Re: Periodisation & Training Volume

[Guest guest]

Mel, in some of your comments you strayed a bit off topic. I'll comment where

it's applicable to my original post.

<<***Traditionally, training volume is calculated by adding together for

every

set all the major training exercises the product of :

Reps x Load

Total for Exercise A = (Reps x Load) for set 1 + (Reps x Load) for set 2 +

(Reps x Load) for set 3>>

Naturally, I understand how total volume is mathematically calculated and

what it's used for. My point of question and critique was more conceptual as

it relates to meaning, interpretation, and application.

<<***Good for you! One can achieve high volumes with high, moderate or low

intensities of loading and the effect in each case will not be the same. It

is also important to ask which exercises should be added into the

computation. For example, what about sit-ups, crunches, cable exercises,

prone reverse hypers, pull-ups and plyometric exercises? How does one

compute the effect of exercises which do not always use added loading? You

simply cannot disregard a demanding plyometric session simply because no

added weights were involved. >>

This is an obvious and important extension to my original querry and places

the concept of total volume calculations as a training progress indicator

further into question.

<<On the other hand, one cannot completely disregard the effect which any

exercises can have on another in a given workout. Imagine doing wrist curls

or reverse biceps curls before deadlifting or snatching... or what about

doing some interval runs before your speed day workout? Volume does not take

into consideration the differences between different exercise combinations

and sequences of exercises, so there are many problems associated with the

simplistic volume computations and periodisation schemes that are casually

bandied about as if they are scientifically exact.>>

And another important extension to previous concerns, which, to me, add to

the lack of useable info derived from total volume calculations.

<<*** For a start, he should have pointed out that any use of volume and

intensity monitoring may be improved if one calculates what the intensity of

loading is in different zones (e.g. below 50%, 50-59%, 60-69%, ...., 80-89%

and so on). In this way you can see exactly how the training volumes and

intensities are distributed, so that you can distinguish between a 20 000lb

volume achieved via the use of high rep, low intensity methods versus the

same figure produced by the use of low rep, high intensity methods.>>

Theoretically, if one were to do as you propose, adding the intensity

dimension to total volume would certainly add important information to the

picture (though this does not seem to be done in most total volume

calculations, where intensities from day to day may vary quite a bit).

However, this can more than likely only apply to a single workout where the

intensity remained the same throughout. If we start talking about

microcycles, mesocycles, and macrocycles, where intensities vary this is

hardly possible and the point of comparison is lost. So again, total volume

calculations don't seem to provide any useful/applicable data.

When one reads Russian and Eastern European research into various training

parameters, often one notices that it is the after-session computations which

are taken into account. Remember this when you try to understand what they

may be writing or saying. They also count any attempts which the lifter

almost made, something that many Westerners would not do, even though the

effort involved may be huge.>>

Well, you are partially correct. It is my understanding that over years,

probably decades, Russians and others kept meticulous records of their top

performers in weightlifting, where a primary method employed was total

volume. Based on the total volumes achieved in various stages of training,

they are now able to guide newcomers as to what their total volume needs to

be for optimal training success.

It's interesting that to date, nobody seems to have a clear answer as to the

applicability of using total volume computations, including those that

" invented " it. Fundamentally, an athlete and a coach need to be able to

understand the concept and its meaning in order to use it. Telling someone

that total volume in the a squat workout needs to be 21,000 pounds and next

workout 25,000 pounds means nothing compared to doing five tripples at 80%

and next week 5 tripples at 90%.

I suppose the concept total volume could be added to the Guruisms list.

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

It is important to understand some definitions:

Load volume: qualitative aspect of the load. sets, reps, amount of

exercises, etc.

Load intensity: qualitative aspect of the load. weight, tempo, etc.

Training volume: load volume + load intensity.

If you are a powerlifter your training will always be directed to high

load intensity (100%) and your reps will always be low (low load volume). Or

you add exercises (but in a training session, intensity will drop), or

training sessions, increasing training volume as Bulgarians did, for

example.

Prof. de Barros

NP Wellness

Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

http://sites.windnet.psi.br/pricardo

pricardo@...

*** Remember that the above measures used in periodisation are " quantitative " ,

since they compute actual numbers, not general qualities.

Training volume is not equal to load volume plus load intensity. Volume and

intensity have different units and are entirely different quantities, so that

you cannot add them together.

Tempo does not enter into computations of intensity, though, theoretically, one

might maintain that acceleration is implicated, since greater acceleration means

greater force and greater muscle tension.

Powerlifters in general do not often rely on regular use of 100% load intensity,

nor do Weightlifters. The Westside elite powerlifters often training with 60% of

maximal load during their 'power' workouts. Dave Tate can add much more on this

issue.

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

mcsiff@...

