Conventional High Volume vs High Intensity

[Guest guest]

When someone defines overtraining as " Doing any amount of exercise

than is minimally required to trigger the growth mechanism into

motion, " they are not going to inspire anyone who wants to stimulate

the MOST growth they can realistically attain. Mike Mentzer

proposed that definition. He also championed using simple logic to

prove his arguments.

I can see the logic of shooting for the least amount of exercise to

get the most growth without surpassing the body's ability to

recuperate. Doing more than you can recuperate from is

overtraining. Simple logic says that never doing more than enough

to START growth keeps you at the slowest amount of growth possible.

Think of drinking a glass of water a drop at a time.

Hit totally ignores the fact that the human body can be trained to

recuperate from increasing workloads. Wouldn't improving this

ability be beneficial to one training for maximal development? I

think it would be. Overtraining is never a good thing, but training

hard to get the most development possible over any given timeframe

is important if you want efficient results. Again, doing the least

amount to get the most is logical, so you want to find the most you

have to do before you get diminishing returns. Find out how hard

you can train. It's good for you from a health standpoint.

Show me one weightlifting or bodybuilding champion that only trains

to start growth. It just isn't logical.

Wayne Montierth

Sandy, Utah

> > <<<I agree he always said it's not less is more it's the

precise amount

> > we should strive for. About the undualating cycles I do not feel

they are

> necessary I see your point about looking after ones health, as hit

training

> can be brutal but I don't see them being essential. If you monitor

> frequency and make sure your fully recoverd then I see know

benefit besides

> giving your body a break, in which case wouldn't a break from

weight

> training altogether be a better idea.>>>

> >

> > All the best from

> > Greenland

> > East Sussex UK

> >

> > > What Mentzer illustrates is a very important point in training-

you

> > > can train hard or you can train long but you cannot do both.

> > Results

> > > are about intensity and density of training. No question that

> > > undulating cycles are the best way to ensure health and

progress

> > and

> > > within those microcycles are lighter less intense days

promoting

> > > recovery from past workouts and in preparation of future ones.

> > > Minimalist? Not applicable here but to be sure you would

always

> > want

> > > to do the least amount of work with the most results which

should

> > > culminate in the best possible program.

> > >

> > > Bob Alejo

> > > Santa Barbara, Ca

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it is

surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise necessary, to

stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a lot

less than most think, you can train hard or you can train long " .

I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that stimulate

growth not the duration of them. Also I would say doing more than

what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you are

then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in turn

hampers your progress. Short circuiting the recovery and growth

process is what slows you down. He doesn't ignore the fact of

increaseing workloads being possible, of course it is possible but to

a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your ability

to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little hence,

the care needed not to overtrain. You can improve that percent with

drugs, that's why pros can get away with over training, as well of

course as having amazing genetics. Throughout his career he tried to

find out the precise amount necessary which intailed experimenting

with volume, as you said one should do. Hit training is brutally hard

when done as it should be done.

All the best from

Greenland

East Sussex UK

> When someone defines overtraining as " Doing any amount of exercise

> than is minimally required to trigger the growth mechanism into

> motion, " they are not going to inspire anyone who wants to

stimulate

> the MOST growth they can realistically attain. Mike Mentzer

> proposed that definition. He also championed using simple logic to

> prove his arguments.

>

> I can see the logic of shooting for the least amount of exercise to

> get the most growth without surpassing the body's ability to

> recuperate. Doing more than you can recuperate from is

> overtraining. Simple logic says that never doing more than enough

> to START growth keeps you at the slowest amount of growth

possible.

> Think of drinking a glass of water a drop at a time.

>

> Hit totally ignores the fact that the human body can be trained to

> recuperate from increasing workloads. Wouldn't improving this

> ability be beneficial to one training for maximal development? I

> think it would be. Overtraining is never a good thing, but

training

> hard to get the most development possible over any given timeframe

> is important if you want efficient results. Again, doing the least

> amount to get the most is logical, so you want to find the most you

> have to do before you get diminishing returns. Find out how hard

> you can train. It's good for you from a health standpoint.

