How to assess your progress and strength level

[Vlad]

I would like to share with you my thoughts about how to find out the level of strength one has achieved: beginner, intermediate, advanced, or maybe elite?

We all know the 1.5xBW rule for squat which separates the beginners from the intermediates. But we also know that light lifters tend to lift more weight relative to the BW. There are many reasons for this: better leverages of smaller people and simple physics (consider a longer bar path for taller people) are among the most important factors. I think it is quite clear that the 1.5xBW rule is just a rough guideline.

Why do we need to know our level?
1. I think it’s important to have an objective picture about how far one has progressed. Sometimes it could be hard to tell if one progresses at all, particularly when the BW changes drastically due to cutting or bulking.
2. The knowledge of one’s level will make it easier to set realistic future goals. If you are beginner, it does not make much sense to aim for an advanced level within a year (some people do it). I think it’s reasonable to aim for one level higher than your current level, and that will be rather long term for most people.
3. The training routines one should use depend on the strength level. What works for a beginner does not work for an advanced lifter, and vice versa.


Requirements for an objective assessment of strength level
1. Some people are much better at squatting than the other, some - at deadlifting, and some – at benching. This means that using only one lift for determining the strength level is not a good idea. I think the best would be to use the total of the BIG THREE lifts: squat + deadlift + bench press, as is common in powerlifting competitions.
2. One could define the various strength levels by defining the values of the total for the different BW classes. But this system, although not bad in principle, would be very inconvenient in practice as one would have to remember a huge table of numbers. This is not good, and there must be a better method.

Assessment of strength level using Wilks formula
1. Using the Wilks formula, one can get a so called Wilks score which is based on the BW and the total. But what does the Wilks score mean? This is simple: The Wilks score is your total if your BW were 51 kg (112 lb). This means that if your BW is 51 kg, then your total and the Wilks score will be the same. If you are heavier than 51 kg (most likely), then your Wilks score will be an estimate a 51 kg lifter would have to lift in order to match your results.
2. Thus, the Wilks formula gives you a score, which is a total normalised to a BW of 51 kg. How was the Wilks formula derived? The Wilks formula was derived by statistical analysis of the differences in performance of powerlifters (at the same level of physical development) in different weight classes. You can find an online calculator here: http://spayced.programming.googlepages.com/wilks.html

Classification of the different strength classes using the Wilks formula
1. I have used the strength standards from this site: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html
2. I have calculated the Wilks scores for all weight classes and for all level of strength. It turns out that the Wilks score for the same level of strength is independent of the BW (there was a slight variation of plus/minus a few kg).
3. Here are the results for the total (in kg!) based on 1 RM:
Advanced beginner--------intermediate---------advanced----------elite
-------200-----------------------235-------------------325--------------415

4. If you do not know your 1 RM you can use your 5 RM total (in kg!) as well:
Advanced beginner--------intermediate---------advanced----------elite
-------170-----------------------200-------------------276--------------353

Examples of calculating the level of strength of two forum members
1. I have selected two forum members who have trained for 1 year and who did not have any lifting experience in the past. These people have really good logs, have trained non-stop and everybody knows them. They are Guru and Rere. I chose them because of the above and also because they have tested their 1RM after exactly 1 year of training.
2. Guru’s BW at the moment of testing was 58 kg, and his maxes were 90 kg for squat, 110 kg for deadlift and 67.5 kg for bench press. This gives a Wilks score of 235. This means that in one year Guru has achieved an intermediate status.
3. Rere’s BW was 99 kg at the test, and his maxes were as follows: squat – 130 kg, deadlift – 170 kg, bench press – 97.5 kg, which gives a Wilks score of 243. Thus, Rere has also achieved the intermediate status. As you can see Guru and Rere have achieved the same level of strength, but Guru squats, deadlifts and benches substantially more than Rere in terms of BW.

I hope that this information will be useful in assessing the progress and planning of realistic future goals.

[guru]

Good write-up Vlad. You've mentioned this in other posts a few times, but this is really very well laid out & elaborated.

[Nilan666]

Oh wow this is really really good. I think this should be stickied and put right on top of all the other posts.


EDA:Oh sorry did not notice it has already been stickied

[muddy]

Nice write-up Vlad!