-----Original-----

De: <Namgawd@...>

> Mel, in some of your comments you strayed a bit off topic. I'll comment

>where it's applicable to my original post.

>

> <<***Traditionally, training volume is calculated by adding together for

> every

> set all the major training exercises the product of :

>

> Reps x Load

>

> Total for Exercise A = (Reps x Load) for set 1 + (Reps x Load) for set 2 +

> (Reps x Load) for set 3>>

>

> Naturally, I understand how total volume is mathematically calculated and

> what it's used for. My point of question and critique was more conceptual

as

> it relates to meaning, interpretation, and application.

>

> <<***Good for you! One can achieve high volumes with high, moderate or

low

> intensities of loading and the effect in each case will not be the same.

It

> is also important to ask which exercises should be added into the

> computation. For example, what about sit-ups, crunches, cable exercises,

> prone reverse hypers, pull-ups and plyometric exercises? How does one

> compute the effect of exercises which do not always use added loading?

You

> simply cannot disregard a demanding plyometric session simply because no

> added weights were involved. >>

>

> This is an obvious and important extension to my original querry and

places

> the concept of total volume calculations as a training progress indicator

> further into question.

>

> <<On the other hand, one cannot completely disregard the effect which any

> exercises can have on another in a given workout. Imagine doing wrist

curls

> or reverse biceps curls before deadlifting or snatching... or what about

> doing some interval runs before your speed day workout? Volume does not

take

> into consideration the differences between different exercise combinations

> and sequences of exercises, so there are many problems associated with the

> simplistic volume computations and periodisation schemes that are casually

> bandied about as if they are scientifically exact.>>

>

> And another important extension to previous concerns, which, to me, add to

> the lack of useable info derived from total volume calculations.

>

> <<*** For a start, he should have pointed out that any use of volume and

> intensity monitoring may be improved if one calculates what the intensity

of

> loading is in different zones (e.g. below 50%, 50-59%, 60-69%, ....,

80-89%

> and so on). In this way you can see exactly how the training volumes and

> intensities are distributed, so that you can distinguish between a 20

000lb

> volume achieved via the use of high rep, low intensity methods versus the

> same figure produced by the use of low rep, high intensity methods.>>

>

> Theoretically, if one were to do as you propose, adding the intensity

> dimension to total volume would certainly add important information to the

> picture (though this does not seem to be done in most total volume

> calculations, where intensities from day to day may vary quite a bit).

> However, this can more than likely only apply to a single workout where

the

> intensity remained the same throughout. If we start talking about

> microcycles, mesocycles, and macrocycles, where intensities vary this is

> hardly possible and the point of comparison is lost. So again, total

volume

> calculations don't seem to provide any useful/applicable data.

>

> When one reads Russian and Eastern European research into various training

> parameters, often one notices that it is the after-session computations

which

> are taken into account. Remember this when you try to understand what

they

> may be writing or saying. They also count any attempts which the lifter

> almost made, something that many Westerners would not do, even though the

> effort involved may be huge.>>

>

> Well, you are partially correct. It is my understanding that over years,

> probably decades, Russians and others kept meticulous records of their top

> performers in weightlifting, where a primary method employed was total

> volume. Based on the total volumes achieved in various stages of training,

> they are now able to guide newcomers as to what their total volume needs

to

> be for optimal training success.

>

> It's interesting that to date, nobody seems to have a clear answer as to

the

> applicability of using total volume computations, including those that

> " invented " it. Fundamentally, an athlete and a coach need to be able to

> understand the concept and its meaning in order to use it. Telling someone

> that total volume in the a squat workout needs to be 21,000 pounds and

next

> workout 25,000 pounds means nothing compared to doing five tripples at 80%

> and next week 5 tripples at 90%.

>

> I suppose the concept total volume could be added to the Guruisms list.

>

> Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

Load volume: quantitative aspect of the load, not qualitative.

-----Mensagem Original-----

De: " ``RAMBO`` de Barros " <pricardo@...>

Para: <supertrainingegroups>

Enviada em: Sábado, 9 de Dezembro de 2000 19:34

Assunto: Re: Periodisation & Training Volume

> It is important to understand some definitions:

>

> Load volume: qualitative aspect of the load. sets, reps, amount of

> exercises, etc.

>

> Load intensity: qualitative aspect of the load. weight, tempo, etc.

>

> Training volume: load volume + load intensity.

>

> If you are a powerlifter your training will always be directed to high

> load intensity (100%) and your reps will always be low (low load volume).

Or

> you add exercises (but in a training session, intensity will drop), or

> training sessions, increasing training volume as Bulgarians did, for

> example.

>

> Prof. de Barros

> NP Wellness

> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

> http://sites.windnet.psi.br/pricardo

> pricardo@...

>

>

> *** Remember that the above measures used in periodisation are

" quantitative " , since they compute actual numbers, not general qualities.

