Agreed, NominalProspect…
Many other things factor into how intense a weight session is: things like rest periods, length of session, and total volume
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Intensity is not a constant calculated measurement. It is impossible to tell me that I didn’t train with enough intensity based purely on my fucking one rep max. Most bodybuilders don’t even max out at all so how are you using that here?
I haven’t worried about maxing out in 10 fucking years. It also doesn’t take fatigue or volume into consideration which are all a part of anyone’s routine if the goal is big strong muscles.
Professor X wrote:
It is NOT true.
Intensity is a commonly accepted training principle. That is how I am using the word. When I say someone trains with more intensity I am not saying “he is training harder”. I am saying, he is training with a weight that is closer to his 1RM.
Not know your max is irrelevent. It dosen’t change the fact that when you lift a weight, it is a percentage of that max, whether it be 1% or 100%.
Most bodybuilders train with more reps than your typical strength athelete. To do more reps (correctly) with a weight requires that it be a lesser percentage of your 1RM. Lower intensity. I don’t know how you can say I’m wrong on this.
Do you not get it man. Weight lifted is only 1 of a few factors involved in intensity. Tell me what’s more intense, lifting you 3 rep max 3 times, or your 12 rep max 12 times?
Also maybe if you didn’t get carried away with this shit you’d weigh over 160 pounds. Just saying.
That is it though, you are using intensity as a feeling, not a training principle. I realize now that me and Professer X were talking about two diffrent things.
Also calling out my stats is pretty low. How does my progress affect your’s? Yes, I weigh 160 pounds. Keep in mind I am not trying to gain weight right now. I wrestle and box and have a weightclasses that I would like to around for the time being.
Contrary to what you might think, I don’t “obsess over this shit”. I go to the gym and lift. I have a routine/plan, but I don’t go too crazy over it. I’m not advanced enough to worry about the small stuff. Doesn’t mean I can’t have my own ideas.
Intensity is always a feeling, even if someone decided to make up some definition as it applies to powerlifting. Your level of intensity is based on many factors, not just how much weight you lifted one time.
My goal in training chest is to fatigue my chest muscles and lift enough weight to force them to adapt.
A powerlifter’s goal in doing a benchpress is to simply get the weight in the air whether their triceps or shoulders handle most of it or not.
Of the two, which one trains more “intensely” when it comes to actually training their chest muscles specifically?[/quote]
One of the coaches on this site actually used that exact same terminology to describe training intensity. Intensely is the proper word according to them. So yes, you are training more intensely than someone who trains according to a set % of their 1rm. The word is intensely, not intensity.
C’mon, if one person uses an exercise science term the same way that, so far as I know, every single exercise scientist in the world does, and another person uses the word differently according to what he “feels” and opposite to (I think) every single exercise scientist in the world, it is the first person that is stupid and the second person that is “really” right.
How dare anyone say if his weight for a set is a modest percentage of his 1RM, that therefore he is not training that set at high intensity? Oh, his intensity is superior – has to be.
Words mean what they are recognized to mean. When talking about exercise with people that don’t know any exercise science, and hearing them say the word “intensity,” one has to assume their intended meaning may be the emotional, “I’m busting my balls though it’s true I could lift more weight if I did fewer reps” meaning.
However, when discussing with people that are familiar with exercise science, it’s reasonable to expect the intended meaning to be as every single exercise scientist in the world uses the term.
By the way, why is this? Because feeling is not measurable and thus a definition based on feeling cannot be a scientifically useful term. Percent 1RM is measurable, and it’s useful to have a one-word term that is on that basis. The word settled and agreed upon was “intensity.”
But one can expect that the person not knowing any such thing will call one stupid for using the term with the meaning in the sense univerally considered correct in exercise science.
(Yeah, we’ll probably hear how exercise scientists are stupid and the real labs are the gyms, etc, etc. Hoping for people to use words in a knowledgeable way based on accepted expert use, or even to accept when others do so rather than insult them for it, is a hopeless dream, in general, with this case being no different.)
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
From Through The Looking Glass
by Lewis Carroll
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
C’mon, if one person uses an exercise science term the same way that, so far as I know, every single exercise scientist in the world does, and another person uses the word differently according to what he “feels” and opposite to (I think) every single exercise scientist in the world, it is the first person that is stupid and the second person that is “really” right.
How dare anyone say if his weight for a set is a modest percentage of his 1RM, that therefore he is not training that set at high intensity? Oh, his intensity is superior – has to be.
Words mean what they are recognized to mean. When talking about exercise with people that don’t know any exercise science, and hearing them say the word “intensity,” one has to assume their intended meaning may be the emotional, “I’m busting my balls though it’s true I could lift more weight if I did fewer reps” meaning.
However, when discussing with people that are familiar with exercise science, it’s reasonable to expect the intended meaning to be as every single exercise scientist in the world uses the term.
By the way, why is this? Because feeling is not measurable and thus a definition based on feeling cannot be a scientifically useful term. Percent 1RM is measurable, and it’s useful to have a one-word term that is on that basis. The word settled and agreed upon was “intensity.”
But one can expect that the person not knowing any such thing will call one stupid for using the term with the meaning in the sense univerally considered correct in exercise science.
(Yeah, we’ll probably hear how exercise scientists are stupid and the real labs are the gyms, etc, etc. Hoping for people to use words in a knowledgeable way based on accepted expert use, or even to accept when others do so rather than insult them for it, is a hopeless dream, in general, with this case being no different.)[/quote]
When I speak to my patients, I speak in laymen’s terms, the same as I would speak in public. I would only use medical jargon when speaking with other doctors or when documenting in a patient’s chart.
For some strange reason, “exercise scientists” seem to enjoy flaunting their use of words as if the rest of us give a shit.
We don’t.
I just want to take a moment of silence for threads like the one linked earlier, time machine for when this site had educated discussion like that please?