Personal Question: Self Quantify?

[geo]

Hi Jeff,

I know you are a numbers guy as are many of us. Do you self quantify your health/fitness parameters or biomarkers? Or are you comfortable where you are at and whats required to improve/maintain your health/fitness without recording any data? If you do quantify your numbers could you tell us how so and what tools you might use?

[JeffN]

Do you self quantify your health/fitness parameters or biomarkers? Or are you comfortable where you are at and whats required to improve/maintain your health/fitness without recording any data? If you do quantify your numbers could you tell us how so and what tools you might use?

Can you be more specific?

As I explained here, I do use a Polar FT7.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=50624

I have played around with several of the newer fitness trackers and am not impressed with their accuracy at all.

In Health
Jeff

[geo]

Well I'm more interested in what variables you might be tracking on a daily/weekly basis. Or which you may find most valuable to track or most likely indicators of health/fitness. Like:

RHR, maxHR, HRV, training zones, resting pulse, one minute pulse recovery, etc...

How do you gauge recovery or is it just done by how you are feeling?

Do you also methodically keep a log of these things or use a smart phone for tracking purposes. I know you said you dislike blue tooth devices so I suppose thats out.. Or maybe you've been doing it so long that you dont need/want to track anything...your just intuitively aware of your health state?

[JeffN]

Well I'm more interested in what variables you might be tracking on a daily/weekly basis. Or which you may find most valuable to track or most likely indicators of health/fitness. Like: RHR, maxHR, HRV, training zones, resting pulse, one minute pulse recovery, etc...?

I dont track much this days nor do I think that most people following this program and my recommendations for exercise needs to unless they are trying to move from fairly unfit to fit and wanted to know some markers to track their progress. Otherwise, I don't see why I would track these.

How do you gauge recovery or is it just done by how you are feeling??

I am not sure what you mean by "gauge my recovery" as I am not in training or competing so see no need. When I am done working out, I cool down for about 3-5 minutes by doing what I was doing at a much lower pace and then get on with my day.

Do you also methodically keep a log of these things or use a smart phone for tracking purposes. ?

No.

I know you said you dislike blue tooth devices so I suppose thats out..

Or maybe you've been doing it so long that you dont need/want to track anything...your just intuitively aware of your health state?

I think it is a combination.

I was interested in the field, and studied Exercise Physiology as my second graduate degree so got to work in an Ex Phys lab for 2 years testing myself, classmates and friends. I used to be interested in all these numbers, tracked them and do know all the above mentioned numbers (except HRV) and they are all excellent and have changed little over the years.

However, I think tracking all of these is unnecessary for the majority of people who are just trying to or meeting the exercise goals. Not even for HR

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=9507&p=70835

I do sometimes wear a Polar Ht7 hear rate monitor when I work out as I just like to see my HR but dont track it or use it in any specific way.

I am not sure that any of them helped me achieve a better state of health but just provided some entertainment for my mind while I worked out.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

I was thinking some more about your post and have some additional comments ..

RHR, maxHR, HRV, training zones, resting pulse, one minute pulse recovery, etc...

RHR (and resting pulse) - As someone improves their level of health and fitness, their RHR will drop relative to their previous RHR but will usually then remain fairly stable unless their health or fitness changes again. There is some genetic variance and individuality of how low ones RHR will go and so, I dont think hitting certain numbers is a measure of health/fitness.

MaxHR - This one is usually estimated based on age, which is highly inaccurate. The best test is doing a maximal exercise test (not stress test), or a similar test on some exercise equipment but it has some health risks an not something one would want to do often. For some with CVD, or on certain medications, it could be very risky. To measure "max" accurately, one must push to the max, which is not always easy, pleasant, or safe.

Training zones - Again usually estimated (from one of many different formulas) and can be fairly inaccurate as discussed here...

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=9507&p=70835

To really know your zones, one must have a maximal exercise test, which again, has some risks.

One Minute Recovery - This may be the most valuable of all of them but again, has some measurement flaws in it. I think the evidence is fairly clear that if your heart rate does not drop "at least" a certain amount in the first minute of recovery, it is an indicator of some potentially serious heart problems.