>

> Training volume is not equal to load volume plus load intensity. Volume

and intensity have different units and are entirely different quantities, so

that you cannot add them together.

>

> Tempo does not enter into computations of intensity, though,

theoretically, one might maintain that acceleration is implicated, since

greater acceleration means greater force and greater muscle tension.

>

> Powerlifters in general do not often rely on regular use of 100% load

intensity, nor do Weightlifters. The Westside elite powerlifters often

training with 60% of maximal load during their 'power' workouts. Dave Tate

can add much more on this issue.

>

> Dr Mel C Siff

> Denver, USA

> mcsiff@...

>

>

> -----Original-----

>

> De: <Namgawd@...>

>

>

> > Mel, in some of your comments you strayed a bit off topic. I'll comment

> >where it's applicable to my original post.

> >

> > <<***Traditionally, training volume is calculated by adding together for

> > every

> > set all the major training exercises the product of :

> >

> > Reps x Load

> >

> > Total for Exercise A = (Reps x Load) for set 1 + (Reps x Load) for set 2

+

> > (Reps x Load) for set 3>>

> >

> > Naturally, I understand how total volume is mathematically calculated

and

> > what it's used for. My point of question and critique was more

conceptual

> as

> > it relates to meaning, interpretation, and application.

> >

> > <<***Good for you! One can achieve high volumes with high, moderate or

> low

> > intensities of loading and the effect in each case will not be the same.

> It

> > is also important to ask which exercises should be added into the

> > computation. For example, what about sit-ups, crunches, cable

exercises,

> > prone reverse hypers, pull-ups and plyometric exercises? How does one

> > compute the effect of exercises which do not always use added loading?

> You

> > simply cannot disregard a demanding plyometric session simply because no

> > added weights were involved. >>

> >

> > This is an obvious and important extension to my original querry and

> places

> > the concept of total volume calculations as a training progress

indicator

> > further into question.

> >

> > <<On the other hand, one cannot completely disregard the effect which

any

> > exercises can have on another in a given workout. Imagine doing wrist

> curls

> > or reverse biceps curls before deadlifting or snatching... or what about

> > doing some interval runs before your speed day workout? Volume does not

> take

> > into consideration the differences between different exercise

combinations

> > and sequences of exercises, so there are many problems associated with

the

> > simplistic volume computations and periodisation schemes that are

casually

> > bandied about as if they are scientifically exact.>>

> >

> > And another important extension to previous concerns, which, to me, add

to

> > the lack of useable info derived from total volume calculations.

> >

> > <<*** For a start, he should have pointed out that any use of volume

and

> > intensity monitoring may be improved if one calculates what the

intensity

> of

> > loading is in different zones (e.g. below 50%, 50-59%, 60-69%, ....,

> 80-89%

> > and so on). In this way you can see exactly how the training volumes

and

> > intensities are distributed, so that you can distinguish between a 20

> 000lb

> > volume achieved via the use of high rep, low intensity methods versus

the

> > same figure produced by the use of low rep, high intensity methods.>>

> >

> > Theoretically, if one were to do as you propose, adding the intensity

> > dimension to total volume would certainly add important information to

the

> > picture (though this does not seem to be done in most total volume

> > calculations, where intensities from day to day may vary quite a bit).

> > However, this can more than likely only apply to a single workout where

> the

> > intensity remained the same throughout. If we start talking about

> > microcycles, mesocycles, and macrocycles, where intensities vary this is

> > hardly possible and the point of comparison is lost. So again, total

> volume

> > calculations don't seem to provide any useful/applicable data.

> >

> > When one reads Russian and Eastern European research into various

training

> > parameters, often one notices that it is the after-session computations

> which

> > are taken into account. Remember this when you try to understand what

> they

> > may be writing or saying. They also count any attempts which the lifter

> > almost made, something that many Westerners would not do, even though

the

> > effort involved may be huge.>>

> >

> > Well, you are partially correct. It is my understanding that over years,

> > probably decades, Russians and others kept meticulous records of their

top

> > performers in weightlifting, where a primary method employed was total

> > volume. Based on the total volumes achieved in various stages of

training,

> > they are now able to guide newcomers as to what their total volume needs

> to

> > be for optimal training success.

> >

> > It's interesting that to date, nobody seems to have a clear answer as to

> the

> > applicability of using total volume computations, including those that

> > " invented " it. Fundamentally, an athlete and a coach need to be able to

> > understand the concept and its meaning in order to use it. Telling

someone

> > that total volume in the a squat workout needs to be 21,000 pounds and

> next

> > workout 25,000 pounds means nothing compared to doing five tripples at

80%

> > and next week 5 tripples at 90%.

> >

> > I suppose the concept total volume could be added to the Guruisms list.

> >

> > Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

>

>

>

>

>