>

> Show me one weightlifting or bodybuilding champion that only trains

> to start growth. It just isn't logical.

>

> Wayne Montierth

> Sandy, Utah

[Guest guest]

I concur with you . I am sorry if this post is irrelevent

to your response but I have always said if you want to get stronger

you must lift heavy weight (intelligently of course). Weight being

the intensity of the exercise, not the duration. Is this simple

aforementioned statement incorrect? I don't believe it is. If your

intent is to become stronger, lift at a higher intensity. Do people

understand this concept, or am I wrong?

Neal

Hattiesburg, MS, USA

>

> Hi

>

> Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

> should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it is

> surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise necessary, to

> stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a lot

> less than most think, you can train hard or you can train long " .

>

> I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that stimulate

> growth not the duration of them. Also I would say doing more than

> what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you are

> then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in turn

> hampers your progress. Short circuiting the recovery and growth

> process is what slows you down. He doesn't ignore the fact of

> increaseing workloads being possible, of course it is possible but

to

> a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your ability

> to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little hence,

> the care needed not to overtrain. You can improve that percent with

> drugs, that's why pros can get away with over training, as well of

> course as having amazing genetics. Throughout his career he tried

to

> find out the precise amount necessary which intailed experimenting

> with volume, as you said one should do. Hit training is brutally

hard

> when done as it should be done.

>

> All the best from

>

> Greenland

> East Sussex UK

>

>

> > When someone defines overtraining as " Doing any amount of

exercise

> > than is minimally required to trigger the growth mechanism into

> > motion, " they are not going to inspire anyone who wants to

> stimulate

> > the MOST growth they can realistically attain. Mike Mentzer

> > proposed that definition. He also championed using simple logic

to

> > prove his arguments.

> >

> > I can see the logic of shooting for the least amount of exercise

to

> > get the most growth without surpassing the body's ability to

> > recuperate. Doing more than you can recuperate from is

> > overtraining. Simple logic says that never doing more than

enough

> > to START growth keeps you at the slowest amount of growth

> possible.

> > Think of drinking a glass of water a drop at a time.

> >

> > Hit totally ignores the fact that the human body can be trained

to

> > recuperate from increasing workloads. Wouldn't improving this

> > ability be beneficial to one training for maximal development? I

> > think it would be. Overtraining is never a good thing, but

> training

> > hard to get the most development possible over any given

timeframe

> > is important if you want efficient results. Again, doing the

least

> > amount to get the most is logical, so you want to find the most

you

> > have to do before you get diminishing returns. Find out how hard

> > you can train. It's good for you from a health standpoint.

> >

> > Show me one weightlifting or bodybuilding champion that only

trains

> > to start growth. It just isn't logical.

> >

> > Wayne Montierth

> > Sandy, Utah

>

[Guest guest]

Yes I agree it's an increase in strength that precedes muscle growth.

Some people have to get a lot stronger to get growth but some, will

grow from a slight strength increase, but we all have to get stronger.

Mentzer would say to people who questioned this " well what are you

supposed to do get weaker. "

All the best from

greenland

East Sussex UK

> I concur with you . I am sorry if this post is irrelevent

> to your response but I have always said if you want to get stronger

> you must lift heavy weight (intelligently of course). Weight being

> the intensity of the exercise, not the duration. Is this simple

> aforementioned statement incorrect? I don't believe it is. If your

> intent is to become stronger, lift at a higher intensity. Do people

> understand this concept, or am I wrong?

>

>

> Neal

> Hattiesburg, MS, USA

>

>

>

>

> >

> > Hi

> >

> > Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

> > should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it is

> > surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise necessary,

to

> > stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a lot

> > less than most think, you can train hard or you can train long " .

