Calculating Weight Lifting Intensity

January 15, 2006

Hi ,

Thanks for the reply.

Casler wrote:

<<<Hi Damien, actually it is more a matter of disagreeing with " tradition " . The

definition of " intensity " is not mine, but a normal dictionary adaptation.

The word intensity is defined as, the display of a " magnitude or density " of

energy, power, or effort. There is no designation that a " single " effort, or

any specific duration, is required to display or establish it….

This would not make a 60m sprint a % of that MM, since a 60MM would be its own

100% intensity. It would also not necessarily make a 100m sprint at 1/2 speed

(twice the time) 50% intensity.>>>

***However, if one trains for a 100MM and performs a 60MM which they apply

100% effort or intensity to, this still does not exert as much of a toll to

their system as they are trained to put forth. Therefore, this may be 100%

effort or intensity at " that " moment but is not 100% of their capability.

<<<There is nothing wrong with using 1RM to provide a training relationship to

lower loads, but if one trains at 60% of 1RM that in no way is 60% intensity.>>>

***I would agree with this if you are doing your RM at 60% of your 1RM. This

would hold true if one applies 100% of the force they can generate to the load

with every rep. This also is effected by training age, what type of training one

does.

<<<I have squatted 500# for 1 RM, then that makes 300# 60%. I have squatted

300# for over 30 RM. If you analyze the power/energy/work, etc involved to

establish the " magnitude or density " of the effort, there is little

correlation.>>>

***I would agree with you on this as well. Your 30rm with 300# would be a very

" intense effort " and would not be 60% intensity. Although, You are comparing

apples to oranges here. The effort to do a 500# 1rm and 30RM require completely

different abilities. Your bringing in many factors that would have an effect on

this ability...muscle tissue breakdown fast to slow twitch ratio, lactate

handling ability, training system and so forth. The system of % is used mainly

in power and olympic lifting and of course when training athletes. The power

and olympic lifters would not usually train to be able to squat (X%) for 30Rm as

it does not effect their performance of 1RM. One who trains for a 1RM for

competition has conditioned their system to activate the max number of fibers at

one time. They would have a difficult time performing high reps at (X)% of their

one rep max due to their ability to post such a high 1RM compared to your

typical trained person. So their 60% would most likely be a

truer picture of 60% intensity. If you train mostly average joes or

bodybuilders your system would be fine. Advanced power, olympic or athletes

would most likely burn out on your system due to high level of " intensity " that

is put forth. You must remember that most training done with percentages also is

done at a rm that is below percentage max rep for example; 400# 3rm would equate

to a 240# @ 60% for a 3-5 rep set would certainly not be 100% effort even if

400# of force are applied to the load.***

Casler wrote:

<<<It is the contention that " only " 1 RM can be 100% intensity, that I question.

This is obviously incorrect. In fact, a 3 RM by most scientific definitions of

" intensity " might offer more " density or magnitude " than a single effort.>>>

***Again this is compared to what type of athlete or trainee and what are you

impacting CNS or muscular system. This all must be considered in a training

environment

Casler wrote:

<<<The system of using 1RM as a central designate, is simply a traditional

paradigm. I have no problem with it, and it certainly works, as long as we

keep in mind that 60% of 1RM, " IS NOT " 60% intensity to ability at that load.>>>

***This depends on the trainee.

<<<…In doing so, I feel I found that in reality we actually have (after maturity

and basic motor learning/conditioning of capacity) only DIRECT COMPENSATION.>>>

***Well I wish you continued success with your system and as always it is nice

to see individuals testing the norm or accepted. That is how we have gotten to

the current level of training knowledge and of course how we will break through

to new systems.

Sincerely,

Damien Chiappini

SPF Training Systems

Pittsburgh

January 16, 2006

Casler wrote:

The word intensity is defined as, the display of a " magnitude or density " of

energy, power, or effort. There is no designation that a " single " effort,

or any specific duration, is required to display or establish it..

