1 rep strength

I doubt many of you read FLEX, but I am starting their Destination:Strength program. It basicly a 3 month program to up you core lifts. It has test days every month and begining and end of program. I did my first test day already knowing some of my 1 rep max's. It makes you do a weight between 6-12 reps then uses a formula to figure out your 1rm.

Well one week before hand I maxed out bench at 230, and for this test I put up 180, 12 times which equals 250. I was wondering why that was? Is it differnent muscle fibers that you use to rep or max?

JoeR. said:

I doubt many of you read FLEX, but I am starting their Destination:Strength program. It basicly a 3 month program to up you core lifts. It has test days every month and begining and end of program. I did my first test day already knowing some of my 1 rep max's. It makes you do a weight between 6-12 reps then uses a formula to figure out your 1rm.

Well one week before hand I maxed out bench at 230, and for this test I put up 180, 12 times which equals 250. I was wondering why that was? Is it differnent muscle fibers that you use to rep or max?

Click to expand...

the problem with those percnetages is that they are a gues....they are gettign as close as possible to what your true 1RM may be without even testing it. Alot of times they use these percentages to train athletes as it is much easier and safer then allowing them to hit a 1RM and risk injury. Every rep range that you work in is an approximate percnetage of what your 1RM would be. For example:

1RM= 100%
2RM= 95%
6RM= 85%
10RM= 75%
12RM= 62.5%

Now those are intensity levels. Strength coaches take those intensity levels and set up periodized programs using these percentages to help build better athletes. The probem is that they are a guess. One can never know their true 1RM unless they actually do it. Also, the farther away from you 1RM you are working the more inaccurate those numbers become. So for example if you are working at an intensity level of 95% (2RM) for your bench press that is pretty darn close to your 1RM so you can pretty much make a more accutrate guess as to what it would be. However, if you are working at a lower intensity level, in your case it was 62.5% (your 12RM) well then it is much more difficult to predict your 1RM because that approximation does not take into consideration things like joint stabalization, motor unit recruitment etc....Make sense?

Yes it makes lots of sence, so basicly to make it as accurate as possible with using the same formula as before(consistant w program) go closer to 6 reps.

Thanks, it was just wierd that it was 20lbs off, it seems like a lot. But in the program it will make me work MUCH harder using that 1rm anyways. I like

JoeR. said:

Yes it makes lots of sence, so basicly to make it as accurate as possible with using the same formula as before(consistant w program) go closer to 6 reps.

Thanks, it was just wierd that it was 20lbs off, it seems like a lot. But in the program it will make me work MUCH harder using that 1rm anyways. I like

Click to expand...

You would be better off going with your true 1rm. I have not seen the program, but you will most likely be better off using the lower weight. Reason being, you will be pushing yourself too fast will actually make the program less effective. I know it sounds strange to be training for strength and not pushing yourself to the limit, but it it is definately a factor.

One thing you sometimes need to watch with 1RM is proper warmups. It didn't seem a problem for me when I was benching in the 200s, but in the high 300s I warmup with 225 and then 315 before I go for a 1RM. Otherwise the body does not seem to want to cooperate often, you will find that many powerlifters do the same thing not just for safety but to get the body acclimated once again to those big poundages. I find the charts DEAD ON ACCURATE for predictions, I have a link in the sig to a calculator. As for the chart, I shrunk down one and put it in the back of my training log book. I can calculate out each set based on what set number and how many reps I want to do, since I lose a pretty much given amount of strength between each set.

One week I was doing 345*3.5 reps for an estimated 381 max, the next week I was able to put up a full 385 1RM, so the below (signature link) calculator will tell you partial reps too.

If you are relatively new to lifting and dont have good stabalizers or "muscle maturity" then it would seem more possible that the calculators are not yet accurate.

Well your thing I have used before actually, it puts me at 244. Which is still bout 14 lbs high. Im going to have my first chest day tomarrow, will see how I can adjust it.

After a few weeks, if the program seems good I might post it or atleast recoment the read.

See Prilepin's Table. It's another thing to live by when dealing with strength training.

I shrink this to 60% and print it.

Yea Im a moron how do you read the chart...? Lets say you benchin 135x4, using it b/c its the first line. What would be your 1RM, 156?

Those charts just aren't accurate. You don't know your true 1RM unless you train it. That's why guys using routines that focus on 1RM strength constantly blow away their 1RM in the beginning.

DeadBolt said:

Yea Im a moron how do you read the chart...? Lets say you benchin 135x4, using it b/c its the first line. What would be your 1RM, 156?

Click to expand...

135x1 is 1, go to the right to the next number and that is rep 2, 3, 4 and so on all the way to 10.

The chart works for me, but it wont for all. I believe GP threw out the idea of also fiber type percentages as well (fast vs slow). I dont know when I was young if they were accurate, but for me now they are dead on.

That chart uses the exact formula I used to figure it out, thats pretty niffty. Mabye after this program and training more for strength it will more accurate. See I have only been training for muscle since the begining so I am relatively big but no so strong. Everyone always says I look like I should be doing more than I really am.

Looks dont mean a lot, I've seen bigger guys than myself way weaker, and then there are smaller guys who make me look like I'm goofing off in the gym.

Yea explain that phenomon. When I say bigger though I dont mean taller or fatter, I mean more muscular.

Different insertion points, different fiber type percentages, different body heights, all kinds of things.

Muscle has fat and water in it just like beef you get at the supermarket. Some people also would have slightly shorter limbs making a huge appearance difference. A guy at 5'9" with my stats looks FAR better than I do at only 5 inches taller.

If a person trains for strength and doesn't eat that much they can still get stronger to a point, if the hormone levels are there and the diet is there to support their maximum hormonal output (a little cholesterol in the diet) then they can keep getting stronger without putting on a lot of weight (read: size).

I think spending your time being perplexed by nature is just a waste of time unless you are doing some serious scientific study. If you want to lift and get bigger you need to learn diet, if you want to get stronger and remain at low bodyweights, you still have to understand diet.

Over the years, I have seen many 1 rep calculators. They always were inaccurate for me. Maybe accurate with lower reps, but then inaccurate with higher reps, or vice versa. But like Mudge, those charts from Critical Bench, and the calculator from Strength Disk, are absolutely accurate for me.