 4-rep weight from 1RM

It doesn't matter if the predicted 1RM is correct, what matters is that number you get for 4 reps. If that is right, then the formula is useful.

Are you saying, as long as the reps you are using are related properly, then the formula is useful? Maybe the 5 to 4 rep is correct, but the 4 to 3 or 5 to 2 or 9 to 1 is wrong.

The formula I use has proven useful for any translation between 5 and 2 reps. I don't have much experience using it for reps > 5, but what little experience I have suggest it increasingly over-predicts as reps goes up. That formula, used by Wendler but not original to him is 1RM = Weight * (1 + Reps/k) Where k=33 works well for me on bench and squat. For Press k is higher and for Deadlift it is lower but I haven't bothered to figure out what it might be. I just tend to say to myself, "Yeah, a little more for that."

I don't know what your formula is though so I can't comment. My ignorance of your formula is also why I asked how you were calculating the effect of >1 sets.