all posts post new thread

Barbell INOL spreadsheet for logging/designing strength routines

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

BrianBobb

Level 1 Valued Member
I don't know if anyone else would be interested in this, but I made a spreadsheet that tracks per-workout and weekly INOL (intensity number of lifts), based on Hristo Hristov's "How to Design Strength Training Programs Using Prilepin's Table" (2005) .

As Hristov puts it, using INOL helps "find the optimal number of lifts when designing strength training routines using weights from different intensity zones." Hristov suggests that frequent workouts with conservative INOL values work best for most people, even though it's not practical for most people to lift very frequently. This seems to run in the vein of high-frequency, strength-focused programs like those found in Easy Strength or Power to the People. I'm not well-versed in bodybuilding-style routines, so I don't know how useful it would be for those.

To use the spreadsheet, enter your chosen training max for the day, and then enter weight and reps for each set. The sheet will calculate the intensity of each set, the overall tonnage for the workout, and the INOL value for the workout; the workout INOL value is based on a calculation of the INOL for each set. It will also calculate the weekly tonnage and INOL for the lift. It also includes an intensity calculator and INOL guidelines from Hristov's paper, for convenience.

To keep logging after the week, just copy and paste the weekly block lower down on the spreadsheet and change the dates. I use separate sheets for each lift in one workbook, so I'll have a bench sheet, a squat sheet, a deadlift sheet, a press sheet, etc. This can also be used as a method for designing or comparing/contrasting percentage-based routines, in which case I would recommend setting the TM to 100.

I made the spreadsheet with Google Sheets. It can be found here.

-Brian

EDIT January 23, 2017: Post edited to include zipped copy of spreadsheet for download, in case folks don't want to mess with Google Sheets. It's in OpenDocument Spreadsheet (ODS) format. Should be able to open with Excel, OpenOffice, LibreOffice, etc.
 

Attachments

  • Single Lift INOL Feedback Log.ods.zip
    22.9 KB · Views: 173
Last edited:
I did the same thing once to try and breakdown programs and how they are the same or different. It's interesting to see that most successful popular programs have the same INOL numbers even though they seem so different.
 
Soviet era scientists represent yet again Thanks for this - looled very briefly at it - is there an adjustment for age?
 
Soviet era scientists represent yet again Thanks for this - looled very briefly at it - is there an adjustment for age?

I didn't build age adjustment calculations into this spreadsheet, but I'm open to suggestions. I tried to keep my calculations based on info I could glean from Hristov's article. Maybe some of the Russian sources have some guidance on age factors.

I would guess that age might affect the guidelines presented in the article, that is, an older lifter may tolerate lower INOL per workout or per week, for example.
 
I didn't build age adjustment calculations into this spreadsheet, but I'm open to suggestions. I tried to keep my calculations based on info I could glean from Hristov's article. Maybe some of the Russian sources have some guidance on age factors.

I would guess that age might affect the guidelines presented in the article, that is, an older lifter may tolerate lower INOL per workout or per week, for example.
Thanks again @BrianBobb
 
Hey Brian,

I could be wrong but it looks like you made a mistake, you're not accounting for the relative intensity of the work sets. The INOL of 5x2x80% is not the same as 2x5x80%?

I've tested the sheet, and whether I enter 4 separate sets of 4 reps @ 80%, I get the same INOL as 1 set of 16 @80%

https://www.powerliftingwatch.com/files/prelipins.pdf - have a look at the top of the last page of his article, he describes how to account for relative intensity.
 
I looked at the Hristov article and my calculations again, and asked around another forum for some insight in case I was missing something. I don't think the calculations are incorrect. On the last page of the Hristov article he says in the second paragraph that both 5 sets x 2 reps x 80% and 2 sets x 5 reps x 80% both have the same INOL ("They both have the same INOL of 10/20 = 0.5."), but he points out that 2 sets of 5 reps @ 80% is probably perceived by the trainee as a tougher workout because you are accumulating that 0.5 INOL across 2 sets (0.25 + 0.25) as opposed to 5 sets (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1).