However, beyond that, I don't find the degrees of drop and the associated ratings you often see very accurate. For instance, if my pre workout HR is about 65-70 and I am working out moderately and it goes to 100 -110, regardless of how fit I am, it is never going to drop 40 beats very quickly. However, if am a working out vigorously, and my HR is 140-145, it will drop 40 beats (or more) very quickly. So, to be more accurate, they have to standardize these related measures.

HRV - very difficult to measure accurately

I am curious as to your thoughts on the above, which of these you track if any, and your reasoning behind it.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

I am not sure that any of them helped me achieve a better state of health

Perhaps tracking is not required for success

Original Investigation
September 20, 2016

Effect of Wearable Technology Combined With a Lifestyle Intervention on Long-term Weight Loss
The IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial FREE
JAMA. 2016;316(11):1161-1171. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12858.

Full Text
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=2553448

ABSTRACT
Importance
Effective long-term treatments are needed to address the obesity epidemic. Numerous wearable technologies specific to physical activity and diet are available, but it is unclear if these are effective at improving weight loss.

Objective
To test the hypothesis that, compared with a standard behavioral weight loss intervention (standard intervention), a technology-enhanced weight loss intervention (enhanced intervention) would result in greater weight loss.

Design, Setting, Participants
Randomized clinical trial conducted at the University of Pittsburgh and enrolling 471 adult participants between October 2010 and October 2012, with data collection completed by December 2014.

Interventions
Participants were placed on a low-calorie diet, prescribed increases in physical activity, and had group counseling sessions. At 6 months, the interventions added telephone counseling sessions, text message prompts, and access to study materials on a website. At 6 months, participants randomized to the standard intervention group initiated self-monitoring of diet and physical activity using a website, and those randomized to the enhanced intervention group were provided with a wearable device and accompanying web interface to monitor diet and physical activity.

Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome of weight was measured over 24 months at 6-month intervals, and the primary hypothesis tested the change in weight between 2 groups at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included body composition, fitness, physical activity, and dietary intake.

Results
Among the 471 participants randomized (body mass index [BMI], 25 to <40; age range, 18-35 years; 28.9% nonwhite, 77.2% women), 470 (233 in the standard intervention group, 237 in the enhanced intervention group) initiated the interventions as randomized, and 74.5% completed the study. For the enhanced intervention group, mean baseline weight was 96.3 kg (95% CI, 94.2-98.5) and 24-month weight 89.3 kg (95% CI, 87.1-91.5). For the standard intervention group, mean baseline weight was 95.2 kg (95% CI, 93.0-97.3) and 24-month weight was 92.8 kg (95% CI, 90.6-95.0). Weight change at 24 months differed significantly by intervention group (estimated mean weight loss, 3.5 kg [95% CI, 2.6-4.5} in the enhanced intervention group and 5.9 kg [95% CI, 5.0-6.8] in the standard intervention group; difference, 2.4 kg [95% CI, 1.0-3.7]; P = .002). Both groups had significant improvements in body composition, fitness, physical activity, and diet, with no significant difference between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance
Among young adults with a BMI between 25 and less than 40, the addition of a wearable technology device to a standard behavioral intervention resulted in less weight loss over 24 months. Devices that monitor and provide feedback on physical activity may not offer an advantage over standard behavioral weight loss approaches.

[geo]

Hi Jeff! Thanks for all your responses. The next to last one pretty much anserwed my question. Sorry for not providing you some perspective and context on my questions. My bad.

I dont track much this days nor do I think that most people following this program and my recommendations for exercise needs to unless they are trying to move from fairly unfit to fit and wanted to know some markers to track their progres

Agreed 100% and thats why I asked. I'm going from fairly unfit (IMHO) to fit and wanted to know the best markers to track to show my progress. Being an engineering/science/numbers guy, its not enough for me to just see the subjective health results. I want to know the numbers so I can "prove" (at least to myself), that the science is what it claims to be. For me, its never enough to just read the science. And just saying I look and feel better doesnt cut it either. I know I'm way too anal about these things, but its where I get MY motivation. And also allows me to experiment (n=1) on what may be best for myself in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and safety. I know I fall way outside of what most people need or want to succeed, but its served me well

<Not so off topic note>
BTW, your last post in the compliancy thread viewtopic.php?f=22&t=44133&p=542743#p542743 is great and is such an important post to me because it hints at what it really takes to be successful on this program. And lets face it there are only 3 important factors to this lifestyle:

1. Learn it
2. Live it
3. Stay the course, forever

Frankly its such an important topic, I think you should probably expand on it in a future article, please!
</not so off topic note>

At any rate, what I do now is use a Polar H7 chest strap monitor to get my exercise HR stats. I much prefer the accuracy of the more direct measurements during exercise and tie it to apps on my smartphone. I do not use any tracking/wrist type tools as I find them too indirect and inaccurate. For other HR stats like RHR and spot checking HR during the day I use an inexpensive pulse/oxi meter.

