Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Nick I'm not sure. Intensity is such an intrinsic quality that it is often hard to put words to. This began over the statement " you can work long or you can work hard, you can't work both. " I can sprint 400m but I cannot sprint the same 1000m... I can go all out during a single wrestling meet or I can wrestle my partner for 60 straight minutes during practice. The later would be considered conditioning within the sport to the wrestling community. I am not sure how sees this? I know (from personal experience) that wrestlers often get the rep of being " intense, 24/7, " but when you look closely at the quality of what you are getting over time it is not the same. I refer back to the previous examples. In actuality if I refer back to my wrestling career I recall trying very hard to maintain intensity, only to have my intensity gradually drop and my form steadily decrease. It would be physiologically impossible to duplicate the intensity of a single match for 60 straight minutes without rest. And what wrestler would not look back over their career and not consider the fact most of the time we over trained? Just my thoughts and feelings as an ex-wrestler/grappler and my experience training wrestlers. Rob Barrese PA, USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Nick I'm not sure. Intensity is such an intrinsic quality that it is often hard to put words to. This began over the statement " you can work long or you can work hard, you can't work both. " I can sprint 400m but I cannot sprint the same 1000m... I can go all out during a single wrestling meet or I can wrestle my partner for 60 straight minutes during practice. The later would be considered conditioning within the sport to the wrestling community. I am not sure how sees this? I know (from personal experience) that wrestlers often get the rep of being " intense, 24/7, " but when you look closely at the quality of what you are getting over time it is not the same. I refer back to the previous examples. In actuality if I refer back to my wrestling career I recall trying very hard to maintain intensity, only to have my intensity gradually drop and my form steadily decrease. It would be physiologically impossible to duplicate the intensity of a single match for 60 straight minutes without rest. And what wrestler would not look back over their career and not consider the fact most of the time we over trained? Just my thoughts and feelings as an ex-wrestler/grappler and my experience training wrestlers. Rob Barrese PA, USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 It seems that you are talking the same language as . The difficulty with the term intensity is that it is used relative to a changing standard. For example by comparing the work done in a 400m run and a 1000m run. Yes they are at different speeds but are they at different intensity. If I run 400m in 48 seconds and run a training run at 50s then that is quite intense - relative to the original. However if I am a 1000m runner and run 2min 17sec and run a training run at 2min 22 that will be very intense for that training purpose. Which is more intense the second (1000m run) is 96.4% of the maximum the 400m time is only 95% of maximum, yet the 50 second lap is faster than the 55 second lap, but not more intense. In many S & C writings people refer to % of 1rm which is great if like me you lift in Olympic weightlifting competitions, but for a 1500m runner a 1RM max may be the runners best time for the distance. I can do heavy pulls with 150% of 1RM clean. A 1500m runner can run partials e.g. 600m sprints. Intensity needs some formal definition or needs definition in the paper or comment so that others know what is meant by the term. Any comments Best Regards Nick Tatalias Johanesburg South Africa > > > > > > Nick I'm not sure. Intensity is such an intrinsic quality that it is > > often hard to put words to. This began over the statement " you can work long > > or you can work hard, you can't work both. " I can sprint 400m but I cannot > > sprint the same 1000m... I can go all out during a single wrestling meet or > > I can wrestle my partner for 60 straight minutes during practice. The later > > would be considered conditioning within the sport to the wrestling > > community. > > > > I am not sure how sees this? I know (from personal experience) > > that wrestlers often get the rep of being " intense, 24/7, " but when you look > > closely at the quality of what you are getting over time it is not the same. > > I refer back to the previous examples. In actuality if I refer back to my > > wrestling career I recall trying very hard to maintain intensity, only to > > have my intensity gradually drop and my form steadily decrease. It would be > > physiologically impossible to duplicate the intensity of a single match for > > 60 > > straight minutes without rest. And what wrestler would not look back > > over their career and not consider the fact most of the time we over > > trained? > > Just my thoughts and feelings as an ex-wrestler/grappler and my > > experience training wrestlers. > > > > Rob Barrese > > PA, USA > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 It seems that you are talking the same language as . The difficulty with the term intensity is that it is used relative to a changing standard. For example by comparing the work done in a 400m run and a 1000m run. Yes they are at different speeds but are they at different intensity. If I run 400m in 48 seconds and run a training run at 50s then