This would not make a 60m sprint a % of that MM, since a 60MM would be its

own 100% intensity. It would also not necessarily make a 100m sprint at 1/2

speed (twice the time) 50% intensity.>>>

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " However, if one trains for a 100MM and performs a 60MM which they apply 100%

effort or intensity to, this still does not exert as much of a toll to their

system as they are trained to put forth. Therefore, this may be 100% effort

or intensity at " that " moment but is not 100% of their capability. " "

Casler writes:

***That is exactly my point. 100% intensity, is only possible to the

" specific " task. To carry your point even further 200MM is an even

different example, as is 400MM. So while we might have a " central " level of

activity (be it 100mm, or a 1RM list) the training for that activity might

be improved, by understanding the " intensity continuum more completely.***

Casler wrote:

<<<I have squatted 500# for 1 RM, then that makes 300# 60%. I have squatted

300# for over 30 RM. If you analyze the power/energy/work, etc involved to

establish the " magnitude or density " of the effort, there is little

correlation.>>>

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " I would agree with you on this as well. Your 30rm with 300# would be a very

" intense effort " and would not be 60% intensity. Although, You are comparing

apples to oranges here. The effort to do a 500# 1rm and 30RM require

completely different abilities. Your bringing in many factors that would

have an effect on this ability...muscle tissue breakdown fast to slow twitch

ratio, lactate handling ability, training system and so forth. " "

Casler writes:

***Completely different, might be overstating.

There are metabolic differences, that change slightly as we add or subtract

each adjacent RM. But the point to remember is that each rep maximum is

only " slightly different " metabolically than the one above and below it.

They form a related, continuum from top to bottom.

The physiological elements that may affect the demonstration of maximum

intensity, are very important, and key to understanding the concept of

" intensity " as it applies to maximum physical efforts.

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " The system of % is used mainly in power and olympic lifting and of course

when training athletes. The power and olympic lifters would not usually

train to be able to squat (X%) for 30Rm as it does not effect their

performance of 1RM. " "

Casler writes:

***I might disagree with that perception.

While the " most direct " translations occur in RM's that are more similar in

metabolic and neural processes, there is little doubt that the RM (strength)

abilities of are a continuum.

Of course we have to understand that " untrained " areas of that continuum are

open for improvement (mostly neural and metabolic) but there is a correlated

ability continuum that exists.

This continuum is actually the basis for much weight training in other than

specific strength sports. Sprinters performing 1RM squats for example to

improve their sprint.

We might look at the following example:

If you train and squat 300# x 1RM and do the same for your 20RM squat, which

let's say is 200#, we must see, that simply increasing your squat to 400#

will provide a " guaranteed " increase in the 20RM.

To think that this relationship only flows one way would be incorrect (yet

some do) so the reverse is also true.

NO? Well use the same example of the 300# x 1RM, and the 200# x 20RM.

If you increase your 200# x 20RM to 250# x 20, do you not thing your 300# x

1RM will not increase? Of course.**

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " One who trains for a 1RM for competition has conditioned their system to

activate the max number of fibers at one time. They would have a difficult

time performing high reps at (X)% of their one rep max due to their ability

to post such a high 1RM compared to your typical trained person. So their

60% would most likely be a

truer picture of 60% intensity. " "

Casler writes:

***This is the typical line of thought, but using lower loads for higher (true)

RM's involves higher rep speeds, and compensatory accelerations. Stresses,

tensions, loads, recruitment, and EMG's " can " be similar or greater in some

of these actions. The primary differences being that moving to higher RM's

causes an intersecting " limiter " . That limiter is one of metabolites as

opposed to shear strength.

That said, my thrust was not to submit that Power or Olympic Lifters perform

30 reps sets to improve their 1RM. My point is that there is a significant

level of RM performances benefits. To recognize these benefits, we need to

be aware that 1RM is not the " de facto " standard for 100% intensity. It is

only the measure of 100% for a single rep.***

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " If you train mostly average joes or bodybuilders your system would be fine.

Advanced power, olympic or athletes would most likely burn out on your

system due to high level of " intensity " that is put forth. " "

Casler writes:

***My system is not an advocation of " high " RM's, but more a recognition of the

RM continuum and how it can be more useful to apply a " broader based " 100%

Intensity awareness. Again by broader based, I don't mean doing 30 reps to

improve 1RM. I mean recognizing the needs of a trainee, and basing the

training loads on the Metabolic/Strength range needed for the goal.