> >

> > I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that

stimulate

> > growth not the duration of them. Also I would say doing more than

> > what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you are

> > then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in turn

> > hampers your progress. Short circuiting the recovery and growth

> > process is what slows you down. He doesn't ignore the fact of

> > increaseing workloads being possible, of course it is possible but

> to

> > a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your

ability

> > to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little

hence,

> > the care needed not to overtrain. You can improve that percent

with

> > drugs, that's why pros can get away with over training, as well of

> > course as having amazing genetics. Throughout his career he tried

> to

> > find out the precise amount necessary which intailed experimenting

> > with volume, as you said one should do. Hit training is brutally

> hard

> > when done as it should be done.

> >

> > All the best from

> >

> > Greenland

> > East Sussex UK

> >

> >

> > > When someone defines overtraining as " Doing any amount of

> exercise

> > > than is minimally required to trigger the growth mechanism into

> > > motion, " they are not going to inspire anyone who wants to

> > stimulate

> > > the MOST growth they can realistically attain. Mike Mentzer

> > > proposed that definition. He also championed using simple logic

> to

> > > prove his arguments.

> > >

> > > I can see the logic of shooting for the least amount of exercise

> to

> > > get the most growth without surpassing the body's ability to

> > > recuperate. Doing more than you can recuperate from is

> > > overtraining. Simple logic says that never doing more than

> enough

> > > to START growth keeps you at the slowest amount of growth

> > possible.

> > > Think of drinking a glass of water a drop at a time.

> > >

> > > Hit totally ignores the fact that the human body can be trained

> to

> > > recuperate from increasing workloads. Wouldn't improving this

> > > ability be beneficial to one training for maximal development?

I

> > > think it would be. Overtraining is never a good thing, but

> > training

> > > hard to get the most development possible over any given

> timeframe

> > > is important if you want efficient results. Again, doing the

> least

> > > amount to get the most is logical, so you want to find the most

> you

> > > have to do before you get diminishing returns. Find out how

hard

> > > you can train. It's good for you from a health standpoint.

> > >

> > > Show me one weightlifting or bodybuilding champion that only

> trains

> > > to start growth. It just isn't logical.

> > >

> > > Wayne Montierth

> > > Sandy, Utah

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

> should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it is

> surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise necessary, to

> stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a lot

> less than most think, you can train hard or you can train long " .

***

The problem with this logic is that it is based on the assumption that

growth is a " all or nothing " response...that, once you've stimulated

growth, you've stimulated it in ALL fibers, to the same degree. There

is absolutely no evidence that this is true, and is a very shaky

assumption.

Also, the " train hard train long " idea is essentially a false

dichotomy. There are all sorts of combinations in between that are

being ignored.

> I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that stimulate

> growth not the duration of them.

***

If duration of the stimulus did not play a role, then all you would

need to do is a 1-RM and you'd stimulate maximum growth. We all know

that this doesn't happen.

>Also I would say doing more than

> what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you are

> then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in turn

> hampers your progress.

***

This logic is based on another faulty assumption...that the body needs

to recover first before any growth occurs. However, there is no

evidence that this is true. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite.

Research shows quite clearly that protein synthesis dramatically

exceeds protein degradation within hours after a workout. Thus, your

muscles are growing within hours after a workout, before they have

recovered.

> a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your ability

> to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little hence,

***

Yet Mentzer has NO scientific support for where he got those numbers.

Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI

20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate

PRO Sports Club

http://www.proclub.com

Editor, Journal of Pure Power

http://www.jopp.us

[Guest guest]

Well I guess Mentzer should clearly specify what type of muscle

growth he wants. Is it sarcoplasmic or sarcomere hypertrophy. Both

are 2 totally separate types of muscle growth, and he may not know

the difference or how to acheive either one.

Neal

Hattiesburg, MS USA

> > >

> > > Hi

> > >

> > > Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

> > > should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it

is

> > > surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise

necessary,

> to

> > > stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a

lot

> > > less than most think, you can train hard or you can train

long " .