As to the study you posted, too me, it was another one of those DUH! moments. You take people that have BMI's in the over-weight to morbidly obese range, tell them to eat less calories and exercise using a fitness tracker and expect anything but failure? I mean these folks didnt get to their current state by being hungry and exercising, so why in the world would they think that they would enjoy being hungry from the "diet" and tired from the exercise while enjoying a shiney tracking device as motivation to lose weight over a couple years?
We cant get people to stay on this program for 2 weeks and they wont be hungry or tired! These kinds of studies, while interesting, just aren't helpful so much, IMHO.

[JeffN]

Hi Jeff! Thanks for all your responses.

Thank you.

The next to last one pretty much anserwed my question. Sorry for not providing you some perspective and context on my questions. My bad.

No Problem.

Agreed 100% and thats why I asked. I'm going from fairly unfit (IMHO) to fit and wanted to know the best markers to track to show my progress.

The best measure of progress would be to compare where you are now to where you were then on almost any of those variables. While there are external standards, the best measure is to compare you against you.

Being an engineering/science/numbers guy, its not enough for me to just see the subjective health results. I want to know the numbers so I can "prove" (at least to myself), that the science is what it claims to be. For me, its never enough to just read the science. And just saying I look and feel better doesnt cut it either. I know I'm way too anal about these things, but its where I get MY motivation. And also allows me to experiment (n=1) on what may be best for myself in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and safety. I know I fall way outside of what most people need or want to succeed, but its served me well

I am one of those guys too and for decades, I tracked everything. Every run, every mile, every workout, and all my HRs, RHRs, BPs, Max HRs, VO2s, speeds, strength (reps/wts/sets), and every blood lab value, etc. Somewhere I still have all the results from all the tests while I spend 1 year in an exercise physiology lab.

I never needed a trainer, coach, workout partner, etc, as the one in my head was always tougher on me then any of them could have been.

I think I slowed down my tracking around 50(ish) and now as I close in on 60, I just don't see the need, nor do I have the same level of motivation/desire to track everything like I used to.

While I said it jokingly, it did give my brain something to "do" while I engaged in the process.

When I met my wife, she was the opposite and the first 35 seconds of this clip is a classic scenario that we also played out.

https://youtu.be/Dcke_fM6V38

BTW, your last post in the compliancy thread viewtopic.php?f=22&t=44133&p=542743#p542743 is great and is such an important post to me because it hints at what it really takes to be successful on this program. And lets face it there are only 3 important factors to this lifestyle:

1. Learn it
2. Live it
3. Stay the course, forever

Frankly its such an important topic, I think you should probably expand on it in a future article, please!

I agree and thought the same thing and am considering it.

At any rate, what I do now is use a Polar H7 chest strap monitor to get my exercise HR stats. I much prefer the accuracy of the more direct measurements during exercise and tie it to apps on my smartphone.

Agreed. Same here.

I do not use any tracking/wrist type tools as I find them too indirect and inaccurate.

Agreed. There are currently law suits against them in regard to their claimed accuracy

For other HR stats like RHR and spot checking HR during the day I use an inexpensive pulse/oxi meter.

I do also have a Omron Wrist BP/Puls Monitor which (when I remember) will check.

Funny story, occasionally, when I am in the supermarket or drugstore, they do free check ups, so I will have them check my BP and it usually comes out around 100-110/70-75 and they will say, wow, that is so great. And I will say, No its not, that is white-coat hypertension for me. At home, it is usually 90/60

Of course, they, like most, do not take BP readings correctly but that is a different story for a different day.

