Intensity

So far, we have discussed 2 out of 3 members of the holy trinity of program design. Namely, at the beginning of the series we talked about volume and the previous two posts were on the topic of frequency. Today we will discuss the third member of this famous trio – intensity.

The definition we used thus far is simple. It states that intensity is the weight on the bar. It is actually the simplest possible definition and it is almost never used in that format in practice. However, tracking is easy because everybody and their grandma can tell the difference between an 80 kg squat and 100 kg one. Every machine has weight marks as does every plate and dumbbell. That being said, the weight on its own doesn’t tell us much. For example, a 60 kg girl benching 90 kg for 6 reps is probably having a vastly more exhausting and strenuous experience than an experienced 90 kg bodyweight male would with the same bench parameters. It is easy to see how weight doesn’t tell us how difficult that weight actually feels, nor how hard the rep or the set is for a particular trainee. In essence, labelling intensity as number of kilograms being lifted just gives us an absolute value and we are much more interested in relative intensity. In the next two segments we will discuss two of the most popular methods of defining intensity. Without further ado:

Intensity of load

This definition takes the absolute value of a one repetition maximum (the famous 1RM, I will be using this notation) and makes relative values out of it. If your maximum weight for a single repetition is 100 kg on the bench press, then 80% will be 80 kg. A big advantage of this definition is the fact that it is easy to calculate. In addition, it is easy to compare intensities for one lifter and to compare two lifters. If someone’s doing 90% of his or her maximum, then that person is working with a higher intensity than someone who is working with 60% of 1RM. Before we look at some flaws of this method, let’s take a quick look at the expected number of repetitions at a given intensity:

100% - 1 repetition

90% - 3 repetitions

85% - 5 repetitions

60%-85% - between 6 and 15 repetitions

Please understand that these are not rules, nor should these be expected for everybody, but these are reasonable expectations on average.

As far as flaws are concerned, the first one has to do with doing sub-maximal repetitions. Very often, almost regardless of the type of training, you won’t always be going to failure. This method cannot account for doing fewer reps which makes it impractical sometimes. For example, let’s imagine that you’re doing 85% of your 1RM and you’re expected to get 5 reps in this system (that might be 4, might be 5 or 6, in any case it will be somewhere there), but you intentionally choose to do 3 reps instead so that you can continue to use that same weight in the subsequent sets. How do you count that by using this method? It obviously isn’t the same as going to failure. The second issue is that your 1RM varies day to day depending on hydration levels, sleep, fatigue, “fuel”, mood and so on.

One last detail before we move on to the next method, working to failure in order to determine your 1RM is useful at the beginning of a mesocycle. Also, training to failure for beginners can be useful in order to learn what it actually feels and looks like to reach the failure point.

Intensity of effort

We discussed this method twice already, once when we talked about effective reps and the second time when we defined effective (heavy) sets. The RIR scale makes its return which basically means how many reps you left in reserve. We will borrow some knowledge from the method above, imagine a scenario where someone works at 80% of 1RM and they can do 8 reps with that weight, but that would mean that they leave no repetitions in the tank. Instead, this person does 6 reps (leaves two in the tank). In that scenario, our imaginary lifter did a set at the relative intensity of RIR 2. In other words, this method looks at intensity through the lens of perceived rate of exertion i.e. how much effort you put into the set.

The biggest advantages of using this method lie right next to the flaws of the previous method, it can take into account sub-maximal repetitions and it depends of the perception of the lifter and not a set value like 1RM (just so we are clear, 1RM stands for one rep max or the maximum weight you can lift for just one rep).

I am fairly sure you’ve noticed that I praise and use this method all over the place. I use it for counting effective sets for the total volume and for determining an effective repetition. However, that doesn’t mean that this method doesn’t have its flaws. In fact, it has one giant issue. A lot of lifters have no clue how far or close to failure they are. That is a feeling you get a hang of with experience, so it can be very tricky to use with rank beginners, unless they have an experienced coach to supervise their training. The second flaw, admittedly an easy one to avoid, but it is noteworthy nonetheless, this method never speaks about the actual weight being lifted directly. For instance, someone can be doing a RIR 1 set, but do 20 repetitions with a lighter weight. That brings us to the last segment of this text.

Different kinds of intensity

Obviously a 1RM set is RIR 0 because we did one rep and couldn’t do any more and that’s very high intensity. It is also fair to say that a set of 3 reps at 85% of 1RM (RIR 2) is also high intensity, but the same can be said for a RIR 2 set of 15 reps at 60% 1RM. It is evident that multiple types of intensity exist which brings us to a very important topic – types of training

In a nutshell: intensity, frequency and volume you use will greatly differ depending on the purpose (type) of your training. An additional thing that will depend on the type of training are other training parameters like exercise selection, rest periods between sets and lifting tempo. As if I planned this, these other parameters will be the topic of the next week’s piece, but enough for now, here’s a brief resume:

• The simplest way of describing intensity is by expressing it as the weight being lifted. This is very limited in terms of practical application

• Intensity can be expressed in relative terms either as a percentage of a 1RM or as perceived effort (RIR scale)

• Every method of describing intensity has its advantages and drawbacks so it is probably best to combine all methods to have a clearer picture