tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1221570298953538141.post5031708328352309567..comments2008-02-11T11:21:26.032-06:00Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10647056454051111973muchmoredoc@gmail.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1221570298953538141.post-90913469803550772392008-02-11T11:21:00.000-06:002008-02-11T11:21:00.000-06:00Amount is the same, but the percentage is different because the starting point used for comparison is different. <BR/><BR/>It all depends on the direction.Aaron Fridayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14919420483167662474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1221570298953538141.post-69241150517605264632008-02-11T08:26:00.000-06:002008-02-11T08:26:00.000-06:00OK I can follow that Aaron, but I don't get why the amount of increase would be different than the amount of decrease when going from 6 to 7 reps or vice versa. Shouldn't it be the same?AikiBudohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10647056454051111973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1221570298953538141.post-2991434673689395342008-02-10T10:45:00.000-06:002008-02-10T10:45:00.000-06:00Jim,<BR/><BR/>420 is the starting point. You increased output by 70 lbs/min over that. 70 is 16.66666% of 420.<BR/><BR/>If you started at 490, then went down to 420, it would represent a 14.29% <I>decrease</I> (70/490).<BR/><BR/>This is the same reason why a 50% reduction in stock price requires a 100% subsequent gain to break even.Aaron Fridayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14919420483167662474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1221570298953538141.post-6314768181292675732008-02-08T21:45:00.000-06:002008-02-08T21:45:00.000-06:00I don't get why you did what you did, Aaron. Care to explain?<BR/><BR/>Taikei, You will be 100% trainer soon, already you are, in your heart.AikiBudohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10647056454051111973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1221570298953538141.post-71481568212590750282008-02-07T07:46:00.000-06:002008-02-07T07:46:00.000-06:00And I've been developing computer systems for over 16 years and still hate math numbers!!<BR/>I skipped reading the numerical part of your post.<BR/><BR/>Maybe time for me to retire and be 100% trainer.Taikei Matsushitahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07197272494899916208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1221570298953538141.post-13850075183453699012008-02-06T21:27:00.000-06:002008-02-06T21:27:00.000-06:00Should be 70/420 for a 16.66666% increase.<BR/><BR/>I think you nailed the reason for the different feeling. Nice work, Jim!Aaron Fridayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14919420483167662474noreply@blogger.com