Volume, Intensity, and Work (Conditioning)

Training Powerlifting
1

Ive been quite confused on these subjects lately.

I understand volume to be (reps) x (sets) = volume

AND

Intensity to be (% of 1rm)

But…

Ive heard volume being interchanged with “work” or (sets x reps x weight)

AND

Ive heard intensity to be related to how close to failure your training.

This normally wouldnt matter, because using “conventional” methods of strength training, I might be training at 90%+ and shooting for a total volume of 15 reps. I could do 5x3 or 8x2 or even 15x1.

But Ive been doing EDT which isn’t really strength training, but im using it as a method to raise work capacity.

So i might start out week 1, with my 10rm, and do a bunch of sets of 5 to reach 25-35 reps.

Then week 2, i might go to my 6rm and do a bunch of sets of 3, shooting for 20 reps.

And then by week 3+, i might be using my 3-4rm doing sets of 1-2 aiming for 15 reps or so.

Now, the main goal of this type of training, is to increase “WORK” capacity in a short amount of time, which i would call “density”.

The only problem is, the adaptations taking place in these different phases, should be sport specific. Thus if i were a powerlifter, I would want to increase my density using my 3-4rm but if I were a basketball player, i might want to increase my density at a 10rm. For me, i dont really have a sport, but am training to be fit and strong, so i prefer spending most my time in the 2-6rm range.

HERES MY QUESTION

I noticed that if i take (reps X sets X weight)to get Workload, that the highest workload is always with lighter weight. If i can deadlift 300lbs 10 times in 5 minutes, but can do 150lbs 50 times in 5 minutes, it looks as if 3000 lbs total is much less than 6000 lbs, but 300lbs is much more intense.

  1. Is it completely wrong to calculate WORK and compare total work when using different intensities?

  2. Is there some way of quantifying something like 10 reps @ 90% is similar to 20 reps @ 80%?

  3. Also, shouldn’t intensity refer to both % of 1rm and how close to failure your training?

Obviously when training for strength % 1rm is all that matters, and you avoid failure, but heres an example for conditioning.

Using 10 rm, complete 50 reps as fast a possible.

Option A: 8,7,6,5,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,3.
Option B: 4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3

Something along those lines. Although option B is more sets, you might be able to complete it much faster, because your training at a much lower percentage of fatigue, and may not need to rest as much.

Can fatigue be quantified into the intensity scale for conditioning. EX:

1rm = 300lbs
10rm = 230lbs (about 75% 1rm)

A protocol might say use 75% 1rm, and train at 75% of max reps.

So this would call for doing sets of 230 that started around 7-8 reps per set.

Any thoughts?

2

[quote]dankid wrote:

  1. Is it completely wrong to calculate WORK and compare total work when using different intensities?

  2. Is there some way of quantifying something like 10 reps @ 90% is similar to 20 reps @ 80%?

  3. Also, shouldn’t intensity refer to both % of 1rm and how close to failure your training?
    [/quote]

Good questions, something I’ve also been wondering. AFAIK, workload is a decent measure stick as to how much muscle damage you’re causing. Then again, intensity also defines what sort of hypertrophy you’ll be getting - sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar, increase of muscle fluid volume vs. increase of muscle fibre size. So to be on safe side, and depending on your goals, you might have to limit your GENERAL volume training intensity area to something like 70-90% for reps if you’re going for hypertrophy and strength. There’s also the fact that higher intensity will be a lot more taxing to your CNS, so the same workload will be a lot more taxing at 90% vs. 70-80%. From what I’ve learnt, most strength-orientated programming seems to be based on periods of increasing the workload on a longer term, often from medium intensity to fairly high, then dropping the workload, and going for CNS-taxing work (90-100%).

I’m not sure about quantifying 1x10x90 vs 1x20x80. I think people have studied the effects of muscle cross-section differences between work done at different intensities and volumes. I remember seeing something like that, but don’t remember any details.

I think the bodybuilding guys like to speak of relative intensity. I rarely see strength-orientated people using it to mean anything else besides the percentage of 1-RM max; usually they’re more into long term programming, and love their percentages because of that.

3

If hypertrophy is the goal, then comparing total poundage (sets x reps) is a good way to keep track of how much work you’re actually doing.

To my knowledge, there’s not really a way of equating reps in one range to reps in another, as far as how many reps with 100 lbs. is the same as 150. It just depends on your goals. Total poundage should be fine as a general guide.

And you’re right, technically, intensity is %1RM, but I’ve heard some people call the actual difficulty of a set “intensiveness,” which is generally an indicator of how close to or far past failure you get in a set.

4

Thanks for the input everyone. The fatigue factor isn’t a huge issue, but I think people should definately start including it. I know many plans will say something along the lines of “use 5rm and stop 1 rep short of failure” which would basically be 80% of the max reps of your max reps you can do with that weight. Also, for EDT, its usually recomended that you do half the reps you can do.

As far as work, i do not really see much benefit to calculating it out, as it is always misleading, especially when different weights are being used. I think a better way might be something like:

35 reps @ 85% in 15 minutes.

because then if you compare that to

15 reps @ 90% in 15 minutes you can at least compare your total reps at given intensities in the long run. But this method is still a very flawed way of tracking progress for conditioning.

I guess another method would be to occasionally do a 10-15 minute circuit at a set intensity, and compare the work always at this intensity only. So maybe every two weeks, i’ll go to 80% 1rm and do a 10 minute circuit. If the first time i got 20 reps, and then two weeks later, with the same weight, i got 30 reps, then i know ive made a substantial improvement.

I’ll give this method a try.

To the first replier, I do mainly keep my intensity in the 70-90% 1rm range even for circuit training.

Im trying something a bit new this time.

Phase 1: about 70% going for 35+ reps in 15 minutes
Phase 2: about 85% going for 15-20 reps in 15 minutes
Phase 3: about 85% going for 25-30 reps in 15 minutes

Normally i would progress from high volume / low intensity to low volume / high intensity, as the weeks went on. But ive always noticed that its fairly easy to add reps in EDT when using a constant weight. And also the goal isn’t really to increase weight used much, but instead increase total reps in a given time period. So this time im thinking that going straight to a moderate volume / low intensity, and building from there may lead to faster gains in work capacity. We’ll have to see.
This is probably more like EDT was meant to be done anyways.
And if i keep the intensity constant at 85% then i can track progress easier as well.

5

New to this also.

Why not try:
Weight X Reps X sets X % of 1RM?

Seems like a good idea.