|
Accuracy
Ridiculous?
What you are suggesting is an equation that accurately predicts your own performance. That doesn't mean that the sloped line analysis in the article is ridiculous, just that it's not as accurate for you. As I recall, the article clearly points out that there will be deviations based on whether a particularle lifter works with primarily with low reps or high reps. For a 1st order analysis, such deviations are tolerable, IMHO.
What is needed is a best-fit "curve" that closely approximates the available data. It's not necessarily an "asymptopic line." For instance, the sloped line in the article is 1st order in the number of reps, your equation is 2nd order in the number of reps, and other equations can include even higher orders of the number of reps if desired. But doing this also adds unnecessary complexity to the analysis. There is a point of diminished returns. I have taken the analysis up to the 5th order, yielding an equation of the form W = a + bR + cR^2 + dR^3 + eR^4 + fR^5, where W is the weight and R is the number of reps that can be performed with the weight. For many readers, such an equation is hoplessly complex, and it's certainly not relevant to a simple "make-your-own-calculator" article.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that the coefficients in your equation (i.e., 0.029 and 0.0006) will be accurate for all other lifters. As you mention in your post, your strength equation can be dialed for each lifter and that it gets much more complicated when you add in numbers of sets. Indeed, for your approach to be truly useful, you must convey to a world-wide audience "how" each individual can tailor your equation to their own performance.
|
Linear Mode