> > >

> > > I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that

> stimulate

> > > growth not the duration of them. Also I would say doing more

than

> > > what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you

are

> > > then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in

turn

> > > hampers your progress. Short circuiting the recovery and growth

> > > process is what slows you down. He doesn't ignore the fact of

> > > increaseing workloads being possible, of course it is possible

but

> > to

> > > a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your

> ability

> > > to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little

> hence,

> > > the care needed not to overtrain. You can improve that percent

> with

> > > drugs, that's why pros can get away with over training, as

well of

> > > course as having amazing genetics. Throughout his career he

tried

> > to

> > > find out the precise amount necessary which intailed

experimenting

> > > with volume, as you said one should do. Hit training is

brutally

> > hard

> > > when done as it should be done.

> > >

> > > All the best from

> > >

> > > Greenland

> > > East Sussex UK

> > >

> > >

> > > > When someone defines overtraining as " Doing any amount of

> > exercise

> > > > than is minimally required to trigger the growth mechanism

into

> > > > motion, " they are not going to inspire anyone who wants to

> > > stimulate

> > > > the MOST growth they can realistically attain. Mike Mentzer

> > > > proposed that definition. He also championed using simple

logic

> > to

> > > > prove his arguments.

> > > >

> > > > I can see the logic of shooting for the least amount of

exercise

> > to

> > > > get the most growth without surpassing the body's ability to

> > > > recuperate. Doing more than you can recuperate from is

> > > > overtraining. Simple logic says that never doing more than

> > enough

> > > > to START growth keeps you at the slowest amount of growth

> > > possible.

> > > > Think of drinking a glass of water a drop at a time.

> > > >

> > > > Hit totally ignores the fact that the human body can be

trained

> > to

> > > > recuperate from increasing workloads. Wouldn't improving

this

> > > > ability be beneficial to one training for maximal

development?

> I

> > > > think it would be. Overtraining is never a good thing, but

> > > training

> > > > hard to get the most development possible over any given

> > timeframe

> > > > is important if you want efficient results. Again, doing the

> > least

> > > > amount to get the most is logical, so you want to find the

most

> > you

> > > > have to do before you get diminishing returns. Find out how

> hard

> > > > you can train. It's good for you from a health standpoint.

> > > >

> > > > Show me one weightlifting or bodybuilding champion that only

> > trains

> > > > to start growth. It just isn't logical.

> > > >

> > > > Wayne Montierth

> > > > Sandy, Utah

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Good points, . In general, there's no discernible science in

Mentzer anywhere but instead an authoritarian attitude expressed in a

series of ad homiens intended for those knowing even astonishingly

less than he. Perhaps someone will finally do a definitive biography

of the man, one in which his training authoritarianism is placed

within context of a very troubled life, thereby providing both the

bigger picture of Mentzer while exposing the pseudo-intellectualism

and pseudo-science so many seem to remain prey for.

Increased muscle size cannot be solely a function of strength

increase. Functional hypertrophy gained in the 1-5/6RM range of

training offers utterly no guarantee of much size increase. I've

personally found that staying in the 8-12 rep range for a first set,

then immediately doing a double drop set with as many reps as possible

per drop enhances both strength and endurance components, along with

optimizing growth.

If we go back to the pre-drug days of bodybuilding, before the mid

60s, or among today's genuinely drug-free, natural competitors, those

guys and gals combine strength and endurance. 15-30 second rests

between sets is simply not strength training. And drop sets, x-reps,

supersets and tri-sets enhance time under tension considerably.

Mentzer didn't have a trained mind, merely an authoritarian one; no

science is found in his work. While claiming more than 2,000 clients,

it is indeed odd with his background that a photographic record of

'before' and 'after' shots doesn't seem to exist. Nor records

permitting analysis of quantifiable data. Just Mike's word, whatever

that's worth.

best

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

> >

> >

> > Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

> > should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it is

> > surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise necessary, to

> > stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a lot

> > less than most think, you can train hard or you can train long " .