For those with OpenOffice 3.0 who would like a Wilks function in a spreadsheet, it's easy to add. To do this:

1. Open a spreadsheet
2. Go to Tools, Macros, Organize Macros, OpenOffice.org BASIC
3. In the resulting dialog box, you should see a tree on the left with "OpenOffice.org Macros" as a top-level branch. Under that, you should see the name of your spreadsheet. Select it with a single left click.
4. Click the New button.
5. Name the module "Lifting" (or whatever you want, doesn't really matter).
6. In the resulting code editor, REPLACE everything there with the code below at the end.
7. You can close the code editor.
8. As soon as you've saved your spreadsheet, the functions are saved with it. You can read up in the help how you can move these functions out of a spreadsheet and into a shared library any spreadsheet can use, if you prefer that.
9. When you go to re-open the spreadsheet, OpenOffice will (thankfully) warn you the spreadsheet contains macros. By default, it will disable them.
10. To re-enable the macros, go to Tools, Options and click the Macro Security button. One option is to change the default security stance from High to Medium. This will ask you if you want to disable macros on opening rather than assume you don't. Another option would be to specify that this particular spreadsheet is OK on the Trusted Sources tab. It's up to you.


Now in your spreadsheet, you'll have the following functions

lb_to_kg( pounds )
wilks_coefficient( bodyweight, kilograms, male )
wilks_total( weight_lifted, bodyweight, kilograms, male )


So say for example you are male, weigh 70kg, and want to find your Wilks total for a 200kg powerlifting total:

=wilks_total(200,70,1,1)

If you are female, weigh 145lbs, and want to find your Wilks total for a 335lb powerlifting total:

=wilks_total(335,145,0,0)

If you are male, weigh 185lbs, and want your wilks total for a 850lb powerlifting total:

=wilks_total(850,185,0,1)

For kilograms and male, think '1' means true, '0' means false.

Code: Select all


CONST   m_a = -216.0475144
CONST   m_b = 16.2606339
CONST   m_c = -0.002388645
CONST    m_d = -0.00113732
CONST   m_e = 7.01863E-06
CONST   m_f = -1.291E-08
   
CONST   f_a = 594.31747775582
CONST   f_b = -27.23842536447
CONST   f_c = 0.82112226871
CONST   f_d = -0.00930733913
CONST   f_e = 4.731582E-05
CONST   f_f = -9.054E-08


function lb_to_kg ( lbs as double ) as double
   lb_to_kg = lbs * 0.45359237
end function


function wilks_coefficient ( bodyweight as double, optional kilograms as boolean, optional male as boolean ) as double
   ' NULL kilograms means we're in pounds
   ' NULL male means use the male coefficients

   If IsMissing( kilograms ) OR NOT kilograms THEN
      bodyweight = lb_to_kg( bodyweight )
   End If

   DIM temp as double
   
   If male THEN
      temp = m_a + ( m_b * bodyweight ) + ( m_c * bodyweight^2 ) + ( m_d * bodyweight^3 ) + ( m_e * bodyweight^4 ) + ( m_f * bodyweight^5 )
   ELSE
      temp = f_a + ( f_b * bodyweight ) + ( f_c * bodyweight^2 ) + ( f_d * bodyweight^3 ) + ( f_e * bodyweight^4 ) + ( f_f * bodyweight^5 )
   End If
   
   wilks_coefficient = 500 / temp

end function


function wilks_total ( weight_lifted as double, bodyweight as double, optional kilograms as boolean, optional male as boolean ) as double

  DIM wc as double
  wc = wilks_coefficient ( bodyweight , kilograms, male )
 
  IF IsMissing( kilograms ) OR NOT kilograms THEN
     weight_lifted = lb_to_kg( weight_lifted )
  END IF
 
  wilks_total = weight_lifted * wc

end function



[atypical1]

This is a really good write up and it's in the scientific manner that we've become asscustomed to from your posts. Thanks for taking the time to write this down.

It does bring a couple of questions to mind for me though. The first is whether or not using those levels is really that appropriate to judge our gains by. It might make perfect sense for a beginner as they would expect to move from novice to intermediate in a year or two with a steady program. But the move from intermediate to advanced is a much longer one. By the definition on the exrx website the definition of advanced is "An individual with multi-year training experience with definite goals in the higher levels of competitive athletics" which means it's going to take you a while to move up in the ranks. This could prove to be quite frustrating and could cause someone to not realize the good progress that they are actually making.

The second question is whether or not a composite score is the best way to measure our strength or not. It makes sense in the context of the "strongest man" contest (in which I am a participant...I better start lifting heavier soon!) but if we are looking at our own individual performance then the composite score masks our weak points. It's very possible to be "advanced" in one lift but "intermediate" in another. So someone could be really predisposed to upper body movements (like myself) and those scores could really skew the data and give the lifter a somewhat false sense of accomplishment.

For me another shortcoming is that it could make someone change routines prematurely. Just because you're at an "intermediate" level according to the charts does not mean that you should change programs if you're still making gains on a beginner one. But it would be easy to read the chart and think that you should make that leap.

Sorry to be the "rain on the parade"...

james

[muddy]

In my view, there are two different scales of "beginner, intermediate, advanced, elite".

The first and most important one is the one defined in Rippetoe's Practical Programming. It is the recovery model necessary to make progress, and it has nothing to do really with the amount of weight lifted. Can you make gains as quickly as a beginner, advancing the weight almost every time you're in the gym? Or do you need to program a weekly program to make gains? A monthly cycle?

The second definition is based on weight lifted. Most people could ignore this if they wanted to and miss nothing, whereas you can't really ignore the first definition without negative consequences.

I don't think there is any harm in being aware of both, so long as the two aren't conflated (and they certainly do get conflated a lot). Even that definition from exrx muddles it a bit in my opinion. While length of training is probably a rough guide to what stage a trainee is in according to the first definition, length of time is not is what essential.


On the point about masking weakness, I suppose that's true. However, if you're worried about one's ranking (second definition above), weak areas can probably see more absolute number gains faster than strong areas. So perhaps it could also be seen as a motivation to improve them? Any single lift is going to be subject to someone complaining that lift is not a good fit for their body proportions as well, so there seems to be an advantage to a composite. There are other composite approaches. Crossfit for example substitutes overhead press in for bench press to produce a three lift 1RM total. It may not be perfect, but how else do you rank and compare, if this is your interest? Obviously at the end of the day, the competition is only with ourselves.

[atypical1]

I would really like to see the first scale used for the classifications as I agree that is probably a more important measure. I imagine that not enough people are aware of those (myself included).

I agree on there not being a perfect approach to ranking our performance (even if it is only with ourselves). But we should be aware of any weaknesses with a measurement system. Heck, I'm just glad that he included bench in there considering the anti-bench sentiment that is rearing its ugly head around here (I kid...I kid...).

james

[rere]

Vlad I am honored you included myself in your write-up. Do you take cheques?!
Seriously, a very informative read if i must say so myself. It does sound complicated but I'll get my head around it after a few reading sessions.

Many thanks

Rere

[mjh]

Nice one Vlad, and as someone mentioned, exactly the kind of well reasoned post we've come to associate with your handsome avatar

[somebody]

Here's the thing. The tables on ExRx originally appeared in Practical Programming for Strength Training. Rippetoe took them out of the latest edition, basically because he's sick of having to explain to people what these numbers mean and what they don't mean. These are averages in categories that are defined by the period of time someone in the sample had been training. Basically, untrained was 0-3 months, novice was 3-9 months, intermediate was up to two years, advanced as 2 yr. plus, and elite was defined by participation in strength sports.

What this was *never* intended to provide was a guide for programming, ie., switch to intermediate programming if you can lift X amount. In fact, it makes no sense to do that because (a) the table shows averages, so by definition a substantial group of "intermediates" lift less than the amount on the table and (b) programming is most efficiently determined by response to response to stimulus and recovery time, measured by how often you can add weight to the bar, not by how much you can lift in comparison with other folks in your weight class.

Is it illegitimate to want to assess your progress by comparison with other people? Of course not. But using these numbers to define yourself as "intermediate" or not is a mistake. And it's a mistake in both directions. You may be able to continue linear progression in the novice program even if you lift more than the people on the table, in which case it would be stupid to switch to intermediate programming out of pride. Or you may be ready for intermediate programming if you lift less -- in fact, there's a good chance that you will be.

For informal benchmarking, it's a good approach, although I'd vote to substitute OHP for bench a la Crossfit. Bench is easier to judge in competition, but without coaching people cheat it too much, IMHO.

[Vlad]

Vlad I am honored you included myself in your write-up. Do you take cheques?!
Seriously, a very informative read if i must say so myself. It does sound complicated but I'll get my head around it after a few reading sessions.

Many thanks

Rere

Rere, you did a great job (Guru as well) reaching those targets on time (exactly 1 year). So the honour is mine!

[Vlad]

James, Muddy, Somebody – good points!

First of all, I wanted to show how to accurately quantify the strength level (with powerlifting in mind) WITHOUT searching through multiple tables and trying to make adjustments for the BW that could be in between the weight classes.

So, instead of those tables, you need to remember only 3 numbers: 235, 325 and 415 (two in fact, if you notice that the difference between the two consecutive numbers is 90), standing for the intermediate, advanced and elite level, respectively. It cannot be easier than that!

