A four-week tempo block, on paper. Twelve sessions of “2:4 tempo, 3×10 RPE 7.” The lifter checks each box in their notes app. At the end of the block they feel slightly stronger and definitely sore.
Did they actually hit the tempo? If they had to put a number on what percentage of reps in week 4 landed within ±20% of the prescribed eccentric duration — they couldn’t.
Neither could the coach who wrote the program.
What adherence actually is
Adherence is the gap between the program you wrote down and the work you actually did. The numbers exist on both sides; the deviation is the truth.
tensr surfaces it across four dimensions, each pairing a target with a measurement:
| Dimension | Target | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Tempo | Prescribed eccentric/concentric durations | Actual durations per rep |
| Volume | Prescribed sets, reps, set TUT | Actual sets, reps, TUT |
| Intensity | Prescribed peak force or % of max | Actual peak force per set |
| Symmetry | Prescribed L/R tolerance | Actual symmetry index |
Each pair generates a deviation. Roll the deviations up and you get an adherence score at three scopes: per set, per session, per block.
Why it matters
The prescription loop has been open-loop forever. The coach writes a program. The athlete reports back (“did 3×10 RPE 7”). Both hope the work matched the intent. There is no way to know.
Closing this loop changes two specific things:
Block-level diagnosis. A tempo block where week 1 had 80% on-tempo reps and week 4 had 45% on-tempo reps explains a lot of progression questions a coach would otherwise have to guess at. Was the athlete drifting because the load was too heavy? Because they were under-recovered? Because they got bored with the constraint? The trend pattern in the adherence number is the diagnostic.
Live coaching cues. During a set, “eccentric: 2.1 s, target 3.0 s” on screen converts a 6-week feedback delay into a per-rep one. The lifter notices and adjusts before the rep is over.
The data-geek lifter benefits even without a coach: their own past prescriptions become a comparable record, and the “did I actually do what I said I’d do” question stops being a self-report.
What to track together
Treat adherence as one diagnostic view across the four dimensions, not four scattered numbers.
| Metric | What it tells you |
|---|---|
| On-tempo rep % | Did the actual reps match the prescribed tempo? |
| Volume deviation | Was the actual set TUT / rep count within target? |
| Intensity deviation | Was the load actually at the prescribed % of peak? |
| Adherence score (per session) | Composite, weighted by dimension importance |
| Adherence trend (per block) | Is discipline drifting up or down across weeks? |
The reading worth attending to is the trend across a block, not any single set’s score. Adherence isn’t binary — every dimension has acceptable tolerance, and a single rep slightly off-target is just a normal rep. What matters is whether the overall pattern is holding or drifting.
What gear it needs
Adherence inherits the gear requirements of the dimension it’s measuring.
- Volume adherence is honest at every sample rate (impulse and TUT are integrals).
- Tempo adherence wants 80 Hz for live per-rep coaching; on 8 Hz scales it’s still computable as a set average but not useful as a real-time cue.
- Intensity adherence is honest everywhere (peak force is a peak; sample rate barely matters for max-detection).
- Symmetry adherence needs two sensors.
Match the prescription to the gear. Don’t write a 2:4 tempo program for a lifter on a $30 scale and expect them to use it as a live cue — they can validate it after the fact, but not while they lift.
What to do tomorrow
Pick one movement. Before the session, write down a target tempo (e.g., 2:4) and a target set TUT (e.g., 30 s).
Run the session normally. After, look at the on-tempo rep % and the set TUT deviation.
The first time you do this, the on-tempo % will be lower than you expect. That gap is the value: it converts an internal sense of “yeah I’m doing the program” into a number you can disagree with.
Two notes on how to read the result.
The score is a mirror, not a game. A 70% adherence on tempo isn’t a fail; it’s a starting point. If your coach prescribed 2:4 and you ran 1.8:3.6 consistently, you and they have something to discuss — maybe the prescription was unrealistic, maybe you’ve been rushing and didn’t notice. Either reading is valuable.
Tolerances are tunable. The default “on-tempo” window is ±20% of target. For new tempo work, that’s generous. For experienced lifters who’ve been doing tempo for years, ±10% is reasonable. The score isn’t a fixed bar — it’s a measurement against the bar you set.
The number isn’t the goal. Knowing whether your discipline is holding is.