Workout Programming Online Course

Class 4: Designing Advanced Rep Schemes

Let’s look at the process of designing a rep scheme that spans across multiple intensities (percentage of 1 RM). For reference, below is the MovementLink Rep Table that we will be referring to in this class.

Some more math…again, if you have a aversion to the word “math,” we are confident that anyone who wants to learn this can, so just hang in there with us. You got this!

We are going to use the design of the below table and will take it one step at a time. First, let’s start with explaining the big concept.

Weighted Rep Table: Example 1

In the above example (Weighted Rep Table: Example 1), there are 6 total reps at 65% of a 1 RM. We can see the values in the MEV (Minimal Effective Volume), OV (Optimal Volume), and MRV (Maximal Recoverable Volume) columns come straight from the bigger MovementLink Rep Table. Ultimately, the question we are trying to answer is what stimulus level occurs from our rep scheme. In the above example, we can see that 6 total reps at 65% would generate:

  • 33% of the stimulus required to reach MEV,

  • 27% of the stimulus required to reach OV, and

  • 23% of the stimulus required to reach MRV.

To get these values we are simply taking the total reps (6) and dividing that by the total reps required to meet MEV (18), OV (22), and MRV (26).

Let’s look at a second example: 3 sets of 6 (65%) would total 18 reps at 65% of a 1 RM.

Weighted Rep Table: Example 2

3 sets of 6 (65%) would produce:

  • 100% of the stimulus required to reach MEV,

  • 82% of the stimulus required to reach OV, and

  • 69% of the stimulus required to reach MRV.

So, if our goal was to hit MEV exactly, the 100% would let us know that we are exactly there. At our above that number is what we are looking for in week 1. But if we are in week 2 and our goal was to hit something around OV, we can see that we are only 82% of the way there and would need to add reps or intensity to our rep scheme. If our goal was to hit something near MRV, we would see that we are only 69% of the way there.

The value of going through this process becomes much more clear when we look at rep schemes that span multiple percentages of 1 RM. What if we had a rep scheme that has sets at 70%, 75%, and 80% like this:

  • 1 Set of 6 (70%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (75%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (80%)

Weighted Rep Table: Example 3

In Weighted Rep Table: Example 3, we can see we have:

  • 6 Total Reps at 70%,

  • 6 Total Reps at 75%, and

  • 6 Total Reps at 80%.

Looking at the 70% row, the 6 total reps at 70% would contribute:

  • 38% towards MEV,

  • 30% towards OV, and

  • 25% towards MRV.

It is when we combine the three rows for the totals that the value of this method becomes clear. This rep scheme would provide at stimulus that is:

  • 130% of MEV

  • 100% of OV

  • 82% of MRV

From these numbers, we can determine if our rep scheme fits the desired stimulus for each week in our cycle:

  • Week 1 - At or Above MEV and Below OV: No

  • Week 2 - Above MEV, Around OV, and Below MRV: Yes

  • Week 3 - Above OV and Around MRV: No

For our programming style, this would mean that the above rep scheme could be a potential for week 2.

  • 1 Set of 6 (70%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (75%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (80%)

Let’s look a fourth example that would also meet week 2 requirements and be around OV, use sets of 6, but add a 4th set.

Weighted Rep Table: Example 4

In Weighted Rep Table: Example 4, we can see we have:

  • 18 Total Reps at 60% and

  • 6 Total Reps at 65%

We can see that this amount of work would create a stimulus of:

  • 123% of MEV

  • 99% of OV

  • 83% of MRV

Comparing Example 3’s total reps with Example 4’s, they both would generate just about the same fatigue levels. Breaking these totals down into workable sets we could see that an additional reasonable rep scheme for a week 2 could be:

  • 3 Sets of 6 (60%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (65%)

So, with multiple options that fit the stimuli we are trying to produce, how would we choose? Week 2 will be building off of week 1, so it will be highly dependent on what we chose to do in week 1. Ideally we’ll want the average intensity levels to increase across the weeks and we can see that the average intensity of Example 3: (6x70% + 6x75%+ 6x80%)/(6+6+6)=75% is greater than the average intensity of example 4: (18x60% + 6x65%)/(18+6)=61.25%. We can also take into account the type of cycle we are developing and if we recognize that 6 reps is right on the border and can be used in a hypertrophy mesocycle and a strength mesocycle, we can see how that may occur. With hypertrophy mesocycles wanting to average around 65% intensity, the week 4 example with 24 total reps averaging 61.25% would fit that model better. With strength mesocycles wanting to average around 75% intensities, example 3 with 18 total reps averaging 75% intensity would fit that better.

There are many different workout rep scheme styles that we can play around with:

  • Consistent Intensity

    • 3 Sets of 6 (75%)

  • Ascending Intensity

    • 1 Set of 6 (70%)

    • 1 Set of 6 (75%)

    • 1 Set of 6 (80%)

  • Descending Intensity

    • 1 Set of 6 (80%)

    • 1 Set of 6 (75%)

    • 1 Set of 6 (70%)

All of these rep schemes would produce a similar stimuli around optimal volume (OV) and would all be acceptable for a week 2. For us, we prefer to include a range of intensities and prefer to complete heaviest sets first and then perform back off sets. Here’s why:

  1. Being exposed to higher intensities better prepares us for heavier weights in later weeks and later mesocycles. For a specific average intensity, if we go above it, to average it out, we must also go below it.

  2. The power and technique we are able to bring to our heaviest sets is much greater if we do them early. This provides us with much higher quality work at the heaviest sets.

  3. The heaviest sets will teach us the most about our current technique and what we need to work on. With back-off sets afterwards, we have the opportunity to focus our attention on improving a specific aspect of our technique. If our heaviest sets are last and we notice a technique improvement we can make, we don’t have an opportunity to work on it.

  4. Because our fatigue level is higher for our lighter, back-off sets, they produce more of a stimulus than they would have if done fresh.

As an example, if we were to organize a rep scheme from from Example 3 above, we’d likely prefer to organize it as follows:

  • 1 Set of 6 (80%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (75%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (70%)


As an additional example, if we were to organize a rep scheme from Example 4 above, we’d likely prefer to organize it as either of the following:

  • 1 Set of 6 (70%)

  • 3 Sets of 6 (65%)

    or

  • 1 Set of 6 (65%)

  • 1 Set of 6 (70%)

  • 2 Sets of 6 (65%)

Note: We can’t forget to review against RTMs and RMs. It amazes us how often we see rep schemes that ask for reps and percentages in a set beyond what is possible. We typically see this mistake from inexperienced programmers who are creating cycles and simply starting too hard on week 1. For example, they will organize a cycle that may look like this:

  • Week 1: 3 sets 6 (80%)

  • Week 2: 3 sets of 6 (85%)

  • Week 3: 3 sets of 6 (90%)

  • A 6 RM is around 85%, so asking a client to do 3 sets of 6 at a 6 RM is likely not possible and the next week asking for sets of 6 at 90% is definitely not going to happen.

  • Also note that the 18 total reps in each of these workouts would falls under or at the MRV for weeks 1 & 2, but the reps per set did not make sense with what we know about rep max percentages.

Next class, instead of increasing intensity across a cycle, we’ll look at increasing volume across weeks as we hold intensity steady.