What is meant by intensity? In reading the newest article he recommends cycling the two. I assume volume is just the total volume of reps and sets… Is intensity just how hard I try? Or is it the weight I push? So less intense would be a lighter weight for a few more reps? For example if I do an 8x3 with 80% 1rm… Would less intensity be 3x8 with less weight?
Correct. Intensity is how closely you are training to your 1RM. Obviously, 90% of your 1RM (or even 5RM, etc.) is more intense than using 80% of 1RM (or 5RM, etc.).
Volume refers to total sets/reps within the workout or per bodypart, as well as frequency.
[quote]Todd S. wrote:
What is meant by intensity? In reading the newest article he recommends cycling the two. I assume volume is just the total volume of reps and sets… Is intensity just how hard I try? Or is it the weight I push? So less intense would be a lighter weight for a few more reps? For example if I do an 8x3 with 80% 1rm… Would less intensity be 3x8 with less weight? [/quote]
Which article? From Merriam-Webster, intensity is the magnitude of a quantity (as force or energy) per unit (as of area, charge, mass, or time). It is, in effect, how hard you do something given the circumstance. I personally don’t agree that intensity should be “cycled”. You can simply change the stimuli by increasing/decreasing the weights and doing the alternative with the number of reps or overall volume. I don’t believe in “light days”. I would rather simply take the day off.
Intensity = level of muscular activity that can be quantified in terms of Power (work performed per unit of time) output.
In this case yes. I do beleive he is speaking of the amount of load in general much as you lined out.
You can have an INTENSE work out and use high volume or lower volume and High intensity. We should all aim for an intense work out every time while we nary intensity and volume.
LOL
Clear as mud huh.
Hope that helps,
Phill
yep I am still not completely clear on what he means… This is the article http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=653950
Jack Reape is the author. Right now regardless of the weight I push as hard as I can. I assume that means my intensity is up. Whether I can do 2 reps or 8. I’ll try to follow the article and see what else pops up. I’ll probably post there as well.
[quote]Todd S. wrote:
yep I am still not completely clear on what he means… This is the article http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=653950
Jack Reape is the author. Right now regardless of the weight I push as hard as I can. I assume that means my intensity is up. Whether I can do 2 reps or 8. I’ll try to follow the article and see what else pops up. I’ll probably post there as well. [/quote]
This stands out above all else:
My goal is progressive strength over more than one rep. This article seems more geard towards powerlifting. Again, I go heavy unless I am recovering from a minor injury or slow recovery. In other words, my intensity is always great enough to cause me to make strange faces and grit my teeth by the last set.
[quote]Todd S. wrote:
What is meant by intensity? In reading the newest article he recommends cycling the two. I assume volume is just the total volume of reps and sets… Is intensity just how hard I try? Or is it the weight I push? So less intense would be a lighter weight for a few more reps? For example if I do an 8x3 with 80% 1rm… Would less intensity be 3x8 with less weight? [/quote]
Check the recent archives as Jack Reape recently wrote about this-in an article posted on either T-mag or drgondoor under the strength articles section called paeking on demand-it is just what you are looking for.
Intensity is a quantifiable unit that is expressed in relation to your 1RM. Period. Effort is what people confuse this with. You cannot quantify effort as there are too many variables and the individual is in a state of flux with respect to a plethora of variables. You can be beat from a workout and be able to lift only half the load the next day but still train to failure. This is max effort. This is also retarded unless you decrease load for active recovery. Intensity is measured and exact. They mean that as you increase your intensity (nearing your 1RM) you create a greater demand assuming the same volume:
10x3 at 80% or your 1RM is more taxing and takes more effort than 10x3 at 70%of your 1RM. Intensity and effort are closely associated overall but they are NOT synonymous.
Intensity is a definite number, effort is a facial grimmace and perhaps measured best by a seismograph to guage your “shake ratio” or something even more assanine. 