Taking this " comprehension " into your awareness, provides comprehensive

understanding of the various levels and applications of " intensity " .

In fact, INTENSITY is one of the cornerstones of strength training, and the

best measure we have so far is accurate at only one level (a single rep).

Just imagine the improved comprehension of your strength level and potential

we might realize, if we were able to look at everyone's 30RM, 15RM, 10RM, 5

RM, 2RM and 1RM.

What would that tell us about their condition and strength? What levels of

differences would we see? What training systems and performance numbers

would we begin to understand?***

Casler wrote:

<<<It is the contention that " only " 1 RM can be 100% intensity, that I

question. This is obviously incorrect. In fact, a 3 RM by most scientific

definitions of " intensity " might offer more " density or magnitude " than a

single effort.>>>

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " Again this is compared to what type of athlete or trainee and what are you

impacting CNS or muscular system. This all must be considered in a training

environment " "

Casler writes:

***Yes, that is the idea. And as far as the impact to CNS and Muscular system,

the research in this area, as one poster wrote, " is rather thin " . I have

trained myself and others for rather long periods (over 9 months) with

continued and regular progress, on programs that included at least 6-8 " RM "

sets per workout, (generally 20 or 30RM, 15RM, 10RM and 5RM)

We did not discover specific CNS/PNS or Muscular System problems, other than

a low level case of DOMS, that did not impede regular progress.

Casler wrote:

<<<.In doing so, I feel I found that in reality we actually have (after

maturity and basic motor learning/conditioning of capacity) only DIRECT

COMPENSATION.>>>

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " Well I wish you continued success with your system and as always it is nice

to see individuals testing the norm or accepted. That is how we have gotten

to the current level of training knowledge and of course how we will break

through to new systems. " "

Casler writes:

***Thanks, I have the luxury of having a " broad base " of goals, and the

curiosity and background to explore them.

In essense, my posting however is simply to suggest that INTENSITY is an

important training element and quality that " must " be understood at a deeper

level, in all facets of actions, sports, and conditioning.

Implementing and adjusting intensity into conditioning programs as a whole,

is different than is what is currently the " map " .

My 2 cents, is to simply share that awareness.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

January 16, 2006

" Intensity " is used as a measure of strength. Strength is the maximum

amount of force that can be exerted, as such the only meaningful

definition of intensity in strength training is as a percentage of the

maximum for one effort, regardless of other factors i.e. volume,

tempo, rest,

I feel the running distance analogy is not useful since this deals

with distance / speed not strength.

If I say perform 5 reps at 60% intensity (=60% one rep max) that is

precise and measurable. Even if I say perform 5 reps at your 5 rep

max this is less useful. Clearly 100% effort can be put into the 5

reps at 60%, even if it could have been possible to perform 7 reps at

the load.

Darren

Plymouth, Devon

January 16, 2006

It seams Mr Casler has been mistaking the words Intensity, Effort, and Endurance

recently. For example when an exercise requires 100% effort until failure is

effort in terms of motivation (mental) and endurance at that intensity

(physical), the intensity is relative to the persons max performance in an

exercise.

Effort - " Physical and/or mental activity needed to achieve something "

Intensity - " % relative to the individuals max performance in an exercise

(squat, running, bench press, etc..........) "

A 4RM is estimated at ~ 92% relative intensity, the effort required to complete

a 4RM is 100%.

Running short distances would have to be split anyway into phases of running

(acceleration, transition, maintenance), it requires more power output to

overcome inertia (static start), than continue running.

Hope this helps

Gallyer

Bolton UK

Calculating Weight Lifting Intensity

Casler wrote:

The word intensity is defined as, the display of a " magnitude or density " of

energy, power, or effort. There is no designation that a " single " effort,

or any specific duration, is required to display or establish it..

