Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Casler wrote: " I would suggest not. Was your 1RM when 18, more intense than when you reach 40? I would again suggest not, and that only " present " performance has a relative intensity, and past performances are simply past performances with intensities relative to the ability at those moments. " Nick Tatalias I'm not sure how to answer this question. My 1RM has increased since I was 18 (did my best ever bench as I turned 40). I train at a higher % of 1RM max, which is why its a useful measuring tool. Although in those days I trained much more to failure and figured intensity meant fatigue, which resulted in much lower than possible development as my guess. But perceived effort was my measure. I would suggest that a measure that is less partial is important. My thinking is that a totally relative measure as you seem to be suggesting is completely impossible to work with because if I am using a 1RM or 10RM from last week my % intensity has already changed due to adaption and what then am I to use as a measure of intensity. Casler writes: Hi Nick, Good points and actually that is what I am saying. Intensity, " is not " what is being measured here, nor is the TERM intensity needed to have the system work. What is being measured is " performance changes " , NOT intensity. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone change their training paradigm, but only understand that they " are not " measuring or using intensity, but really just a " performance adjusted schematic " . One can still use the 1RM as the foundation, but it is incorrect to call 50% of that load, 50% intensity. It is simply 50% of the 1RM performance. And the point you make about what you use as " a measure of intensity " is also relevant. Point is, intensity is relative to the moment, and the capability of that moment. The problem is wanting to use a term incorrectly when it need not be used at all. All one needs to know (as most already do) is that last weeks 1RM is a measure of " performance " on which some programs base future rep and load goals, and progress is measured against those performances, but it is not related to intensity. It does not change how you train, or how hard you train, it simply recognizes that a % of 1RM is not really a measure of intensity, but a measure of performance as a basis for the training model. No doubt, one can suggest that increasing " power density " is increasing intensity, (as I have occasionally) but that increase (related to intensity) is only of a higher intensity value IF it is tied to a higher output to true ability at the moment to that action. So the term has come to mean something other than what its definition suggests. If a lightbulb is turned down to 50% of its lumen output, is it really 50% intense? Maybe so, but is a 10RM less intense than a 1RM even though less load is used? Would doubling the time of your 100m sprint be halving (50%) the intensity. I seriously doubt anyone will change their terminology based on my critique, but years ago when working on some computer controlled exercise machine programs, I wanted to " measure " and display the level of " present intensity " , by comparing the last most recent performance in an exercise with the actual exercise being performed in real time. While it seemed logical to suggest that any portion of any rep in the action that exceeded the performance of the last workout was an increase in intensity, I soon saw that it was " really " only an increase in performance, and that the actual intensity was EXACTLY the same. Also I found that 1RM performance intensity, was no more intense than 10RM efforts. Both were 100% (theoretically) efforts to ability. It was then that I realized that what was being measured were performance increases, and not intensity levels. It didn't change the programs, or the effectiveness of the programs, it simply caused me to correct my terms so that I was more accurate to what was being measured. Regards, Casler TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems Century City, CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 HI , > --- " Also I found that 1RM performance intensity, was no more intense > than 10RM > efforts. Both were 100% (theoretically) efforts to ability. It was > then > that I realized that what was being measured were performance > increases, and > not intensity levels. > > It didn't change the programs, or the effectiveness of the programs, > it > simply caused me to correct my terms so that I was more accurate to > what was > being measured. " Telle -- OK, I'm curious, what were/are your measures of performance -- EMG, RFD, PFD, power, strength or maybe even endurance (non power related)? -- " with bated breath " -- Jerry Telle lakewood CO USA Casler writes: Hi Nick, Good points and actually that is what I am saying. Intensity, " is not " what is being measured here, nor is the TERM intensity needed to have the system work. What is being measured is " performance changes " , NOT intensity. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone change their training paradigm, but only understand that they " are not " measuring or using intensity, but really just a " performance adjusted schematic " . One can still use the 1RM as the foundation, but it is incorrect to call 50% of that load, 50% intensity. It is simply 50% of the 1RM performance. And the point you make about what you use as " a measure of intensity " is also relevant. Point is, intensity is relative to the moment, and the capability of that moment. The problem is wanting to use a term incorrectly when it need not be used at all. All one needs to know (as most already do) is that last weeks 1RM is a measure of " performance " on which some programs base future rep and load goals, and progress is measured against those performances, but it is not related to intensity. It does not change how you train, or how hard you train, it simply recognizes that a % of 1RM is not really a measure of intensity, but a measure of performance as a basis for the training model. No doubt, one can suggest that increasing " power density " is increasing intensity, (as I have occasionally) but that increase (related to intensity) is only of a higher intensity value IF it is tied to a higher output to true ability at the moment to that action. So the term has come to mean something other than what its definition suggests. If a lightbulb is turned down to 50% of its lumen output, is it really 50% intense? Maybe so, but is a 10RM less intense than a 1RM even though less load is used? Would doubling the time of your 100m sprint be halving (50%) the intensity. I seriously doubt anyone will change their terminology based on my critique, but years ago when working on some computer controlled exercise machine programs, I wanted to " measure " and display the level of " present intensity " , by comparing the last most recent performance in an exercise with the actual exercise being performed in real time. While it seemed logical to suggest that any portion of any rep in the action that exceeded the performance of the last workout was an increase in intensity, I soon saw that it was " really " only an increase in performance, and that the actual intensity was EXACTLY the same. Also I found that 1RM performance intensity, was no more intense than 10RM efforts. Both were 100% (theoretically) efforts to ability. It was then that I realized that what was being measured were performance increases, and not intensity levels. It didn't change the programs, or the effectiveness of the programs, it simply caused me to correct my terms so that I was more accurate to what was being measured. Regards, Casler TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems Century City, C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.