Been pondering....

To calculate your one -rep max, you do ten reps and then go to the conversion table and it quickly tells you what you're one rep max would have been.

So...a guy does 10 Squats at 200lbs ,let's say, and the table tells him his one rep max would have been something like 230-ish.


But where is the lineal cut-off point for this?

Why is it determined from 10 reps?

Let's say Jimmy does 50 squats at 300lbs.

If the ratio is progressive that means his one rep max would be likely in the neighborhood of 500 I'd guess.

But I know that it isn't.

Or maybe it is...

Let's say he does 85 Squats at 300....what's his one rep max then?

At what point does the Law of Diminishing Returns take place in regard to this? :read:

The tables I've seen go from 2-12 reps at a weight. I think the smaller the number of reps vs the 1RM, the more accurate. I've never seen one with just 10 reps, if that's what you are getting at.

For instance: link (http://www.musclenet.com/1repmaxcalculator.htm), and link (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/1rm.htm). That second has a table.

I think it varies from person to person as to how close to accurate they are, based on conditioning levels, muscle fiber dominance, etc. It even varies from exercise to exercise in the same individual.

And 200 as a 10RM is going to be significantly more than 230 as a 1RM. More like 270 or so. :)

But where is the lineal cut-off point for this?

It's actually not the same curve for everyone. When you have a low lactate threshold, then the published curves are reasonably good, for low reps.

When you raise your lactate threshold by endurance training, then the adaptations for endurance tend to invalidate the tables - usually a guy with a high lactate threshold can do more reps than the tables predict as the load is reduced. This has several physiological sources, starting from the muscle plasticity - myosin heavy chain (MHC) type I and IIa is expressed more in fibers for endurance trained muscle that type IIb. This sort of MHC fatigues slower than type IIb. Then there is the increase in mitochondrial population and higher cardiovascular fitness which can deliver oxygen and glucose, and take lactate up.

There is also an advantage for not being lean. The higher your total amount of body fat, the faster you can produce exercise Calories from fat. In an endurance trained lifter who is not lean, this can be quite significant since the aerobic metabolism is there to burn the fat. Plus, recent research shows that lean individuals don't burn their intramuscular triglycerides so well - maybe only half or two-thirds as fast. Now the more exercise Calories you can produce from fat (which is essentially inexhaustible in a single set) then the longer the glycogen can hold out.

So if you see a fat guy who can do very long squat sets that doesn't mean the guy has a huge 1RM. For example I've done 65x225# and 25x315# sets, but my 1RM is almost certainly under 500# - probably around 450#. I haven't maxed out my squat in a long time, but I have squatted 420#. The reason I think the max squat is under 500# is that my max deadlift is usually more than my max squat, and I just got a new max deadlift of 490# last week.

It comes down to how you train. If you train in a typical low rep, low endurance situation, then the tables may be accurate for you. But if you do endurance work, and are not really lean, then you should get more reps than the tables predict, and that effect should increase as you move down the table from the 1RM.

Yeah...I think you have to calibrate these tables based on experience. For me, they predict my 1RM pretty accurately from my 3RM. Any farther than that, and the tables get progressively less accurate, and predict much more weight than I can actually do. For example, if I take my 10RM for bench press, it predicts that I can do about 30-ish pounds more than I actually can.

Been pondering....

To calculate your one -rep max, you do ten reps and then go to the conversion table and it quickly tells you what you're one rep max would have been.

So...a guy does 10 Squats at 200lbs ,let's say, and the table tells him his one rep max would have been something like 230-ish.


But where is the lineal cut-off point for this?

Why is it determined from 10 reps?

Let's say Jimmy does 50 squats at 300lbs.

If the ratio is progressive that means his one rep max would be likely in the neighborhood of 500 I'd guess.

But I know that it isn't.

Or maybe it is...

Let's say he does 85 Squats at 300....what's his one rep max then?

At what point does the Law of Diminishing Returns take place in regard to this? :read:

Use a Max triple has your guide = %90 of your 1RM. Very reliable.

and I just got a new max deadlift of 490# last week.

Awesome Zen. Very close to 500.

Awesome Zen. Very close to 500.

Yeah, the bar came up so easily that my trainer Kenny and I had the exact same reaction - "we should have gone for 500#". When I told my old trainer Andre that I pulled 490# easily he said: "don't you hate that? you get a new max and the first thing you think is - 'something's wrong'". Andre says we have to go for 500# this week. Dunno about that.

The most perceptive comment on this was mastover's though. He saw the workout I did that day and asked if I noticed any bending in my hooks, even though I didn't mention that. As it actually turned out, the hooks did bend, and the fabric stretched, so that after the 490# I only got one double at 425# before the bar just popped off the hooks. Now that's experience for you - a guy who can tell from looking at the reps and loads of the workout that the hooks were probably compromised.

I got these APT hooks which are really great except my wrists are too small, so I have to use wraps with them. But they aren't going to bend at these loads. I have them at home but I'll bring them into the gym this week just in case.