This would not make a 60m sprint a % of that MM, since a 60MM would be its

own 100% intensity. It would also not necessarily make a 100m sprint at 1/2

speed (twice the time) 50% intensity.>>>

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " However, if one trains for a 100MM and performs a 60MM which they apply 100%

effort or intensity to, this still does not exert as much of a toll to their

system as they are trained to put forth. Therefore, this may be 100% effort

or intensity at " that " moment but is not 100% of their capability. " "

Casler writes:

***That is exactly my point. 100% intensity, is only possible to the

" specific " task. To carry your point even further 200MM is an even

different example, as is 400MM. So while we might have a " central " level of

activity (be it 100mm, or a 1RM list) the training for that activity might

be improved, by understanding the " intensity continuum more completely.***

Casler wrote:

<<<I have squatted 500# for 1 RM, then that makes 300# 60%. I have squatted

300# for over 30 RM. If you analyze the power/energy/work, etc involved to

establish the " magnitude or density " of the effort, there is little

correlation.>>>

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " I would agree with you on this as well. Your 30rm with 300# would be a very

" intense effort " and would not be 60% intensity. Although, You are comparing

apples to oranges here. The effort to do a 500# 1rm and 30RM require

completely different abilities. Your bringing in many factors that would

have an effect on this ability...muscle tissue breakdown fast to slow twitch

ratio, lactate handling ability, training system and so forth. " "

Casler writes:

***Completely different, might be overstating.

There are metabolic differences, that change slightly as we add or subtract

each adjacent RM. But the point to remember is that each rep maximum is

only " slightly different " metabolically than the one above and below it.

They form a related, continuum from top to bottom.

The physiological elements that may affect the demonstration of maximum

intensity, are very important, and key to understanding the concept of

" intensity " as it applies to maximum physical efforts.

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " The system of % is used mainly in power and olympic lifting and of course

when training athletes. The power and olympic lifters would not usually

train to be able to squat (X%) for 30Rm as it does not effect their

performance of 1RM. " "

Casler writes:

***I might disagree with that perception.

While the " most direct " translations occur in RM's that are more similar in

metabolic and neural processes, there is little doubt that the RM (strength)

abilities of are a continuum.

Of course we have to understand that " untrained " areas of that continuum are

open for improvement (mostly neural and metabolic) but there is a correlated

ability continuum that exists.

This continuum is actually the basis for much weight training in other than

specific strength sports. Sprinters performing 1RM squats for example to

improve their sprint.

We might look at the following example:

If you train and squat 300# x 1RM and do the same for your 20RM squat, which

let's say is 200#, we must see, that simply increasing your squat to 400#

will provide a " guaranteed " increase in the 20RM.

To think that this relationship only flows one way would be incorrect (yet

some do) so the reverse is also true.

NO? Well use the same example of the 300# x 1RM, and the 200# x 20RM.

If you increase your 200# x 20RM to 250# x 20, do you not thing your 300# x

1RM will not increase? Of course.**

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " One who trains for a 1RM for competition has conditioned their system to

activate the max number of fibers at one time. They would have a difficult

time performing high reps at (X)% of their one rep max due to their ability

to post such a high 1RM compared to your typical trained person. So their

60% would most likely be a

truer picture of 60% intensity. " "

Casler writes:

***This is the typical line of thought, but using lower loads for higher

(true)

RM's involves higher rep speeds, and compensatory accelerations. Stresses,

tensions, loads, recruitment, and EMG's " can " be similar or greater in some

of these actions. The primary differences being that moving to higher RM's

causes an intersecting " limiter " . That limiter is one of metabolites as

opposed to shear strength.

That said, my thrust was not to submit that Power or Olympic Lifters perform

30 reps sets to improve their 1RM. My point is that there is a significant

level of RM performances benefits. To recognize these benefits, we need to

be aware that 1RM is not the " de facto " standard for 100% intensity. It is

only the measure of 100% for a single rep.***

Damien Chiappini wrote:

" " If you train mostly average joes or bodybuilders your system would be fine.

Advanced power, olympic or athletes would most likely burn out on your

system due to high level of " intensity " that is put forth. " "

Casler writes:

***My system is not an advocation of " high " RM's, but more a recognition of

the