Designing new routine - "RM" = what?

[BlueCorsair]

Hey guys,

Been awhile (too long) since I designed a new routine; was looking over this here thread (http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/training/58699-guide-designing-routine.html) and found the information therein to be unsurpisingly very good.

I don't quite understand some of the terminology, though, despite reading (and re-reading) the post several times.

When I read: "Overhead Press:
Week A: 8x3 @ 5-6RM - 75sec RI"

I'm a little lost; it means eight sets of three reps (if I follow so far), with a 75 second rest interval... but what the heck is RM? I tried to get a clear understanding of it, but I must be a bit thck. Does RM stand for "one rep max" and if so, how does one translate that into doing three reps of what one can theoretically only do once?

I'm sure the answer to this is blindingly obvious, but it's 2 a.m., I don't have to teach tommorrow (teacher!), and my reading comprehension skills are clearly taking a dive, so if someone could explain this in something so simple a cave-man could follow, I'd be very grateful...

 

[Gazhole]

5-6RM would indicate a weight that you can do for a maximum of 5 reps or a maximum of 6 reps. 5 rep max or 6 rep max.

You're face-palming now aren't you?

 

[PushAndPull]

Reps just for reading that stickie.

 

[Phineas]

Reps just for reading that stickie.

Reps for repping a sticky reader.

 

[rockhardly]

Reps for repping a sticky reader.

I tried to rep you for repping a sticky reader repper but I must spread some reps around to other reppers.

 

[Built]

I tried to rep you for repping a sticky reader repper but I must spread some reps around to other reppers.

Reps for trying to rep a sticky reader repper.

(Plus this way I get to rep other people again.)

 

[Phineas]

Reps for trying to rep a sticky reader repper.

(Plus this way I get to rep other people again.)

Attempted reps for repping an attempted repper of a repper who repped a sticky reader repper.

 

[BlueCorsair]

I... yes... I... reps for reps?

With reps?

"Next, on cooking with reps!"

And yes, I feel a bit stupid, but it seems a confusing way to judge how heavy to lift.

So (basically), 8x3 @ 5-6RM - 75sec RI would mean eight sets of three reps that you could theoretically actually lift 5 to 6 times, correct - i.e. you're not really doing a set to exhaustion, but only 50% of the way to it, per se?

Damn, and I would have thought after nearly seven years of proper training that I had all of this figured out. I'll go burn off my shame, immediately.

 

[Gazhole]

Doing multiple sets at a true rep maximum intensity is somewhere between incredibly difficult and impossible.

Most of the time when you're lifting for multiple sets of a certain number of reps, you're actually using a weight you could max out on and do a few more reps than you're doing.

You just don't really think about any of this stuff when you're there.

 

[Marat]

I find it's easier to determine intensity by using "percent relative to 1RM" instead of relating a load to a certain rep range. By converting to percentages, one doesn't need to test multiple rep ranges. Rather, just a 1RM needs to be tested and then the rest of the intensities for a program can be calculated relatively accurately.

For instance, a 5-6RM is approximately 85% of a 1RM. That means that if one squats 100 pounds, one would use 85** pounds for a set that calls for a 5-6RM intensity.

Similarly, a 3RM is approximately 90% of one's 1RM. If a lifter has a 1RM of 500 pounds, one would use 450** pounds for that set.

Other common values:
1RM =100%
2RM = 95%
3RM = 90%
5RM = 85%
8RM = 80%
10RM=75%
12RM=70%
15RM=65%

Those are just approximations but are reasonably accurate.


**- It's common to not actually relate loads to a true 1RM. Rather, one would take about 90-95% of their 1RM and then determine their intensities based on their "training max". Programs may mention when one is to use an intensity that is a true 95% or may occasionally just indicate 105% when lifting in the 90-95+%RM is called for. This allows for the lifter to avoid failing lifts and be able to predict failure as well as minimizing plateauing while simultaneously being able to train into higher intensities.

 

[BlueCorsair]

I find it's easier to determine intensity by using "percent relative to 1RM" instead of relating a load to a certain rep range. By converting to percentages, one doesn't need to test multiple rep ranges. Rather, just a 1RM needs to be tested and then the rest of the intensities for a program can be calculated relatively accurately.

For instance, a 5-6RM is approximately 85% of a 1RM. That means that if one squats 100 pounds, one would use 85** pounds for a set that calls for a 5-6RM intensity.

Similarly, a 3RM is approximately 90% of one's 1RM. If a lifter has a 1RM of 500 pounds, one would use 450** pounds for that set.

Other common values:
1RM =100%
2RM = 95%
3RM = 90%
5RM = 85%
8RM = 80%
10RM=75%
12RM=70%
15RM=65%

Those are just approximations but are reasonably accurate.


**- It's common to not actually relate loads to a true 1RM. Rather, one would take about 90-95% of their 1RM and then determine their intensities based on their "training max". Programs may mention when one is to use an intensity that is a true 95% or may occasionally just indicate 105% when lifting in the 90-95+%RM is called for. This allows for the lifter to avoid failing lifts and be able to predict failure as well as minimizing plateauing while simultaneously being able to train into higher intensities.

Thank you for taking the time to write that; very much appreciated. The whole RM thing just had me a bit confused, as I've always worked off raw percentages, which I find pretty easy to follow. If someone asked me what my 75% max was, I'd know for sure. If someone asked me right now what my 5-6RM was, I'd have to work it out or really think hard (and possibly still screw it up).

I'll try to apply what you explained to my new routine design.

My thanks to all of you fine fellows (and lady) who did not, in fact, laugh right in my face.