However, I do think that your comment is valuable because a limitation of INOL is that it doesn't really account for exertion, at least not directly. That 5 reps @ 80 % is harder than 2 reps @ 80%. Using INOL as a guideline may become more useful if variance of exertion is limited to the extent possible, and Prilepin's table (where Hristov started the article) is used as a guideline for rep selection. At 80%, Prilepin recommends a range of 2-4 reps; 5 reps would be out of bounds at that intensity. A 5 rep set would be more appropriate for 70-75%, an intensity at which that rep range requires less exertion.

For the motor learning practice and neural adaptations required for strength training (which is what I believe Prilepin and Hristov are concerned with), I would think that you would want to hit a "sweet spot" of keeping sets at an exertion level that is not so easy and the weights are so light that you get no useful adaptation for lifting, but not so high where exertion required to complete the set takes away from focus on technique. Remember that all of this stuff is derived from the Soviet/Russian systems that emphasized lifting submaximally most of the time and focusing on honing good technique.

It may have been useful for Hristov to publish one additional table at the end of his article to give some guidance on optimal numbers for per-set INOL. A couple of months ago I remember plugging the numbers from some of Boris Sheiko's powerlifting programs into the INOL calculations and finding that most of the time the per-set INOL fell in a range of 0.1 to 0.2, and most of the time hovered around 0.15; usually sets at higher intensities fell below 0.15 INOL per-set; this is excluding the "stressful load" days every 10-14 days where a trainee would load up 70% and do sets of 3,5,7,9,8,6,4. And, of course, this all comes with the caveat that it's based on Sheiko's style, which emphasizes average intensity in the submaximal range, lots of sets, and low reps, in order to hone technique. He has had some success with that approach.

Ultimately, when beginning to work with INOL, it may be most useful for someone to just start using it as a data collection device to get a sense of what works best for the individual trainee. Do you personally get better results from lots of submaximal sets, or do you need heavier, harder sets to make progress? Does it work better for you to train more frequently, or less? Once that data is collected, it can be put to use for planning purposes. I actually made a separate INOL calculator that isn't a "log" but just provides a handy way to calculate number of lifts, per-set INOL, workout INOL, and average intensity for the workout, with the idea that the results would be recorded in some other log book. I could post that up here if anyone is interested.

Anyway, thanks for the comment. It really made me think.
 
A lot of this is discussed at Plan Strong, and @BrianBobb is saying is correct as far as I recall. The volume is the key determinant, and so long as the rep range is appropriate based on other parameters, whether one choose a higher or lower rep range to achieve the desired volume isn't considered terribly important.

-S-
 
I didn't build age adjustment calculations into this spreadsheet, but I'm open to suggestions.

I have downloaded your spreadsheet and started using it 8 weeks ago as a log for both my lifts and my partner's. I have found it helpful to select the top 16 rows and "freeze panes" so that the charts are always visible, to which I have added the prilepin chart of rep ranges. I also added a column to the percent max calculator for typical estimated max number of reps at each percentage as a reference. As the log has grown I also found it helpful to use conditional formatting to highlight the date that matches "today's date", makes it easy to find my place. I turned all the dates into a formula linking the week above and adding 1, this allows future dates to be automatically copy pasted though I suppose fill down would work without that.

When I use it to plan future workout intensities I just enter negative numbers for reps to make it obvious that it is planned not recorded data, it calculates negative INOL just fine, no need for a separate file. I have it adding 2.5 pounds per week to my estimated max to calculate intensities without having to measure maxes every week. Eventually I won't be able to keep up with that target but it is easy to link the week before and add an estimated improvement rate, then copy paste to build the next week before entering any workouts.

As for aging, older means less rapid healing which means keep the INOL towards the lower half of the recommended range most of the time, and if you don't you will feel it later. I am in my late thirties now so on some days when I feel like skipping a workout I just do the minimum 0.4 INOL, but I still try to lift close to 80%.
 
Thanks for this Brian.

How should we use INOL for squats and deadlifts given the overlap between these lifts? Do we treat them as a single exercise? Or would we treat them as separate exercises but just be mindful of the overlap when considering weekly INOL?
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom