The 1RM Calculator is a tool used by many Strength & Conditioning professionals to predict maximal lifts based off of sub-maximal weights lifted for as many reps as possible. The theory is that it provides a safer way to test maximal lifts, especially for athletes whose goal is to prepare for traditional sports. There are a few versions of the predictive 1RM Calculator, based off many clinical studies, and there are even easy to use plug-ins like this one. I have found them all to be wrong.

Today Armand Lotman performed 10 Back Squats at 361#. That would put his predicted 1RM at approximately 481#. I know Armand, he is a beautiful gentleman, and an excellent athlete. I also know that he doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of squatting 481#. Now…I could be wrong, he could send me a video of a 550# squat next week, but I don’t expect it. Please don’t take this as me somehow saying that Armand is not a great squatter, because he is. He’s recently Front Squatted 405#, and I know he’d be really close to that 481#, but the predictive calculators don’t work in our sport.

I’m wondering if anyone has any theories as to why this is true. I’m not looking for the typical “we have more endurance” answers. Think it through, kids.

Armand Lotman – 360# Back Squat X 10 reps:

WOD 121219:

BB Gymnastics

1) Every 30 seconds for 5 minutes (11 total reps):

1 Power Snatch @ 80% (of max Snatch any style)

2) Every 30 seconds for 5 minutes (11 total reps):

1 Power Clean @ 80% (of max Clean any style)


1a) 5X3 Snatch First Pulls – heavy, rest 45 sec. DEMO VIDEO
1b) 5X3 Pendlay Rows – heavy, rest 45 sec. DEMO VIDEO
1c) 5X3 Split Press – heavier than last week, rest 45 sec. DEMO VIDEO


Choose one…

Row: 3X1000m – rest 1:1 – 30 burpee penalty for every set that deviates +/- 5 sec. from the fastest set.

Run: 4X800m – rest 1:1 – 25 burpee penalty for every set that deviates +/- 5 sec. from the fastest set.

Swim: 5X100m – rest 1:1 – 20 burpee penalty for every set that deviates +/- 5 sec. from the fastest set.

Notes: All work should be at 80-90% RPE.

93 thoughts on “121219

  1. Thinking that the later reps of a 10 or 20RM back squat is far closer to a 400m sprint, or an intense sled push than it is close to a 1RM. Your body is able (and used to) staying in a tight, efficient position for far longer than most of the 1/3/5RM typical squatters. Obviously this is more true for some than others. But the ability to mentally push past a pain tolerance for the time domain of 60-240s SHOULD be better for CrossFitters than Olympic lifters/power lifters. Just my thoughts.

  2. I think it has to do a lot more with how you train. I generally like to do a lot of lower reps with heavy weight so when I do a lot of reps I don’t usually do the number I “should” be able to do. I think in the sport of CrossFit people tend to train strength through higher reps so then can’t generally lift what they “should” be able to for 1RM. Low reps train you CNS way more.

    • +1. Agreed. I believe that the 1-RM “calculators” do not work when the input is from high rep session because the count reflect that person’s endurance.

  3. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Apply to squat mechanics. In the bottom position of a squat, you might be able to eccentrically bounce with X amount of weight for multiple reps but the second you put X+10 on the bar, some form of the chain will break down whether this is a

    tension issue (bracing of abdominals),

    stability issue (knee/hip torque via hip external rotators),

    application of force issue (you have more time for muscle to kick in on 10 slower lifts at 361, aka if you dont fire your muscles at just the right time, no big deal the weight is light weight baby. However, at heavier weights, that room for error becomes smaller so if certain muscles do not fire at the right time, the weight will be missed)

    or “other” issue (mental capacity, bar velocity issue).

    Exercising to utilize all this potential is the fun part.

  4. Rudy,
    I’ll throw out a guess as to why the 1rm calculator doesn’t work for our sport. Calculators like that are there to help put you in the ballpark of an athletes 1rm. Like you said, he would be close to #481 but not completely there. If someone one was in a sport were maxing out would not be good, or, if someone just can’t try for 1rm for whatever reason the calculator could put you in the ballpark of your 1rm. With getting in the ballpark you would be able to safely estimate other percentages of that guesstimated 1rm so the individual could still work to get stronger without ever actually going to a 1rm. That way if a client had to lift at 70% one day you would have a safe guess to what weight that client should be working with. I don’t think it’s best for our sport because we do max out on our lifts and should have good knowledge of where we stand. Calculators like that one were designed to be in the personal training world of YMCA’s and other mainstream gyms like that, where maxing out is considered not safe. Well that was my best shot at to what you may be looking. Back to my beer.

  5. I’ve never seen the math used in those 1RM calculators, but from a statistical standpoint, the farther you deviate from 1 rep the larger the error is that is introduced into your calculation. Not to mention the variances in physiology that I’m sure other people know much more about than me. The only predictive scale I’ve ever found accurate or useful is Daniels’ VDOT formula, which has nothing to do with lifting, but is God amongst runners.

  6. Without getting technical, I believe the answer is simply in the foundations of Crossfit. We believe that the person who can move the most weight the fastest is the fitter human. We train in a manner that promotes this, we would all agree that to be a better Crossfitter and just fitter in general, it would be more useful to move 365X10, rather then 450X1. Crossfit training reflects this, so the results we produce reflect it as well.

  7. 1RM Calculators are based off data from a sample population who rarely train higher than five reps. For this population the equations are accurate. Different equations would be required for a population of lifters with a greater variance of rep schemes. Perhaps the problem isn’t with the concept of a 1RM calculator, but rather with the sample from which the equations are established? Would the same apply for Prilepin’s charts? Can we accurately use these resources in our ‘sport’ when they were designed for another?

  8. In regard to calculators. The human is a very dynamic machine, & it’s not one to always follow and succumb to parameters spit out by data. That would be a robot. Statistically speaking, what is the standard deviation of these ‘calculators’ and then check validity + reliability.
    Physiologically speaking when can get the 3 metabolic pathways, specifically aerobic and anaerobic to be able to produce more power (and/or endure more lactic acid) with training. In regards to a 10 RM back squats being reliable in predicting a 1 RM, I would say look at time under load (how much time is spent resting, in an upright position, supporting the bar on the back). Yes, you are under load but at full hip extension, you can allow the legs to rest a bit, and yes your “core” is being taxed. But the legs are recovering, and allowing those muscle cells to clear lactate and build back the creatine-phosphate and ATP needed for another lift. In a 1RM attempt, it’s totally exhausting that phosphagen pathway (only so much creatine-phosphate and ATP available), for a maximal effort. .

    Not a doctor, not a scientist, but that’s my take.

  9. I’m guessing that our central nervous system is more efficient at sub maximal weights which allows the body to do higher repetition. Maximal loads the body is weaker, and the calculator cannot predict a humans CNS ability or recovery.

    But I could definitely be wrong

  10. We train at high intensities, thus we are more efficient with moderately heavy loads at longer distances/reps, as oppossed to pure strength athletes who are great at maximal efforts???

  11. The reason they dont work is because there are entirely too many variables that affect squat percentages and rep ranges – training history, different lengths and ratios of body levers, flexibility or lack thereof, fast twitch vs slow twitch ratios in each muscle group, central nervous development, mental capacity for work… This is even more skewed when looking at high level athletes with extended years of background and development. Some have 1rm squats and deadlifts very close in number, some can DL 100# or more than they squat… Statistically speaking, an exact number will be an inacurrate prediction the vast majority of the time and should be listed as a spread to accurately predict a majority of 1rm’s (i.e. If you squat 250# x 10 reps, 90% of athletes will have a 1rm between 325-345). But the whole root of having a 1rm calculator is stupid in the first place – it exists solely for pussies that are too scared to find their true 1rm anyways, so who gives a fuck if its accurate or not? Its like spending 20 hours to calculate your 5k time based off your 1 mile, 800m, and 400m times – when all you need to do is just STFU and go run a 5k.

  12. Everybody sounds to be about right on one aspect or another of the question. The topic not yet touched on is lever length. A 1RM calculator doesn’t accurately predict something for a lifter of one height and proportion, even if it does for one of different height or proportion. Just as BMI doesn’t account for body fat percentage or lean body mass, these calculators fail to account for limb/lever length and how they affect squat/press/deadlift efficiency, type I to type II muscle fiber ratios, or even the determination of a person to push through the shittiest form in the world to get just one more rep out. For a laugh, try predicting a 1RM snatch or c/j based of what you do for a double or triple, it’s a hoot.

  13. If we did them dynamic-style, without resting a few seconds at all at the top of each rep, I think they’d be more accurate, but really not above ~5 reps anyway. Phosphagen pathway is depleted at ~10 sec of a max effort = 3RM at most.

  14. i recently did a 20rm squat cycle. On the tuesday, i failed at the 11th rep at 125kg the reps were done quickly with little reset at the top. On the thursday, i slowed down and did one at a time. I reset and took a few breaths at the top right from the first rep. and got 20 reps at 125kg. the calculators would have me increasing my 1rm by minimum of 10% in two days (not bad) using the dos remedios. like mauricio L i reckon if the reps were done quickly and continuously, the calculators would be a bit more accurate.

    that opinion is completly unqualified with no scientific explanation. but i have found most with most things, experience is usually better than theories.

  15. Without doing research on this, I am going to go with the following
    1. Energy systems as discussed above
    2. Pure simple physics – Total torque generated is based on the cross sectional area of the muscle – higher weight needs more muscle, better control of all joints involved
    3. CNS drive – 1RM vs 10RM are different tasks

  16. I agree with Jason here. The more reps you use for the 1rm predictors the further out they tend to be. For instance using it on a 10rm to predict a 1rm isnt going to be very accurate because of all the multiple components that could be going on and fatiguing the athlete.

    That doesnt mean that it can’t be used, but I would only use this with someone who is new to heavy lifting and never gone for a 3rm or 1rm. It will give me a clue as to the type of top end weight they would be capable of.

    I got into a difference of opinion with a prolific S&C coach here in the UK who said we should never test 1rm, instead using the calculators. I disagree and think 1rm are extremely important for an athlete psychologically as well as physiologically. But as for using the calculators I think anything more then calculating it from a 3rm you are asking for trouble.

    Just my opinion of course.

  17. I’ll take a stab at this 😉

    From what Rudy is saying then CrossFitter’s multiple-rep-maxes are a higher percentage of 1RM than pure strength athletes.

    The 1RM is highly CNS dependant and the coordination between muscles and between muscle fibres is probably the most important thing. Strength athletes are mainly trying to develop the Phosphocreatine energy system which has about 10secs of stored substrates so once the reps get higher, they are moving into the less trained glycolytic system and so the predicted percentage of 1RM would drop for pretty much anything over a 4-5RM. Also by this point the fast twitch fibres are fatigued and they are moving to slower twitch fibres.

    Because of they way CrossFitters train they have good all-round energy system development – particularly glycolytic – and it makes sense that the better your body is at generating and replenishing energy, the more reps you can do at heavier weights as once you move out of the PC energy system you then have the glycolytic to back it up and all the time the aerobic system is also contributing to replenishing energy. This combined more rounded slow twitch fibre development (they can support the fast twitch better) means that the higher-rep-maxes are closer to 1RM percentages, which if you work it backwards means that a predicted 1RM from say a 10RM will be much lower for CrossFitters, not because they’re weaker but because they can do more reps with a higher % of 1RM.

  18. I believe it is a matter of neuromuscular efficiency. A more neuromuscular efficient person might actually hit that 481#. A less neuromuscular efficient person will not. It’s just how individuals are wired. Think of the fast twitch (neuromuscular efficient) athlete as the guy that could squat 481# but could not complete 10 reps at 361.

    Someone with low neuromuscular efficiency could handle the 361 for 10 but can’t get the 481 for 1. This athlete typically does well in Crossfit because they can continuously complete reps @ ~75% of their 1RM wheres as the fast twitch (neuromuscular efficient) athlete can gear up for a 1RM but not for 10 reps @75% of 1 RM.

    Everyone knows the guy that can say power clean 285# but struggles with high reps @ 225#. And everyone knows the guys that can only power clean 265 but can still handle 225# for reps.

  19. For starters, I want to give a big shout out to my man Armand, for training heavy ass squats (and other lifts), in a pair of Nanos. I just started back wearing mine to train in, this past Monday.

    Regarding Rudy’s post, in my opinion, science takes a back seat when it comes to whether or not Armand would be able to 1RM 481#. Why? Because every squatter know if he or she will be able to move a given weight, as SOON as they unrack that shit!!! In that split moment of taking the bar off the hooks, a squatter will either think to themselves that that shit was heavy OR easy as hell…and, will briefly stand there and turn “ON” or turn “OFF” the muscle groups needed to either lift or not lift that shit. In other words, Confidence is the main factor.

    So, some of the questions I had after reading Rudy’s post was: Did Armand do ALL 3 sets @ 361? Did he start @ 361 and go down or start @ a lower weight and go up? How much of a struggle did Armand have doing a set of 10 reps @ 361? Of course, when I viewed Armand’s 10 squats via YouTube, I learned that he did sets of 330, 352, and 361. I learned that he squatted in Nanos, rather than weightlifting shoes; he squatted without the use of knee wraps; he used a weight belt; and, 361 wasn’t a scream fest for him.

    Having said that, I would have to agree with Rudy…Armand likely wouldn’t be able to hit a target 1RM of 481. Why? Because he trained two sets of his squats in the 10RM (i.e. 330 & 352) for max numbers lower than that of 481 (i.e. 440 & 470). So, it’s possible that Armand could unhook 481, go “That shit was heavy!”, stand there and turn “OFF”. I would have liked learning that he trained ALL three sets @ 361.

    On the other hand, I think Armand is a helluva squatter & I like the shit he’s got goin’ on via YouTube! That being said, I do believe Armand has a work ethic that can give him the confidence needed, to prove people wrong! Keep up the good work, bro!

    • Thanks Jelani!!!
      I think your on to something here with psychology not really being mentioned. Take that mile run time that was unbreakable. Until someone mentally broke though then everyone did. The mind is more powerful than we know or can begin to comprehend. Plus I have a great beard(high 5 God) and He-Man quads.

      • #LMAOfff! Funny replies! You’re welcome, bro…and, are right: The mind is more powerful than we know or can begin to comprehend! #Real_Talk_There. Gotta love the beard, bro! I’m rockin’ mine, and am having the most difficult time even wanting to bother it; it’s my training beard, for crying out loud! 🙂 Quads? Gotta have ’em!

        HA! HA! Rudy? I concur, bro!! 🙂

  20. BBG:
    1. 195#
    2. 245#

    1a. 245# 255# 265# 275# 285#
    1b. 215# 4 x 235#
    1c. 165# 3 x 175# 180#

    Row: 3 x 1000m

  21. Intriguing question and some good thoughts. Could have something to do with creating more mechanical efficiency at higher reps which reduces physiological fatigue. Similar to how runners develop more mechanical efficiency by training long distances. I wonder how much it comes into play where the lifter spends the majority of their time training (1-5 range or 5-10 range). It takes time to develop the ability to maximally recruit the nervous system and that ability has to be learned for any motor pattern. A very trained squatter could maximally recruit their nervous system for a squat but not be able to fully recruit it for a bench if they were fairly untrained in the bench press.
    From what we know about the speed of nerve impulses to and from the brain it’s supposed to be impossible for a pro tennis player to return another pro’s serve. So there’s that phenomenon of how the brain is able to remodel things and create useful patterns in ways we don’t seem to fully understand.

  22. It all depends on whether the athlete has a low neuromuscular efficiency or a high neuromuscular efficiency. A competitive power lifter would never be able to squat that many reps that close to their 1RM because they are more trained on that pathway and can therefore dig deeper and push more weight. Since most CrossFitters are younger in training age and experience, it is possible that we will eventually have strength numbers that resemble normal strength and conditioning data.

    Or maybe we’re just that freaking awesome and are destroying the boundaries of performance? Only time will tell I guess


  23. Without getting too technical and discussing different energy pathways, etc. I think it’s similar to how the top 3 men at the Outlaw Open finished top 4 in both the 2nd and 3rd 1 mile runs. Crossfit athletes can recover extremely efficiently. They can work at near max effort, then do it over and over again. In the case of the 10RM squat, a well trained exerciser can work at near 1RM, recovery quickly enough at the top, and do it over and over again.


  24. I know the mandate was no simple answer as CrossFit athletes have better endurance but that might just BE the answer. More specifically, our athletes are better at removal of lactic acid from the bloodstream due to the nature of our (typical) training. (Look up studies by Arend Bonen.) So, while it may not be aerobic endurance, it is certainly muscle endurance. On the other hand, CrossFit athletes may not be as good as demonstrating maximal strength, as the typical training we do (not necessarily those who follow Outlaw or similar training), does not promote max strength as well.

    Case in point, I have two groups of athletes. Three (one of them is me) of them all squat over 480# but would have some difficulty (it wouldn’t be a walk in the park) squatting 360# 10x. I have another two athletes who could squat 360# for 10 but do not squat over 405#. The first 3 athletes have power/speed sports backgrounds, football and power lifting. The other 2 athletes, both were wrestlers one of whom ran the 800 meters on his high school track team. In my view, the first group has worked the base of power and maximal strength for many years and the other has worked muscle endurance. I see it in the workouts we do show up all the time.

    Personally, I’ve found that as I get older (I’m 42) my muscle endurance is fading while my maximal strength isn’t as much. Not sure how to read that yet…

    But to the original question. My view is the calculators are accurate but only up to about 3-5 reps. It is not accurate at the 10 rep range and I would say it’s inaccurate in both directions. It can both under and over estimate, given the background and training of the athlete.

  25. Volume warriors… Most cf people are Very good for reps but dont train enough max effort for weight. Heavy weight will pull up reps more eficiiently with greater predictability than lighter weights will push max effort weights. The max effort weight would however be a good predictor of ability to lift a weight x amount of times.

  26. BBG:
    1) …
    2) 205

    1a) 235
    1b) 205
    1c) 145

    Burpees paid in full

  27. These calculators are theoretical, but they don’t take Neuromuscular efficency into consideration. Much like the BMI does not factor in body composition. The positive side is that calculators like these can help you shoot for a goal.

  28. I have found that knowing my 1rm I can calculate percentages in wods whether they need to be heavy or light conditioners. I don’t care to compare myself or times with others until it actually matters. We all have goals and mine are to get better when I practice and practicing with percentages have worked for me. It’s been good for me to get into others boxes and train with Outlaws meaning Dave Cornthwaite.

  29. Been fighting off the bug…took off mon and tues.

    1. 85kg
    2. 110kg

    1. 110kg
    2. 90kg
    3. 80kg

    Conditioning: Row
    1. 3:31
    2. 3:30
    3. 3:30

  30. I would say he could squat 481 not because of the set of 10 with 361 but because of having a 405 front squat.   But to assume he could not squat the 481 having had squatted 361 for 10 the reason would be core strength and the abilitly to control the weight and maintain an up right position so he can lift the weight. If you watch a powerlifter or a average person squat and miss they fail because they fall forward with a heavy weight and they get out of their groove making it harder to lift the weight. Watch a video of a good raw squatter they come up effortlessly with big weight as long as they stay in the groove.   Rob Haan

  31. Shoulders fried yesterday, but recovered today – was able to do freestanding hspu this morning no problem.

    A. W/up 3stopSnPull+HiPull+HPSn+OHS: 77->147 by 10 emom, then
    Power Snatch emom 152/1 -> 197/1, 202f 202fullsq 202/1pr 205ff
    B. W/up 3pos PC & J 142 162 182 202 every 90 sec, then
    Power Clean & Jerk every 90 sec: 212 222 232 242 252 262fcln 262

    Front Squat (kilos) 72 82 92 102 112 122 132 142f 142/1 (312.4 lbs)
    Put a belt on for the last one the rest were beltless including the 1st fail @ 142

    SSC Every 2 mins for 20 mins do:
    2x DL @ 138 kg (303 lbs) + 130 lbs of band tension @ top (done with straps)
    8x HSPU (lim rom)
    16x DU’s ub

    Reverse Hyper 2×15 @ 200 lbs

    Run 4×800 m Rest 1;1(almost skipped, decided to run real slow)
    3:36 – real slow to open up
    3:15 – ran relaxed & was surprised to be faster
    2:58 – that felt actually really good & only 18 secs slower than my fastest 800
    3:06 – just held on for dear life.

    No burpee penalties.

  32. Age: 23
    Weight: 188

    BB Gymnastics

    1) 160lb
    2) 210lb


    1a) 225lb
    1b) 185lb
    1c) 135lb


    Run: 2:38, 2:24, 2:40 and 2:42
    *Did 25 burpees after run 2-4

  33. bbg
    1a) 260
    3:41.7 just let off early… oops
    deff need to push rows harder not very winded after each one….

  34. I believe the 1RM calculators are faulty to a degree, based on each individuals muscle ratio. Quick twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers to be exact. We all have a different ratio of each depending on genetic mostly and type of prior training modalities. I think the calculators come close but, are not exact.

  35. BB Gymnastics

    1) 135# (shoulders hurt from yesterday)

    2) 205#


    1a) 185#
    1b) 185#
    1c) 140#


  36. It’s all about muscle recruitment, the cns, and an effect called summation. As muscle fibers are stimulated they exponentially increase the force produced. That is until either the cns cannot recruit any more fibers or the summation plateau is reached (which is dependent on fiber number, cross bridge cycling, and innervation).

  37. Biological factors such as ATP use and Lactic Buffering play huge role in 1RM vs. 10+ RM.

    Anatomical factors such as lever length, fast vs. slow twitch.

    Mental factor such as don’t be weak minded.

    On a side note I hit 321.6lb x 20 yesterday and probably could have gotten 30. I haven’t back squatted in 2 months, put that in a calculator.

  38. I believe that the reason they are not accurate is because it was developed with the assumption that you would be using a single set of muscles for the movement (fewer muscles used = fewer variables in the predictor = more accurate predictions = widely used because of accuracy). So the more isolated the movement and fewer muscles the movement recruits, the more accurate the predictor.

    In the world of competitive exercisers that we live in many of the movements we use are large compound movements (Large loads..long distances..yaddayaddayadda) that are much more complex in regards to the timing and sequence of muscle contraction and relaxation. Slight muscular imbalances, body geometry differences, and just the overall large number of muscles used in a movement like a back squat or snatch, result in a large number of variables that a simple linear equation (most of the popular 1RM calculation models are linear) would not be precise enough to predict a true 1RM.

    Ive also found that 1RM predictors tend to be horribly inaccurate as the repetitions in the set increase, as this is another point of variation (recovery time between sets) that the formula does not account for.

  39. Pwr Snatch: Based off 175# did 140#
    Pwr Clean: Based off 235# did 190#

    1st pull- 235
    Pendlay Row- 145 (should’ve gone heavier)
    Split Press- 135

    METCON- skipped; did 1RM LBBS, been really curious where that’s at…
    tested at 275# in late August/Early September, 325# today after BBG and STR

  40. BBG:
    Sn @ 132. off 165. felt heavy but good.
    Clean @ 168, ok technique a bit off.

    1a 185×4 195×1
    1b 155
    1c 140

    Cond: did tabata row instead, 80 cal for 8 mins

  41. Physiological answer has to do with how the bodies energy systems work different training intensities and time domains. We don’t spend much time in the ATP-PCr zone, as crossfitters. So we are stronger at sub maximal weights, for reps.
    Simple answer is that those calculators are a blanket answer for for everyone. There are too many different variables from person to person for a blanket answer to be exact for each athlete.

  42. Str:
    1a. to 275#
    1b. to 205
    1c. BTN press to 120#

    1) Done, easy – First time I felt the “pocket” everyone discusses. I felt the 1st pull strength work done first this morning found a piece of my hamstrings I’d been missing, and used that in to find the pocket today
    2) Done, same as above

  43. BBGym:
    1) 130
    2) 170

    1a) 215, 4×230
    1b) 165, 3×175, 180
    1c) 4×130, 135

    I despise running, really wish I had a rower.
    4x800m: 3:12, 3:12, 3:12, 3:13


  44. I’d say you have to consider how the clinical studies were “run” that established these % charts. Any study involving human physiology is going to have so many uncontrollable factors that I’m surprised any of them have final conclusions. There’s a good chance that the end results produced a graph that more resembled the stars in the sky on a clear Colorado night than any definite answer so they threw a trendline down on top and rolled with it.
    And as has already been discussed, we can’t measure the psychological impact. We all know that when we approach the bar for a new 1RM we better transform into a mutant-badass-pipe-hitting-motherfucker if we intend to hit it. Some days we do, some days we don’t.

  45. BBG

    1) 195

    2) 275


    3a) 275
    3b) 225
    3c) 190


    Fuck rowing seriously.


  46. BBG:
    1) 150
    2) 205

    1a) 235
    1b) 205
    1c) 145

    Conditioning; only had 14 min to do something so did:
    800m run
    10 push press 135#

  47. 1) did hi hang pause power snatch at 135.
    Not as bad on the pubes.
    2) 225 felt decent. 5lbs under 80% of my clean

    1a) 255
    1b) 205
    1c) 145

    As for the sciencey squattage talk, I just thought me being able to squat 87% of my max 10 times meant I needed to HTFU and squat some heavier weight. Meh…science


  48. Olympic
    1) 135 (max 170)
    2) 195 (max 245)

    1a) 225x5x3
    1b) 175x5x3
    1c) 135x5x3

    Row 3x1000m @ 80-90% RPE [1:1 / w:r]
    3:49.1 , 3:49.1 , 3:46.8

  49. BBG
    1) 155 – felt better than last week despite being +10lbs
    2) 215 – easy


    Row – 3:29/3:28/3:27 **seriously, after the second and third rows it feels like my butt is going to fall off. That rower is a special kind of suck.

  50. BBG
    Snatch 120- 120(fail)-120(fail)-115-115(fail)-115-115-115-115-115-115
    Clean 155-155-155-160×8

    Pulls 155-175-175-175-175
    Rows 95-105-115-125-130
    Press 85-95-95-95-95

    4x 800m Run

    25 burpees for solidarity: 1:20

  51. BBG

    – Went every :45 for 6 minutes on both of these. Full squat and higher percentage.
    1) 225
    2) 275


    1a) 275
    1b) 275
    1c) 175




  52. This is not in response to anything anyone else has said, just my own observation.
    Its in the nature of the AMRAP. We train ourselves to sustain performance over time. We are asking the bodies energy systems for something very different than what Olympic weight lifters do.

  53. Hey Everyone, I’m new. Still getting acclimated to the volume and programming. I’m working off a 230lbs Snatch, and 285 C&J I did two weeks ago to get a baseline.

    1)225 power cleans
    2)185 power snatch, I swapped these because my wrists have been jacked up and I wanted to test some stuff while fresh

    a) 275 pulls, heavy but good
    b) 185 rows, way too light
    c) 185 split press, good

    Rows. 3:55 x1

  54. Honestly, i feel that this inconsistency from this 1rm calculator has a great deal to do with the weight and power ratio that comes from lifting, basically your pound for pound strength. As an example, when you do WOD’s at the gym that deals with percentages, their is a great deal of variation of difficulty in the lifts when it comes to people doing a jump from say 70% one week, to 85% the next. say for a sqaut, that means if you HBBS is 450lbs, and you are trying to compare it to a training partner with a 350lbs squat, although on paper you may be squatting the “same” percentage of your 1rm, it just comes down to the fact that your partner is just lifting much less weight. So, 70% of 450 is 315lbs, and 85% is 382.5lbs, meaning that your 85% is about 75lbs away form you 1rm, which is alot of weight! For the guy squatting 350, his 85% is about 300 lbs, meaning only a difference of 50lbs from your 1rm. IT does not seem like alot, but take the percentage change for some females in my box squatting around 150lbs, to this 450lbs back squat. though the percentages stay the same, the actual weight changes are enormous. Still confused? look at it this way. Typically, the bigger you get, the stronger you get. (lets just pretend that is true). So, in a science world, if i squat 400lbs at 200lbs , i should be able to squat 500lbs if i weighed 250lbs? but thats not always case. look at all the power/olympic lifters who get stronger the more they weigh, but not necessarily proportionally stronger. I feel this calculators like to think that all people are “pund for pound” the same strength, and it is just not the case. There is always going to be that 150 lb kid that is throwing up serious weight, and then that 350 lb guy that sqauts more, but not THAT much more when you compare it to someone half his size. So, if this calculator pretends that everyone is lb for lb as strong as that 150 anomolly….your results will be skewed. THis is not to say that there are people out there who are not as strong as they should be for their size. I was a poerlifter in college, and i weighed about 175lb. The guys that were 150lbs bigger then me, WERE in fact lifting that much more weight pound for pound, but that is not the case everywhere. IN a sport where we rely not strictly on pure strength, i feel a standard 1rm calculator will fall short. (ps, i typed this fast at work. please excuse the excessive typos)