>

> ***

> The problem with this logic is that it is based on the assumption that

> growth is a " all or nothing " response...that, once you've stimulated

> growth, you've stimulated it in ALL fibers, to the same degree. There

> is absolutely no evidence that this is true, and is a very shaky

> assumption.

>

> Also, the " train hard train long " idea is essentially a false

> dichotomy. There are all sorts of combinations in between that are

> being ignored.

>

> > I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that stimulate

> > growth not the duration of them.

>

> ***

> If duration of the stimulus did not play a role, then all you would

> need to do is a 1-RM and you'd stimulate maximum growth. We all know

> that this doesn't happen.

>

>

> >Also I would say doing more than

> > what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you are

> > then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in turn

> > hampers your progress.

>

> ***

> This logic is based on another faulty assumption...that the body needs

> to recover first before any growth occurs. However, there is no

> evidence that this is true. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite.

> Research shows quite clearly that protein synthesis dramatically

> exceeds protein degradation within hours after a workout. Thus, your

> muscles are growing within hours after a workout, before they have

> recovered.

>

>

> > a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your ability

> > to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little hence,

>

> ***

> Yet Mentzer has NO scientific support for where he got those numbers.

>

> Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI

> 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate

> PRO Sports Club

> http://www.proclub.com

> Editor, Journal of Pure Power

> http://www.jopp.us

>

[Guest guest]

> Casler writes:

>

> " Weight " , is not the intensity of the exercise. It is always the

> combination of LOAD (weight), DISTANCE, and DURATION relative to ability.

>

> Intensity, will always be relative to the " density " of power output or work,

> using those parameters.

****

Could you please explain " density " of power output, . While I am

familiar with the concepts of weight (force), distance (displacement), and

duration

(time) as these factors relate to the physical definition of power (both in

the strict terms of physical science and as applied to sport or exercise

terminology), I am nonplused by the concept of power " density " . Is this term

of

your own definition or am I hopelessly out of touch?

Thanks,

Boardman

Chicago, US

[Guest guest]

> Could you please explain " density " of power output, . While I am

> familiar with the concepts of weight (force), distance (displacement), and

duration

> (time) as these factors relate to the physical definition of power (both in

> the strict terms of physical science and as applied to sport or exercise

> terminology), I am nonplused by the concept of power " density " . Is this term

of

> your own definition or am I hopelessly out of touch?

********

I think the use of the term density is redundant in this instance, since power

adequately covers

what's being discussed (work per time).

The problem with all of this, is that mechanical definitions of work don't apply

perfectly to

muscular work. Isometrics involve no mechanical work at all, but metabolic work

is being performed

when the muscle contracts. Also, doubling the power production doesn't

necessarily double the

metabolic work required. Ten repetitions performed in 40 seconds with a

particular weight is going

to be harder than 5 repetitions in 40 seconds at the same weight, but not

necessarily twice as hard.

While intensity is commonly defined as a percentage of one's one rep max, it is

my opinion that a

more precise and useful definition is the momentary degree of effort, expressed

as a percentage of

one's strength at that moment. For example, if you perform an exercise using 80%

of your 1RM, at the

beginning of the exercise when you are fresh, the intensity would be 80%. As you

fatigue and your

momentary maximum strength is reduced, 80% of your 1RM represents an even

greater percentage of your

remaining strength. When fatigue has reduced your maximal momentary strength so

that it equals the

weight being used, and the force you are producing equals the resistance

provided by the weight, the

intensity would be 100%.

The problem with this definition of intensity is that it is impractical to

measure. It's useful for

discussion, but that's about it. A percentage of one's 1RM is a more practical

expression of

intensity.

Drew Baye

Altamonte Springs, FL

Overload Personal Training

www.overloadfitness.com

High Intensity Training

www.baye.com

Re: Conventional High Volume vs High Intensity

>

> > Casler writes:

> >

> > " Weight " , is not the intensity of the exercise. It is always the

> > combination of LOAD (weight), DISTANCE, and DURATION relative to ability.

