Well, I am still a rookie when it comes to capillary blow outs. Had my first the other week and I have to admit it was a little “odd”. Blew out my ring finger. Just pop.
Are hemorrhoids from intensity or tonnage?
How many dudes in this thread have talked to Rip, and a Mr. Universe and a Masters Olympia winner about training?
I talk to Rip every night while laying prostrate before his altar. I know one day he will talk back.
1 Like
Ok I think most of us have ceased reeling from the shock of how ludicrous this thread has become…
Tell me, how many ways can RATE OF PERCEIVED EXERTION with a bloody numerical value to state HOW CLOSE TO FAILURE YOU ARE possibly be interpreted???
Seriously???
Wtf is going on here???
So, we have:
- lifter A who has been prescribed 5x10 @ 8 RPE
- lifter B who has been prescribed 5x10 @ 7 RPE
Do you think many coaches would say lifter A has been given more volume than lifter B?
I think we can all agree that everyone gets it except mbdix (sorry, buddy)
Are lifters a and lifter b the same person? If lifter a is assigned 5x10 at 8 RPE (225 lbs) and lifter b is assigned 5x10 at 7 RPE (275 lbs) then lifter b has more volume.
If they both have the same load with different RPE’s then they have the same volume.
If lifter a and b are the same person, then you would assume workout a has more volume. Of course it is based on RPE and not load. So if the lifter has been training for a long time and is “off” one day RPE 8 could actually be a lighter load than the RPE of the 7 on a strong day. Also RPE could be influenced by when the trainer last performed that exercise. If he/she is well rested and recovered on RPE 7 day, it could be more weight than a quick turn around RPE 8 day.
No worries. I haven’t seen any data suggesting I am wrong. If I am presented with concrete data that I am mistaken, I will happily change my stance and accept it as a learning experience.
I’m just messing with you, dude. I don’t think it really matters what description you subscribe to so long as you’re consistent
Not sure i got that but how would you explain classic periodization (one block with higher volume and lower intensity followed by a block with lower volume and higher intensity) with this definition? That you just adjust volume?
Can you find someone who defines volume in this way? Id be interested in knowing who does.
“For sets and reps — I like using a higher volume on this so 3-5 sets of 15-30 reps.” - Jim Wendler
“Intensity” in training is the level of effort relative to your maximal effort. […] intensity deloading means decreasing the amount of weight used for your sets (without adding more volume) […] Stopping a set short of failure is a lower intensity than using maximum pump methods, extended sets, drop sets, forced reps, and negatives. Even if you’re using more weight, stopping a set short of failure is still lower intensity.
[…]
If you’re training for strength, a volume deload is the best choice. Decrease training volume by 40-50% but keep the same level of intensity/effort. You can either reduce the number of reps per set, sets per exercise, or number of exercises. […]
You can deload in volume by reducing reps:
Instead of 5 x 5, do 5 x 3.
Instead of 4 x 8, do 4 x 5.
Instead of 4 x 12, do 4 x 6.
The weight on all exercises would remain the same.
Or by decreasing sets:
Keeping the exercises and weights the same, you’d simply do 2-3 fewer sets per movement.
Or by dropping exercises:
The sets and reps remain the same, but you use only two exercises" - Christian Thibaudeau
And, just for good measure even though he doesn’t have a sub-forum here:
“When we talk volume and intensity in strength training, the interpretation usually goes as follows: “volume” refers to how many reps or sets are performed, and “intensity” indicates how much weight is lifted, which can also be expressed as a relative percentage of your maximum capability.” - Ian King, from the article High Intensity versus High Volume
2 Likes
dayum, Chris. Remind me never to try and take you on
Does anyone want to comment on this besides me.
Exactly. No where in this statement does it address how close you take your sets to failure.
In all of your examples regarding “volume” the definition I have been stating holds true and applicable. In each statement you posted tonnage=volume holds true. You have not given one example disproving that tonnage=volume.
You have given multiple examples of how your definition of intensity is incorrect.
If you’re training for strength, a volume deload is the best choice. Decrease training volume by 40-50% but keep the same level of intensity/effort. You can either reduce the number of reps per set, sets per exercise, or number of exercises. […]
You can deload in volume by reducing reps:
Instead of 5 x 5, do 5 x 3.
Instead of 4 x 8, do 4 x 5.
Instead of 4 x 12, do 4 x 6.
In this example how is this keeping the same intensity (by Chris’ definition) if you are doing less reps and or exercises?
[quote=“mbdix, post:63, topic:217903”]
No where in this statement does it address how close you take your sets to failure.[/quote]
“which can also be expressed as a relative percentage of your maximum capability.”
I do a set of 11 reps, reaching muscular failure when I attempt rep 12. I have reached 100% of my maximum capability. I rest 15 seconds and do another rep. I immediately reduce the weight and do three more reps. I have trained beyond my maximum capability. By training at more than 100% maximum capability, I have dramatically increased intensity.
[quote]You can deload in volume by reducing reps:
Instead of 5 x 5, do 5 x 3.
Instead of 4 x 8, do 4 x 5.
Instead of 4 x 12, do 4 x 6.
In this example how is this keeping the same intensity (by Chris’ definition) if you are doing less reps and or exercises?[/quote]
Because the weight is kept the same while the volume decreases. That example specifically states “if you’re training for strength”. As I’ve repeatedly said, in a strength-building context, the weight is intensity. In that situation, when the weight is same, the intensity is the same.
Seriously, dude, at this point I’m about 95% sure you’re trolling me. But you can keep disagreeing with me and most other guys in this thread and Thib and Wendler and Ian King and Dr. Squat and Arnold and Dorian and Rippetoe and Dan John and other coaches. No problem.
EDIT: Note to all, yep, I moved this whole thing to a new thread of its own. Went almost 60 posts not actually talking about that dude’s back routine and seems to have scared him off. Carry on.
Brother, I don’t think that they have the same definition of these two subjects as you do. From your post quoting Ian King your definition of training intensity is in conflict of his definition. Do you not agree?
This is what you said about training intensity
And this is the part of the quote you posted refering to Ian King’s definition of training intensity
Who’s understanding falls in line with Ian King’s definition? Would you say my understanding is in agreement with his? Or, would you come to the conclusion that your understanding is in line with Ian’s? Who is disagreeing with him in your opinion?
mate, this is actually getting weird now. How can you read that post and still be confused?
Ok. How are you training beyond your maximum capability? You just did it!
If you are establishing a 1 rep max in a lift, you work up to your previous max, estimated max, whatever… You get to where you have successfully lifted the most weight you are capable of lifting. That is maximum capability. You have a max now. A training max. Which a very, very, very high percentage of workouts are based on. The maximum you are capable of lifting.