  55. Snatches based off of 160lb
    Cleans based off 210lb

    A) 185lb
    B) 135lb
    C) 115lb

    No conditioning

  56. BBG
    1) 113
    2) 143

    1a) 175-3×185-195
    1b) 113-3×123-133
    1c) 90-95-2×100-105

    All this talk about 10RM back squat got me curious, so I tested out the calculator Rudy posted a link to. On Tuesday, I hit 205 for 9 reps (bailed on the 10th) and according to the calculator, my 1RM is 260, which is exactly what my 1RM was in early November (the last time I tested 1RM). Hmmm…

  57. bbg) 185 easy
    235 easy- so much easier than squat cleaning
    1a) 275


    rowing has gotten much better. Its so boring and hard though. So much lactic acid buildup on the third row took me a good 20 mins to walk correctly after.

  58. BBG:
    1) done at 115# but on rep 6 I lowered weight to 95# because my mechanics where off.
    2) done at 135# and felt great!

    1a) 140#
    1b) 140#
    1c) 85#

    Row at 2:36, 2:24, and 2:26 Burpee’s!!!!!

  59. Hey Rudy, we have a lot of people ask the same question with the Wendler program. Using a virtual 1 rep max calculator the prediction is way off in weeks 1 and 2 based on 5+ and 3+ reps. If I did 100 reps with 40kg my 1rm would be 172.5kg. Its a pretty far out example but just highlights that its not realistic with lighter weights. Our norm is more like 12 reps @ 130 giving me a 182.5kg back squat which is approx 20kg over. Predicting a 1 reps max with moderate is no different than predicting an 800m runners 50m sprint time based on his 800m time. Obviously the closer the distance or weight to the aimed prediction the more accurate e.g a 400m runners sprint time would be easier to guestimate. Strength or power endurance does reflect but not enough to make that much difference.

    Hope that made some sense my wife is watching some half interesting chick flick!

    We started following the Outlaw program 3 weeks ago and its been an amazing transformation.

    Thanks Rudy!

  60. BBG
    1) 190
    2) 245

    1a) 275
    1b) 215
    1c) 175, 185×2

    4x800m run
    3:00, 2:57, 2:58, 3:00

  61. BBG:
    1.) 170
    2.) 200

    1a.) 215, 215, 215, 225, 225
    1b.) 185, 185, 185, 185, 185
    1c.) 150, 150, 150, 155, 155

    Swim: 1:36, 1:30, 1:34, 1:33, 1:34 + 20 Burpee

  62. BB Gymnastics

    1) Every 30 seconds for 5 minutes
    1 Power Snatch @ 80%


    2) Every 30 seconds for 5 minutes
    1 Power Clean @ 80%



    1a) 5X3 Snatch First Pulls
    1b) 5X3 Pendlay Rows
    125 then 155 for 4×3
    1c) 5X3 Split jerk –


    Run: 4X800m – rest 1:1
    3:22-3:27 no penalty

  63. BBG:
    1) 80lb
    2) 105lb

    1b)95 (should have gone a little heavier)

    Row: 3:59/4:02/4:03

  64. BBG:
    1) 145lbs
    2) 225lbs

    1a) 225lbs
    1b) 185lbs, 185lbs, 205lbs, 205lbs, 205lbs
    1c) 140lbs, 140lbs, 145lbs, 145lbs, 155lbs

    Other Conditioning: 10:05
    100 DUs
    20 T2B
    75 DUs
    15 T2B
    50 DUs
    10 T2B
    25 DUs
    5 T2B

  65. BB Gymnastics

    Power Snatch:140, taking it light, shoulder injury
    Power Clean: Based on 300 Clean: 235


    1a) Snatch First Pulls – 250
    1b) Pendlay Rows – 225
    1c) Split Press – 150


    Row: 3X1000m – 3:34/3:34/3:34

Comments are closed.