Anything under 60% doesn’t count.
That’s why you don’t get jacked from endless light junk.
no. Read Chris’s reply. Everyone has a different definition to you.
Chris’ definition is wrong
haha! Well I guess that’s a matter of opinion…
1 Like
Imagine how Prilepin must have felt 50 years ago.
Haha. That made me laugh out loud. Are you sure it is not 55%, or 50%? Where did you come up with that rule?
This discussion is basically the plot of Rocky 4.
The edit was to include the part about light stuff not getting you jacked. The “rule” came from a Louie Simmons article, based on his implementation of Russian sciences. The funny part is, the actual number could be 55% or 50%, I don’t remember for sure. The other funny part is that many, many successful lifters don’t worry about this stuff.
Chris’ definition is also right, depending who you’re reading or listening to.
I’m gonna go with Strain and Burn because I’m an uneducated oaf and it makes sense to me.
2 Likes
Fair enough. So, there is no solid base on what volume and intensity are in weight training. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me T-Nation
In my experience the context is usually enough to make the meaning clear. As a guideline, I’ve always understood intensity in powerlifting circles to be a straightforward % of a 1RM (which presents it’s own issues), whereas in other types of training it is typically more analogous to the RPE scale.
As I said, volume doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Common sense does still apply. I can’t imagine many, if any, situations where 5x15 with an empty bar would be done by someone who can squat 405. I feel like that’s an extreme and unrealistic example used only to try justifying your stance.
“In gym parlance, intensity refers to the difficulty of a workout or workout schedule. Intensity is often erroneously defined as how close you are to your maximal limit strength level in the amount of weight you are using in a given exercise movement. […]” - I.S.S.A. trainer’s textbook, Fitness: The Complete Guide
If you’d like to disagree with Fred “Dr. Squat” Hatfield, Co-founder and President of the ISSA, message him on Facebook.
Well, guess that settles it. 
1 Like
Yup. I don’t see how hard it is to understand this.
Lol what don’t you get?
If I’m so smart, how come I can’t bench 400? Some dudes get that much in high school.
You need to start drinking almond milk.
1 Like
I’ve heard it had good nutrient tonnage by volume.
Is it ethical to utilise almonds with the draught in California?
2 Likes
Also, no offence Chris, but ISSA is a pretty terrible source.
Even Rippetoe uses Intensity and volume to describe the Texas Method.
1 Like
Fred Hatfield squatted 1000. He also strength coached a cruiserweight into the heavyweight champion of the world in boxing. He is the real McCoy.
This conversation is amazingly ridiculous, but I just wanted to contribute that, to avoid the whole intensity vs intensity debate, when describing how much effort I put into a set, I use the term “intensity of effort”.
I think the idea of not being able to track one’s intensity of effort is pretty silly. I do this all the time in my training. One of my favorite metrics is by measuring capillary ruptures. If I burst a few capillaries in my traps and chest, I was clocking in a little above average. If I blew out everything from the left shoulder, across my chest and face, clear to the other shoulder, I was finally started to get somewhere.
1 Like
It is an extreme example. It was used to illustrate how reps × sets has holes in it when defining volume and load has to be used in the equation. Your opinion and thoughts on volume has holes in it. The definition of volume that is used in weight training does not. Reps × sets × load. I would be shocked if any coach that has their own sub-forum in your forums would agree with either of your definitions.