that is quite intense - relative to the original. However if I am a 1000m runner and run 2min 17sec and run a training run at 2min 22 that will be very intense for that training purpose. Which is more intense the second (1000m run) is 96.4% of the maximum the 400m time is only 95% of maximum, yet the 50 second lap is faster than the 55 second lap, but not more intense. In many S & C writings people refer to % of 1rm which is great if like me you lift in Olympic weightlifting competitions, but for a 1500m runner a 1RM max may be the runners best time for the distance. I can do heavy pulls with 150% of 1RM clean. A 1500m runner can run partials e.g. 600m sprints. Intensity needs some formal definition or needs definition in the paper or comment so that others know what is meant by the term. Any comments Best Regards Nick Tatalias Johanesburg South Africa > > > > > > Nick I'm not sure. Intensity is such an intrinsic quality that it is > > often hard to put words to. This began over the statement " you can work long > > or you can work hard, you can't work both. " I can sprint 400m but I cannot > > sprint the same 1000m... I can go all out during a single wrestling meet or > > I can wrestle my partner for 60 straight minutes during practice. The later > > would be considered conditioning within the sport to the wrestling > > community. > > > > I am not sure how sees this? I know (from personal experience) > > that wrestlers often get the rep of being " intense, 24/7, " but when you look > > closely at the quality of what you are getting over time it is not the same. > > I refer back to the previous examples. In actuality if I refer back to my > > wrestling career I recall trying very hard to maintain intensity, only to > > have my intensity gradually drop and my form steadily decrease. It would be > > physiologically impossible to duplicate the intensity of a single match for > > 60 > > straight minutes without rest. And what wrestler would not look back > > over their career and not consider the fact most of the time we over > > trained? > > Just my thoughts and feelings as an ex-wrestler/grappler and my > > experience training wrestlers. > > > > Rob Barrese > > PA, USA > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 > Intensity needs some formal definition or needs definition in the paper or > comment so that others know what is meant by the term. > Nick, You couldn't be more right on. Any paper, or discussion of the term, not thusly defined is probably without merit. The design of a study may have implications for future investigation. The knowledge required for valid study design and measurement is beyond the scope of most exercise aficionados leaving ones primary recourse to the comments of peer review " experts. " And then " one must question everything. " Jerry Telle Lakewood CO USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for. Ludwig Wittgenstein W.G. Ubermensch Sports Consultancy San Diego CA Intensity needs some formal definition or needs definition in the paper or > > comment so that others know what is meant by the term. > > > > > Nick, > > You couldn't be more right on. Any paper, or discussion of the term, not > thusly defined is probably without merit. The design of a study may have > implications for future investigation. The knowledge required for valid study design > and measurement is beyond the scope of most exercise aficionados leaving ones > primary recourse to the comments of peer review " experts. " And then " one must > question everything. " > > Jerry Telle > Lakewood CO USA > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Nick Tatalias wrote: Thanks Great answers, may I quote you later- 1. The Highest Intensity would be a maximal effort to that exercise or activity 2.It is the magnitude or density of power expressed or tension force created during the performance of the exercise or activity. 3. It is a performance to ability expression Thanks again, that is an excellent summary Casler writes: Hi Nick, of course you can. I am a great believer that INTENSITY of effort as demonstrated by output is often the most important element to training adaptation. However it is not a mystical mental supreme effort. It is a recognition that to create an adaptive stimulus, the effort and output must create a single or accumulative demand. While HIT is based on the concept of failure, the very concept of Intensity in the Application and Philosophy is confusing. With an eye on Intensity (which has to do with increasing the density/magnitude expressed) they many times " reverse " directions and use lower intensity initial rep efforts (in the form of intentionally slowed reps) to create a fatigue condition they term " inroad " . They then perform their post fatigued " rep to failure " and consider this the ultimate in intensity, when in fact is has an overall lower output, and subsequently lower intensity. I have " re-worked " the system, with more scientific criteria, and greater attention to detail and definitions, and call it Rogue HIT. (since it is still Intensity based training, but does re-map significant elements of the myths perpetuated in Classic HIT) (Rogue) High Intensity Training is a productive training application, based on " real " levels of true intensity, that can be established, correlatively quantified (at the moment of performance), and used to establish the stimulus needed for further results. Regards, Casler TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems Century City, CA 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.