Second, I never meant that one should just pick a training program based on those numbers without thinking. One should definitely be - how can I say it politely? – … more clever than that. The training programs and the performance indicators are just the tools. The way you are going to use them is up to you.

About the Rip’s recovery model:
This is a nice and elegant model, but this is not backed up by scientific research about the way muscles grow. There is a lot of empirical evidence that the programs Rip suggests work well, and the above performance indicators are approximate points when you have to jump to a different program.

But I would dare say that Rip’s explanation about how those programs work at different levels is probably not correct. Still it does not matter if the explanation is correct or not. The important thing is the programs work. So just use them.

About the physiological definition of the status
I think it’s strange to define how advanced a person is by how fast that person recovers, or whether or not the person can progress using a particular training routine. Just imagine this:

“You know I have trained for 20 years and I have completely exhausted my genetic potential by now. So I am at elite level for all practical purposes. You should not pay attention that I squat only 100 kg and bench 50 kg. This does not matter at all. My genetic potential is very very poor, and I have by now exhausted all training possibilities. I cannot progress any further. So by all standards, I am elite.”

IMO, if you are advanced/elite, then you should lift a lot of weight to justify this status, and I don’t care if one has exhausted the genetic potential or not. This automatically means that only few will be able to achieve the elite status even if they train all their life. This is why this minority is called the ELITE.

[dylanamus]

Well presented and thought out report, as always, Vlad.

You can't expect a "one size fits all" formula to cater for every individual no matter their circumstances, but I think this method provides a logical and objective projection that could be of assistance to self trained beginners considering the transition to a new program.

Intuition should always play a role in decision making of this nature. If anyone bases their actions purely on a standardised formula with a blantant disregard for their own thoughts and feelings and due consideration of their individual circumstances, then they have no one else to blame but themselves for any shortcomings that result from such mindless choices.

My WILKS score reached intermediate status only a few months into my training, but I was able to continue improving without moving to an intermediate routine for twice as long again. I will still find this formula and method useful for evaluating the achievability of my goals despite my obvious abnormalities, but not without coupling this information with what I have already learnt about myself.

I think anyone who manages to get to Intermediate status through self coaching will have developed enough training sense and self awareness to be able to make use of the formula by adapting it in the context of their own training history. I guess the key here is to view it as a tool that still requires an educated operator.

[somebody]

Vlad:

Fair enough, but if your benchmarks aren't intended to guide programming decisions, what should?

Also, I'd like to hear more about what you think is flawed in the Rippetoe model, from a practical...um...programming perspective.

[atypical1]

Well presented and thought out report, as always, Vlad.

You can't expect a "one size fits all" formula to cater for every individual no matter their circumstances, but I think this method provides a logical and objective projection that could be of assistance to self trained beginners considering the transition to a new program.

Intuition should always play a role in decision making of this nature. If anyone bases their actions purely on a standardised formula with a blantant disregard for their own thoughts and feelings and due consideration of their individual circumstances, then they have no one else to blame but themselves for any shortcomings that result from such mindless choices.

My WILKS score reached intermediate status only a few months into my training, but I was able to continue improving without moving to an intermediate routine for twice as long again. I will still find this formula and method useful for evaluating the achievability of my goals despite my obvious abnormalities, but not without coupling this information with what I have already learnt about myself.

I think anyone who manages to get to Intermediate status through self coaching will have developed enough training sense and self awareness to be able to make use of the formula by adapting it in the context of their own training history. I guess the key here is to view it as a tool that still requires an educated operator.

Those are solid points that both you and Vlad made.

My question would be that if these figures are just there as a rough guide regarding your progression and your overall level then what's the point behind them? In other words if I track something and give myself a ranking then I expect to be able to use that ranking for some further purpose. But these bands are really wide and somewhat arbitrary in that they don't mean much in the practical world. This is especially true if we are measuring against ourselves. Calling yourself "intermediate" or "advanced" doesn't really serve a purpose in light of your training routine. In theory you could have a beginner who has "intermediate" level strength already.

I would suggest that perhaps a better way of measuring your progress is to simply calculate your "percent increase of X". I'm still thinking about what "X" would be though. It could represent your 1 rep maxes in all three lifts. If you measure them at the end of month "Y" then again at the end of month "Z" then you have a percentage increase. If you repeat that then you'll see what your percentage increase over time. When the line is steep you're doing something right and when it's flat or negative sloped then something is going wrong.

Perhaps the key is some sort of hybrid of the two.

james