Put bluntly, for the vast majority of trainees, if you train to failure (max phsyical effort)very often you’ll be well on your way to failure. Use it as a tool from time to time, but don’t get married to it. For a scientific and fancy pants understanding of this, read Bryan Haycock’s stuff on how it is LOAD and proper volume that equate to growth. Also read Staley’s stuff about NOT seeking fatigue. This is old school thinking and Zatsiorsky’s book explains it’s lack of necessity in great clarity. It has Jack Freakin’ Squat to do with your subjective perceived effort. I’ve said it over and over on previous threads, train like you eat or tan. You don’t think “hey I’m gonna bust my gut lining today and burn like a mofo for an hour straight.” Just a bit more load or volume than the workout before is ALL you need.
If you get this straight, you’ll no longer be needing to ask many questions on the forums.
Best,
DH
[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
Intensity is a quantifiable unit that is expressed in relation to your 1RM. Period. Effort is what people confuse this with. You cannot quantify effort as there are too many variables and the individual is in a state of flux with respect to a plethora of variables. You can be beat from a workout and be able to lift only half the load the next day but still train to failure. This is max effort. This is also retarded unless you decrease load for active recovery. Intensity is measured and exact. They mean that as you increase your intensity (nearing your 1RM) you create a greater demand assuming the same volume:
10x3 at 80% or your 1RM is more taxing and takes more effort than 10x3 at 70%of your 1RM. Intensity and effort are closely associated overall but they are NOT synonymous.
Intensity is a definite number, effort is a facial grimmace and perhaps measured best by a seismograph to guage your “shake ratio” or something even more assanine.
Put bluntly, for the vast majority of trainees, if you train to failure (max phsyical effort)very often you’ll be well on your way to failure. Use it as a tool from time to time, but don’t get married to it. For a scientific and fancy pants understanding of this, read Bryan Haycock’s stuff on how it is LOAD and proper volume that equate to growth. Also read Staley’s stuff about NOT seeking fatigue. This is old school thinking and Zatsiorsky’s book explains it’s lack of necessity in great clarity. It has Jack Freakin’ Squat to do with your subjective perceived effort. I’ve said it over and over on previous threads, train like you eat or tan. You don’t think “hey I’m gonna bust my gut lining today and burn like a mofo for an hour straight.” Just a bit more load or volume than the workout before is ALL you need.
If you get this straight, you’ll no longer be needing to ask many questions on the forums.
Best,
DH
[/quote]
Thanks, I had the failure part down. And your explination of intensity is what I thought they meant, I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.
No problem, Todd S.
Upon further review of my previous post, I believe I was in a T surge. Ranting was to be at the subject at hand and it’s reluctance to die. Intensity is so “americanized” that it drives me nuts. Any temper in the post was not at all directed toward your question or person, TS. Just toward the mass ignorance.
Best,
DH
[quote]Todd S. wrote:
Disc Hoss wrote:
Intensity is a quantifiable unit that is expressed in relation to your 1RM. Period. Effort is what people confuse this with. You cannot quantify effort as there are too many variables and the individual is in a state of flux with respect to a plethora of variables. You can be beat from a workout and be able to lift only half the load the next day but still train to failure. This is max effort. This is also retarded unless you decrease load for active recovery. Intensity is measured and exact. They mean that as you increase your intensity (nearing your 1RM) you create a greater demand assuming the same volume:
10x3 at 80% or your 1RM is more taxing and takes more effort than 10x3 at 70%of your 1RM. Intensity and effort are closely associated overall but they are NOT synonymous.
Intensity is a definite number, effort is a facial grimmace and perhaps measured best by a seismograph to guage your “shake ratio” or something even more assanine.
Put bluntly, for the vast majority of trainees, if you train to failure (max phsyical effort)very often you’ll be well on your way to failure. Use it as a tool from time to time, but don’t get married to it. For a scientific and fancy pants understanding of this, read Bryan Haycock’s stuff on how it is LOAD and proper volume that equate to growth. Also read Staley’s stuff about NOT seeking fatigue. This is old school thinking and Zatsiorsky’s book explains it’s lack of necessity in great clarity. It has Jack Freakin’ Squat to do with your subjective perceived effort. I’ve said it over and over on previous threads, train like you eat or tan. You don’t think “hey I’m gonna bust my gut lining today and burn like a mofo for an hour straight.” Just a bit more load or volume than the workout before is ALL you need.
If you get this straight, you’ll no longer be needing to ask many questions on the forums.
Best,
DH
Thanks, I had the failure part down. And your explination of intensity is what I thought they meant, I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.
[/quote]