As to the study you posted, too me, it was another one of those DUH! moments. You take people that have BMI's in the over-weight to morbidly obese range, tell them to eat less calories and exercise using a fitness tracker and expect anything but failure? I mean these folks didnt get to their current state by being hungry and exercising, so why in the world would they think that they would enjoy being hungry from the "diet" and tired from the exercise while enjoying a shiney tracking device as motivation to lose weight over a couple years?

Agreed. However, the value of it was that it showed it didn't help any "more" than those who got the exact same advice without the device and in some of them, they actually did worse.

So, in regard to my recent post in the compliance thread, it supports my position of keeping it simple and that you do not need any of these new high tech gadgets to get well.

In Health
Jeff

[geo]

Its interesting how we have gone similar roads, but you have taken advantage of your path and I'm playing catchup while being only a couple years older than you.

The best measure of progress would be to compare where you are now to where you were then on almost any of those variables. While there are external standards, the best measure is to compare you against you.

Yep, thats what I'm doing now. (If you know of a good listing of external standards I would would appreciate it.) I also have some metrics from when I was younger and very active and use those as well to see how far I can go. Pretty much I'm interested in my potential, not on an athletic basis, but on a health basis.

I never needed a trainer, coach, workout partner, etc, as the one in my head was always tougher on me then any of them could have been.

I'm the same way, while I dont have the formal education, I read very extensively on the subject matters from both popular books and school texts and have done so since the mid 70's. I cringe when I hear what comes out of the mouths of most personal trainers these days.

I think I slowed down my tracking around 50(ish) and now as I close in on 60, I just don't see the need, nor do I have the same level of motivation/desire to track everything like I used to.

I can understand that. For me its about reaching my potential. And once I'm there, I too will have little reason to keep measurements, though a part of me says, look what its done for Clarence Bass . But really it doesnt take that much time to reach your potential. I know in the bodybuilding/weight training world several studies (not sure if they've been published) seem to indicate that you can reach 90-95% of your strength potential in 3-5 years (given proper training and hard work on contiuous progression.) And that it can take many more years or decades to reach that last 5-10% (thats for athletes, not me). I know Arthur Jones felt it may be possible to reach your strength potential in 2 years or less following his guidelines. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that potential maybe be significantly less at 60 then at 20-30, but it doesn't dissuade me either.

While I said it jokingly, it did give my brain something to "do" while I engaged in the process.

Lol, thats what we would refer to in the old days as "mental mast*rbation"...jealousy can run deep in those that don't understand...

I do also have an Omron Wrist BP/Puls Monitor which (when I remember) will check.

Funny story, occasionally, when I am in the supermarket or drugstore, they do free check ups, so I will have them check my BP and it usually comes out around 100-110/70-75 and they will say, wow, that is so great. And I will say, No its not, that is white-coat hypertension for me. At home, it is usually 90/60

Of course, they, like most, do not take BP readings correctly but that is a different story for a different day.

I too have the Omron 7 wrist meter and an older arm cuff model, both of which are very accurate. I sometimes double check my readings manually (my wife is a nurse) and they match almost exactly. Usually my BP runs 90's over 60's as well. But i suffer from WCS badly. I just saw my dental surgeon a few weeks ago and despite only having a check up my BP measured 170/110! I didnt have a chance to try my usual meditation tricks to calm myself before hand. Whats even funnier is they didnt think anything was wrong with it! And yes they don't know how to take BP properly either, so sad for the medical community. And yet they are real eager to pull out the prescription pad

Unfortunately I tend to be a rather shy and very introverted person, so I dont think I'll ever get over it But at least it also makes it much simpler to deal with others when it comes to my diet/lifestyle...I just dont talk about it or ignore them. These forums give me an outlet to try to help others but in reality, from most, I dont think people are really listening, but that too is for another day...

Thanks for listening and have a great day!

[JeffN]

Yep, thats what I'm doing now. (If you know of a good listing of external standards I would would appreciate it.) I also have some metrics from when I was younger and very active and use those as well to see how far I can go. Pretty much I'm interested in my potential, not on an athletic basis, but on a health basis.

I am not sure there are any ranges relating any of the ones mentioned to fitness, let alone to health outside of comparing it to where you were before.

