|
|
Post by vincedecker on Aug 3, 2009 19:14:12 GMT -5
How did you ass monkeys come up with the method of reps and sets in your training journals(putting your sets B4 your reps)? Ie. 175 x 3 x 2. This should mean 175 x 3 reps x 2 sets.
I want to know the origin of this as (I maintain) my style is easier to read.
Join the revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jared Enderton on Aug 3, 2009 19:23:40 GMT -5
hahaha this thread is redick. you crazy. This is just your old age kicking in. You have to get in with the new cutting edge way of keeping a training journal... I honestly have no idea why I keep it that way, but always have...
150kgx5x3= 5setsx3reps
I think most journals are kept that way, no? I think only a few are otherwise like on marunde(maybe j blake's is all that I can think of off the top of my head).
To clear the confusion, just make sure you put 150kgx5sx3r haha or 150x5rx3s or something. or... just follow our lead- give in, you know you want to deep down
|
|
|
|
Post by cmathison on Aug 4, 2009 9:44:23 GMT -5
lol, thats the way it should be my man.. 135 for 5 sets of 12.. doesnt that sound like it should be the right way?
|
|
|
|
Post by kingklavetter on Aug 4, 2009 13:41:01 GMT -5
i agree with Calfison. 1020x3x5 means 1020kgs for 3 reps done for 5 sets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jared Enderton on Aug 4, 2009 13:48:40 GMT -5
mathison is saying "135x5sx12r", whereas klavetter is saying "1020x3rx5s"... so you are saying it is the opposite? So far we have: Mathison & Enderton: 1020kgsx3sx5r Klavetter & Decker: 1020kgsx3rx5s we weigh more, so we win.  |
|
|
|
Post by cmathison on Aug 7, 2009 12:57:36 GMT -5
mathison is saying "135x5sx12r", whereas klavetter is saying "1020x3rx5s"... so you are saying it is the opposite? So far we have: Mathison & Enderton: 1020kgsx3sx5r Klavetter & Decker: 1020kgsx3rx5s we weigh more, so we win. HA! I like your logic. I need to tell my wife this is how it works so I will always be right. Unless she will take it upon herself to balloon up to 300 just to be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Jared Enderton on Aug 7, 2009 21:25:09 GMT -5
haha umm.. pry not a good idea to bring that up to the wife in case she does think of something equally clever. It only makes sense. More weight= More of a man. |
|
