LiftGauge FAQ — DOTS, 1RM formulas, powerlifting percentiles, and the data behind them.

Q1

What is a good DOTS score?

DOTS (Konertz / BVDK 2019) is the de facto raw-open coefficient on OpenPowerlifting and US raw federations such as USPA — not an IPF formula; the IPF's own official coefficient since 2020 is IPF GoodLift. DOTS gained ground because the older Wilks formula systematically under-scored heavier lifters (IPF formula evaluation, 2020). The formula takes competition total in kilograms, bodyweight in kilograms, and a sex-specific polynomial; the resulting scalar lets two lifters of different bodyweight be ranked against each other.

The table below takes total-kilogram percentiles for five age-30 raw cohorts in the OpenPowerlifting source dump dated 2026-05-16 (maximum included meet date 2026-05-10), then converts each total threshold to DOTS at the listed class-limit bodyweight. For example, the male 83 kg-class p50 total is 582.5 kg; at exactly 83.0 kg bodyweight that equals DOTS 393.2. The percentile labels belong to the total distributions. These conversions are not row-wise DOTS quantiles for all bodies inside each class, and each n is an observation count rather than a unique-person count.

The interactive DOTS calculator is at scores, where DOTS is reported alongside Wilks 2020 and IPF GoodLift for the same total.

Q2

How accurate is the Epley formula versus Brzycki?

Both are polynomial approximations to a theoretical 1RM from submaximal load and reps. Epley (1985) is linear in reps and produces a higher estimate at moderate-to-high reps; Brzycki (1993) is hyperbolic and converges to a hard ceiling near 12 reps. Neither is "correct" in isolation — the underlying load-rep relationship is a curve that drifts with the lifter's training age, exercise selection, and effort calibration.

LiftGauge computes all seven common formulas in parallel — Epley, Brzycki, Mayhew (PMID 1614532), Lombardi, O'Conner, Wathan, and Lander — and surfaces the low-to-high disagreement range rather than calling it a statistical confidence interval. With the equations implemented here, the full range is about 7.4 percent at 3 reps, 5.6 percent at 5 reps, and 11.8 percent at 12 reps for any given load.

The comparative validation literature (LeSuer et al. 1997, Southern Illinois University) tested several of these against direct 1RM measurement and found no single formula dominant across all rep ranges or all three powerlifting exercises. The seven estimates are visible in the calculator view.

Q3

What dataset powers the percentile ranking?

LiftGauge's trailing-12-month rankings cube comes from the OpenPowerlifting source dump dated 2026-05-16 and includes meets through 2026-05-10. It starts with 186,303 eligible source rows; 186,218 rows contribute at least one usable lift or total, producing 615,721 row-weighted percentile lift observations. Cross-lift cells use 141,828 eligible full-power rows. Wraps equipment and DQ/DD places are excluded; approximate .5 ages stay out of exact one-year bins. Counts are not unique people.

The cube is segmented by sex, exact age or all ages, IPF bodyweight class, lift, and equipment. Cell n counts contributing lift observations, so one person can contribute more than one meet row and more than one lift observation. Exact cells are used when n ≥ 30; below that threshold the system widens hierarchically and shows the widening explicitly.

/rankings uses this OpenPowerlifting cube only. It does not estimate a gym-member, Army, civilian, or general-population percentile.

Full cohort-cell widening rules live in rankings and the method reference in method.

Q4

Why does a sparse cohort widen?

Every accepted rankings cell must contain at least 30 contributing lift observations. If the exact age and bodyweight-class cell is sparse, LiftGauge tries all ages in that class, then ±1 and ±2 bodyweight classes. The source row names the widening that produced the result.

If no candidate reaches n ≥ 30, rankings returns no percentile. It does not substitute an all-bodyweight or global cohort, because a broader denominator would answer a different question.

Q5

What is the difference between Wilks, DOTS, and IPF GL?

Each of the three coefficients normalises a competition total for bodyweight and sex. Wilks was the IPF standard through 2019 and is still cited in older records. The IPF replaced it in 2020 with IPF GL, a scoring family with separate constants for classic, equipped, full-power, and bench-only events. DOTS (Konertz / BVDK 2019) is a separate coefficient and the de facto raw-open standard on OpenPowerlifting and US raw federations, not an IPF formula.

LiftGauge computes DOTS, Wilks 2020, and the classic/raw SBD IPF GL variant from a typed competition total, bodyweight, and sex. It does not calculate the equipped or bench-only GoodLift variants. See the scores view for the comparative readout.

Q6

What does percentile mean in this context?

Percentile N means N percent of contributing row-weighted lift observations in the selected OpenPowerlifting cohort have a lower value. The cohort is filtered by sex, equipment, bodyweight class, and optional exact age; cell n counts observations, not source rows or unique people. This is a competition-observation denominator, not the percentage of all lifters or all adults.

When the exact cohort cell is sparse (n < 30), the system tries all ages in that bodyweight class, then ±1 and ±2 bodyweight classes. The widening is shown in the readout. If no candidate qualifies, there is no percentile.

Q7

What is Prilepin's table?

A. S. Prilepin was a Soviet sports scientist who, in the 1970s, tabulated recommended total rep counts per training session at a given percentage of 1RM, derived from observation of elite Soviet weightlifters. The table encodes an optimal lift count, a range, and an intensity zone for each percentage band — a prescription for how much volume is productive at a given load.

The English translation in standard circulation is Andrew Charniga's edition of A. S. Medvedyev, A System of Multi-Year Training in Weightlifting (Sportivny Press, 1986). The calculator view highlights the active Prilepin zone given the current load as a percentage of 1RM and reports the recommended rep range; the full table is in method.

Q8

How is TDEE calculated in the nutrition view?

Total daily energy expenditure is computed with Mifflin-St Jeor (1990, PMID 2305711), which takes sex, age, height, and weight and returns resting metabolic rate; that rate is then multiplied by a category-based activity factor (sedentary, light, moderate, active, very active).

Beyond a standard TDEE calculator, the nutrition view's STRENGTH tab shows a 12-week directional strength-retention model at the selected energy balance, anchored on Helms et al. 2014 (PMID 24864135) and Murphy & Koehler 2022. This couples the calorie target to the lift numbers entered elsewhere in the tool. See nutrition for the interactive view.

Q9

Does LiftGauge send my lifting data to a server?

No account or server-side profile is used. Calculator inputs are stored locally in the browser so tools can hand a result to the next step and survive a refresh.

If you choose Share, the selected result values are encoded in the link so another browser can reproduce it; anyone with that link can read those values. Anonymous analytics may record that a calculator was completed, shared, or used to open another tool, but receive the route path with query values stripped before analytics events are sent.

Q10

Is the app available offline?

Yes. LiftGauge is a progressive web application (PWA) built with Workbox. After the first load, the app shell and all calculation logic — the seven 1RM formulas, the DOTS / Wilks / IPF GL coefficients, the plate-loading, the warmup ramp, the Prilepin readout, and the Mifflin-St Jeor TDEE — run without a network connection.

The large OpenPowerlifting cohort file is runtime-cached when the rankings tool is visited rather than forced into the initial PWA install. That comparison therefore needs one successful online visit before it is available offline; the local formula calculators do not.