Out of all the ones mentioned above,

RHR - can range from 60-100 and be healthy though athletes may go as low as the 40s

One minute pulse recovery - you hear all kinds of numbers but I explained some of the problems with them. The only number I know of based on studies is that if it doesn't drop at least 12 beats in a minute, it could indicate some serious heart issues.

I am not sure this is what you are looking for and you may already know about these but in regard to general fitness, there are some tests that have been used over the years and they test fitness in different ways

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/

http://www.ukkinstituutti.fi/filebank/5 ... Manual.pdf

http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Fitness_Ass ... _Tests.pdf

http://www.ccsoh.us/Downloads/FG%20Test ... d%204E.pdf

http://www.military.com/military-fitnes ... tness-test

In Health
Jeff

[geo]

Thanks again Jeff!

I am not sure there are any ranges relating any of the ones mentioned to fitness, let alone to health outside of comparing it to where you were before.

Out of all the ones mentioned above,

RHR - can range from 60-100 and be healthy though athletes may go as low as the 40s

One minute pulse recovery - you hear all kinds of numbers but I explained some of the problems with them. The only number I know of based on studies is that if it doesn't drop at least 12 beats in a minute, it could indicate some serious heart issues.

Agreed on all counts. None of these will give you much in the way of an accurate number to seek, but rather they are all usable from a context of personal trends. As long as the numbers trend in a particular direction over time, I can be sure that I'm improving relative to fitness and given I stay within the guidelines of needed physical activity that should also mean overall health as well. (Of course any J-curves could make me eat my words)

The RHR I measure already and is simple to quantify with a HRM strap. The one min pulse is usally talked in terms of <= 12 is bad, 20-25 is norm, athlete =>50+. so again that gives a bit of metric to trend too. But your right theres only a handful of studies on this measure.

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/

http://www.ukkinstituutti.fi/filebank/5 ... Manual.pdf

http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Fitness_Ass ... _Tests.pdf

http://www.ccsoh.us/Downloads/FG%20Test ... d%204E.pdf

http://www.military.com/military-fitnes ... tness-test

Interesting links. The first one I've seen and mostly amounts to hundreds of different "fitness" tests that can be done...however in many cases they give no metrics or whys and wherefores of these "tests" and how they may relate to health or fitness. These sound more like what a PE teacher/coach might use to "grade" his students more than anything else.

The second link is interesting because they give all the reasoning of the tests, how they relate to health and fitness, the metrics, how easy the tests are etc... Overall I like this document.

The next link is all about VO2Max measurements, which we havent discussed but which I think is not a good measure of fitness and tend to ignore.

The fourth link is interesting as it comes out of the Cooper Clinic so has a weight of authority about it but is primarily geared towards children. Definitely useful for children/teens.

The fifth link basically covers military standards which I'm familiar with as I'm a veteran and in reality they are more about standards for the job rather than fitness/health. But it was a remider of days long past

So, I think we've beat this horse to death pretty much. But I've learned enough to at least follow a path that I think will be usefull to me at least. Thank you for all your help and putting up with my questions that are completely irrelevant to this program and what folks need most.

Ok that is what I ment to post the other day but forgot too...

I can now add this: After another search I believe I have found what I was looking for! There is actually one book available that covers the topic of fitness, performance and health norms. Its sold by Human Kinetics (should have known they would publish this kind of stuff):

Norms for Fitness, Performance and Health by Jay Hoffman: https://www.amazon.com/Norms-Fitness-Pe ... or+fitness

Its a text book but not too hard of a read and covers all sorts of norms for a wide variety of exercise, including assesments and some statistical analysis. Its ment more for exercise physiology lab students and Coaches/Trainers. It covers as much metrics as possible from as many studies as they could garner metrics from so it covers the science really well and compares the metrics in terms of fitness and health. Its expensive as a text book but I was lucky to get it used in essentially new condition for $10...

Now I think I'm done for this subject Again thanks for all your help!

[geo]

Well I thought I was done beating on this dead horse, but I can't help myself in trying to learn even more. I just happenstance came to this link while searching for something else and am fascinated that the same topics I'm researching now were being asked by scientists in this old email thread from 1998:

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/monitormessages.html

Its interesting to see that even 20 years later, we are still trying to answer the same questions on self quantification (i.e., performance metrics and what do we measure to improve ourselves). Science/Tech marches on, but the answers come so slowly. Like you say, science is a process, one that can require many years of testing iterations and even then may not expose its secrets to us mere mortals.

