I missed this post earlier. Sure, I can find someone that holds the same definition of volume as I do. I didn’t invent the definition, I learned it. Let me find an example then I will address you other question later when I can look at it in more detail.
When volume gets summed up by just saying it is how many sets and reps you do, it is easy to understand how one might believe that is the case. If you increase reps, exercises, and sets you usually do increase volume, because you are increasing total weight lifted or tonnage.
You are not exactly wrong but you are not right either. By your definition you are right what volume is. The vast majority of people would agree with Chris’s definition though. Just google high volume workout and you will find 10x10, 8x8, 5x10 rep schemes.
You are missing the point that volume, intensity and frequency are all managed together and the most important variables. You should not up one of these variables without adjusting the other two. A good program will typically have one high, one medium and one low variable (before you take this very literally yes they’re are other variables and beliefs). So when people measure volume in these variables we add sets and reps together not total weight lifted. When we up the intensity we typically lower the volume (i.e. less reps and sets). If these are the two variables we want to adjust.
I can agree to this. I wasn’t trying to discuss training philosophy only the correct definition of intensity and volume when discussing weight training
This thread is the exact definition of becoming paralyzed by over-analyzing.
Pretty much every coach who charges people like us to consult with (this list includes our own Jim Wendler and Paul Carter) uses volume as adding more reps using a much lower weight. Example: if you can do 20 pullups in a set, do 10 sets of 10 pullups… to add additional VOLUME to a overhead press day.
Upping the intensity, is being able to do 20 chins in a set then strapping on a 45lb. plate and doing non-stop rest pause reps until you hit 20 reps. Use this for additional INTENSITY.
I would think the difference would be clear.
1 Like
Both of the definitions I used for intensity and volume hold true with both of your examples of increasing them
Then how, if you knew the definition and application for both these methods…did this thread get to 60+ posts?
Because T-Nation.
After reading this whole conversation, I’ll like to admit that being a mechanical engineer I too used to be that analytical with training parameters till a few years back which had led to lots of time wasting on testing methods and techniques which don’t make much difference. I only found the real inner peace when I settled on old 'strain and burn" system @Yogi1 talked, respecting the methodologies of experienced coaches like CT, PC also helped a lot. As a result, I’m today strongest and in best shape I’ve ever been.
My point is that focusing on progression based on certain goals is much more important than the parameters themselves otherwise it may lead to a delusional trainee spinning wheels. Focusing on results yields results, nothing else.
On a similar note, @mbdix are you an engineer? You know engineers possess the propensity to confuse the shit out of anyone, especially the retired ones 
(Just joking, please don’t take it personally KSman).
A couple of posters have commented on over analyzing and how a person shouldn’t have that in their approach to weight training. Just to clarify, I am making gains in my training, and I am not over analyzing anything in my approach to training… i am just following a program (531 for hardgainers right now) and pushing myself in the gym.
The whole discussion for me in this thread was to address and correct the incorrect use of the words “intensity” and “volume” when discussing weight training. There was a debate, and I have not been presented with anything that would make me believe that my understanding of those two words, in regards to weight training, should be evaluated or changed.
I am not a professional engineer.
I might be quilty of over analyzing my approach when designing my own programs, but I enjoy creating them and tweaking them and usually make gains on them.
This is the wisest thing I have seen on this thread.
If our forum would just follow a program like this or similar, much of the keyboard warrioring would be unnecessary.
Volume is NOT sets and reps regardless of load. Assuming weight lifted is equal, then yes more set and reps would a be higher volume.
Lifter a Doing 5x5 with 315 is doing more overal training volume than lifter b doing 5x5 with 225.
Assuming over a period of time your sets reps remain the same but your working weight for those sets increased 40lbs, you are doing a higher volume of work.
Intensity as used in bodybuilding is not really used scientifically. Saying I took that set to maximum intensity is more a description of the effort used than actual measurement. Where as more commonly intensity is used in relation to a percentage of your 1 rep max.
1 Like