What is training intensity in strength training
One of the more heated debates in the world of strength training has been over training intensity and how to define it. Many people take the liberty of defining training intensity however they see fit. When people talk about intensity, they often talk past each other: one person means one thing by it, another something else entirely.
In practice, we are using a single word to describe different concepts. Of course, the fact that intensity can be understood in two ways is not bad in itself.
Translator’s note: still, we should specify what is meant by one kind of intensity or the other.
Load intensity
The first definition of intensity probably comes from sports scientists and coaches (Olympic weightlifting coaches) who tried to define and measure the training parameters that mattered to them. In weightlifting, the size of the weight lifted is what counts, so intensity shows what percentage of a one-repetition maximum (that is, your record) is being lifted. By this definition, if our 1RM is 100 kg and we do a set with 75 kg, we are training at 75% intensity. If we trained with 95 kg, we would be using 95% intensity in the set.
A point in favor of defining intensity this way is that the load used (its size) is very easy to define and assess. If one lifter uses 95% intensity, they are obviously training at a higher intensity than those using 75–85%. This view of intensity is also extremely easy to apply in research, since it is enough to measure the 1RM (repetition maximum), and from that we can define and study what results come from training at different intensities (as a percentage of the one-repetition maximum).
Unfortunately, describing load intensity solely through percentages of a one-repetition maximum has some drawbacks too. In both Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting, it is quite common for a lifter to do a set at the prescribed intensity but, in terms of capacity, still have quite a lot in reserve. In theory, perhaps 85% of their 1RM is being used and a set of five is done, but in terms of level of effort that may not be much of a challenge.
In both Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting, it is also common to do short sets of two or three reps with that same 85–90%, stopping short of failure, in order to refine movement technique and train speed.
Translator’s note: so are such sets intense or not?
At the same time, it is obvious that, in terms of the level of effort or exertion the lifter has to put into a set, doing 2 reps at 85% of 1RM and doing 5 reps at 85% of 1RM are two different things. Although the intensity as a percentage of 1RM is identical, the level of effort is certainly significantly different given the two set lengths described above.
There is one more problem. Actual maximal strength varies quite a lot from day to day. Building training solely on percentages may not always work in practice, because the number of reps you can do in a set at, say, 90–95% of 1RM (due to fatigue and/or fluctuations in performance capacity) can be highly variable.
Because of this last problem, we arrive at the second definition of intensity.
Effort intensity, or level of effort
Followers of HIT theories, and of bodybuilding training methods in general, tend to define intensity by how close to the limit of capacity you get and/or how much effort is needed to finish the set. Put simply, we are talking about how hard the set was or is to do. The harder it is to complete a set of the planned length, and the greater the effort it demands, the higher the intensity, and vice versa.
Usually, a set taken to concentric failure is understood as 100% intensity. When we talk about this definition of intensity, effort below 100% is very hard to measure or assess as a percentage. Concepts such as perceived exertion are also used, and intensity is additionally assessed by how many reps short of concentric failure the set ended.
It is clear that when a set is taken to maximal capacity (you can’t do another rep), it is 100% intensity. On a perceived exertion scale, this could mean a 10-point, i.e. likewise 100%, intensity. If you fell 1 rep short of capacity, we can speak of 90% intensity, which on the perceived exertion scale would correspond to an effort level of 9. On the perceived exertion scale, an 8 could mean the set was ended 2–4 reps before failure, and so on.
To know where our actual limit of capacity really lies, from time to time we need to include training periods in which we train to failure. Through this practice, lifters get to know themselves and know whether a set was taken to failure or whether 1, 2 or 4 reps were still “in the tank”. Beginners find it harder to read themselves this way, since they lack experience and the ability to mobilize themselves maximally during a set. A trained “eye” and an experienced coach can in fact tell, from the speed of the bar and the effort being put in during the set, how many reps the lifter still has left before failure.
If we want to make things even more complicated, we should also address velocity training, which powerlifters and other athletes often practice. Typically, 30–60% of max is lifted for a very small number of reps, which on the percentage intensity scale of 1RM is in itself very low intensity. However, since the main aim of this kind of training is to move the weight as fast as possible, the perceived effort can be very high overall.
A short recap
If we sum up what has been said so far, bearing in mind that intensity can be described both through level of effort and through the training weight as a percentage, the most accurate way to define true intensity would be to apply both definitions at once.
We may do a set with only 75%, but if we do 12 reps in that set and the last reps are taken to failure on the effort scale (RPE – rating of perceived exertion 10), there is no way we can compare that set with one where we use perhaps 85% of our 1RM but do only 2–3 reps. That is heavy, but it may demand only 50–60% of maximal effort from us (RPE 6–8).
Other aspects of intensity
Of course, there may be other scales by which training intensity can be judged. Nobody would argue over which is more intense: a record squat attempt (intense both in terms of load as a percentage and in terms of level of effort) or a twenty-rep squat set taken to failure (100% maximal voluntary effort, but perhaps only 70% of max). Both are extremely intense, just on somewhat different scales. An eight-rep set of bench press (perhaps 80% of 1RM, performed with 90% of maximal voluntary effort), done so that you are just one rep short of failure, is also intense, but again on a somewhat different scale than the examples above.
We know that training in general, and strength training more specifically, has different effects depending on how we manipulate the variables that let us regulate training. The sets, exercises and weights we use may put more stress either on the nervous system or on metabolism. Sets of 1–3 reps at high intensity are undoubtedly more neurally demanding than sets of 6–10 reps. Sets of 20 reps or more affect our body and muscles predominantly by stimulating and influencing metabolism.
Taking the way bodybuilders train as a basis, we could even go so far as to introduce yet another scale for measuring intensity… a concentration scale. Look at how bodybuilders train. You can quite often see relatively light weights being used, but with an intense effort to focus maximally on every rep, with the movement controlled and relatively slow in order to maintain maximal muscle tension throughout each rep. As a percentage of 1RM the intensity may even be very low, but in terms of level of effort and focus, the intensity can turn out to be maximal. Although in this example it is hard to measure anything in real, numerical terms, it is certainly, once again, a completely distinct measure of intensity.
Summary
When we talk about intensity, the main problem is, as a rule, that people talk past each other. One person has one definition in mind, another has a different one, and everybody thinks that their own view of the definition of intensity is the most correct. We should rather understand that intensity in training can refer to very different things. It is important to recognize where it makes more sense to assess intensity by one definition or another. As we saw in this article, there are many situations where, instead of applying a single intensity scale, it would make more sense to take different definitions of intensity into account at the same time.
The article comes from Lyle McDonald’s Body Recomposition site.
Author: Janar Rückenberg (translation)
Source:Turg.Fitness.ee
Come and train! ArtGym