Oh well, thank you again for all your help and experience! Hopefully, I'm not polluting your forum too much...

[JeffN]

Well I thought I was done beating on this dead horse, but I can't help myself in trying to learn even more. I just happenstance came to this link while searching for something else and am fascinated that the same topics I'm researching now were being asked by scientists in this old email thread from 1998:

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/monitormessages.html

And probably for decades before.

Thanks for the interesting link.

In Health

Jeff

[JeffN]

Have you ever tracked Heart Rate Variability (HRV)?

In Health
Jeff

[geo]

Have you ever tracked Heart Rate Variability (HRV)?

I did for about a month using my Polar H7 chest strap. (a month of testing is probably not adequate as the reason for testing HRV was to determine if it is a more accurate way to test for over-training and or adjustment of daily training intensity).

What I found is a couple of issues:

1. Vigorous exercise made optimal contact of chest strap for continuos readings sometimes difficult.
2. Blue tooth connectivity using a high-end smartphone for continuous recording was a must.
3. A chest strap that was capable of continuous electrical readings was the only appropriate choice of measurement device. Optical HR readers just dont have the necessary accuracy needed for HRV measurements no matter their cost. IMHO, the Polar H7 device is the best and most economical device for HRV measurements when connected to a quality smartphone with blue tooth

My results:

It was difficult at best to actually coorelate HRV readings with the ability to determine proper training intensity let alone if I was over training. Also, the distractions caused by the equipment usage and constant fiddling to make sure everything was working distracted from the actual exercise. Focus and concentration on the exercise was not as good when using the equipment. For myself, the measuring equipment was a distraction to my performance. Others may not be as bothered but I would be surprised if not so.

Now that being said, the short time period of actual usage for HRV may not have been a fair test and I may just be overly sensitive to using such equipment. There is also the possiblity that a month was not enough time to establish a solid base line of readings to make best evaluations of the readings effectiveness.

All in all, I was not satisfied with HRV testing as a method to determine either over-training or in determining daily training intensity requirements. Overall, the methodology needs more work to be truly useful.

However their are a couple other tried and true methods to determine potential over-training and correct for it that I have used long term and do seem to work well enough:

1. Resting Normal Heart Rate measurement. I've used this technique for decades in my training and find it to be quick and simple and can be done without equipment, though a cheap, simple pulse/oxi meter ($20) make measurements alot easier. Basically all you do is measure your resting heart rate first thing in the morning. A rising Resting Heart Rate over a day or two or three is indicative of over-training and should be followed by a few days of rest (optimally) or a decrease in exercise intensity for a few days (not as optimal IMHO). The only problem with this measurement is that it can take 2-3 days to determine if you are over-training. (HRV can supposedly determine over-training in a day). But, none the less, Resting Heart Rate measurement is simple, easy, cheap, non-distracting during exercise and easy to record a single number on a daily basis for tracking purposes. Its my favorite measurement for determining over-training and intensity variability.

2. An even easier method that requires no equipment or measurement or even tracking of data is to simply take regular breaks from training. In my case, I have found that if I simply take a complete training break for one week every 4-6 weeks quite easily keeps me from over-training and keeps me mentally sharp and "hungry" to continue training. If I find after a week of complete rest, that I cant wait to get back to training, then I know I'm well rested and ready to hit the exercise again for another 4-6 week session. However, if I simply dont feel like exercising after a week of rest, I will take a few more days off, even upto a second week of complete rest before restarting my exercise. From experience, I've never needed to go 2 weeks of complete rest and if I ever did, I would know something else is going on (most likely mental) that is effecting me getting back into training. But thats a different matter for another time The only problem with this method is that its not exact but for me, works quite well.

3. And yet another simple way to determine if you are over-training is to simply keep track of your progression in your training. If you find that your training is not progressing, simply take a break for a few days. The issue with this method is that you really need to be in tune with your training and how you feel. It requires you to be honest about whether your really trying to progress or just mentally distracted or even just bored with your training and need a change up in your routine. If you've been training for a few years, this can be a quite accurate method for personal use and its one I use in conjunction with the above methods.