> >

> > Intensity, will always be relative to the " density " of power output or work,

> > using those parameters.

>

> ****

> Could you please explain " density " of power output, . While I am

> familiar with the concepts of weight (force), distance (displacement), and

duration

> (time) as these factors relate to the physical definition of power (both in

> the strict terms of physical science and as applied to sport or exercise

> terminology), I am nonplused by the concept of power " density " . Is this term

of

> your own definition or am I hopelessly out of touch?

>

> Thanks,

> Boardman

> Chicago, US

[Guest guest]

Hi

I'm sure Arthur didn't make reference to dynamite just because it sounds

good. I expect after his research he decided that this comparison is a valid one

after assessing how the body reacts to stimuli.

All the best from

Greenland

East Sussex UK

Greenland wrote:

> > As Arthur said " Hitting a stick of dynamite lightly with a

> >hammer will not produce an explosion no matter how many times you hit

> >it. If, however, you hit it very hard, only one blow is required to

> >stimulate or produce an explosion " .

Krieger wrote:

>>Skeletal muscle and dynamite are completely different things.<<

[Guest guest]

Drew Baye wrote:

The problem with all of this, is that mechanical definitions of work don't

apply perfectly to muscular work. Isometrics involve no mechanical work at

all, but metabolic work is being performed when the muscle contracts

Boardman wrote:

Well, I agree totally with your other comments but am contrarian on the

above statement.

While no external mechanical work is being done during isometrics,

internally the increase in circulation alone represents mechanical work

being done and energy being expended; and rightly as you say the energy

expended or work done internally is always greater than the external

mechanical output. A good deal of skill training is about energy

expenditure economy in accomplishing a given sporting task.

Casler writes:

The above discussion offers some very interesting views.

But, I think that we need to have the ability to maintain the awareness that

there is a distinct difference between " metabolic work " or energy use,

versus the distinctly different mechanical work, or power output.

These are two distinctly different things only related by the same activity.

As both Drew and point out, mechanical work, is not metabolic work and

vice versa.

This is a conceptual argument that is fueled by many not being able to

separate the two.

While an Olympic Lifter may display the greatest Intensity via " Power

Output " of moving a large load, a specific distance in a specific duration,

the metabolic work, may be reduced, by more efficient biomechanical

positioning and leveraging.

A BodyBuilder, may have a greater " metabolic output " while not having an

efficient " power output " .

It all relates back to the old adage of " training the muscle " (metabolic) or

" lifting the weight " (mechanical efficiency).

In order to understand terms like intensity, we need to understand that

there are two distinct aspects of training, and that combining them, without

distinction, will " blur " your understanding of either.

This is not to say that they are " not related " or intertwined, but to

recognize that they are " not " to be confused with each other.

Training Intensity, of the type I speak of, is related to mechanical measure

of power. It is not a metabolic measure of energy expenditure.

I am under the impression, that without significant laboratory equipment and

monitoring devices, that the measurement of metabolic work and the measure

of metabolic intensity, would be impossible.

It can be assumed however, that after years of training and progress, that

increases of mechanical output would certainly translate into additional

metabolic intensity, by virtue of eliminating all other reasons for the

improvement.

Interesting stuff.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

> I think that is incorrect and that you can display 100% intensity

> to any

> activity of any duration (example the worlds record in the 100m

> sprint would

> = 100% intensity, as opposed to a % of 1 Step Maximum)

****

Using your definition of intensity, a 1RM squat and a max effort

vertical jump have equal intensity (so long as the movement distance

is the same). I regard it as obvious that these aren't equivalently

hard on the body, but just in case:

If I were to do a single lift every day at 90% or above of my 1RM,

I'd quickly develop overtraining symptoms. However, I DO perform

vertical jumps at near max effort every day, and my body is able to

recover and improve from it with no problem. So, I can safely do many

" 100% intensity " jumps every day.

The definition of intensity you promote robs the term of practical

usefulness.

Terry

Ventura, CA