Intensity = %1RM

[Jeff1]

Hi Everyone,

New poster here. I've had a membership here for a long time but have never posted. I have a question and was wondering if someone could help me out.

I understand that in exercise science, we measure "intensity" differently in the context of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. They are as follows;

Aerobic = % of maximum heart rate.
Anaerobic = % of one rep maximum.

While I understand the practical benifits of using these definitions, I don't fully understand the physiological basis of them. What are the physiological reasons for defining "intensity" in the above ways? My gut feeling tells me it has something to do with the rate of energy conversion, or in other words, energy conversion per unit time. I'm not sure of the details if this is in fact correct, however.

Could someone with an understanding of physiology and the changes that occur in the body when it does work, please explain why we use the definitions that we do. I am particularly interested in the anaerobic definition.

This is probably a basic question that I should know, but I'm a recovering HITer, so go easy on me.

Cheers,
Jeff

 

[Guinness5.0]

This is probably a basic question that I should know, but I'm a recovering HITer, so go easy on me.

LOL the first step is admitting you have a problem

I think intensity is defined the way it is simply because it's trackable and quantifiable. Obviously strength changes with time so it's not a perfect definition, but 'intensity' in the HIT sense is extremely subjective - defining intensity as % of 1rm gives at least some baseline to work with.

It's also important not to put intesnsity on an island. You've got to factor in volume (# of reps), frequency, and workload (pounds lifted). They're all part of the equation.

 

[UrlMighty]

When I'm doing cardio, I still think of intensity as actual effort rather than how I'm feeling. I'd measure it by speed of running or the setting on the machine. Anything that I can go back to and repeat.

I can hardly think back a couple of years time and compare some concept of how much personal effort went into a workout with one I've just done. As such the only aspects of worth are those which are quantifiable.

 

[Jeff1]

LOL the first step is admitting you have a problem

lol....Hi, my name is Jeff and I'm a recovering HITaholic.


I do understand the three variables under the Stress Model, those being intensity, volume, and frequency, and do understand how they interact and how we calculate them to get the "magnitude of demands" of a training protocol (ie: work done).

What I'm missing though is the physiological reasons for the %1RM definition. I think the aerobic % of maximum heart rate definition is used because the higher the percentage of maximum heart rate, the faster happy-go-lucky stuff is converted per unit time to preform the work. I would assume that the anaerobic %1RM definition is used because the higher the percentage of one rep maximum, the faster happy-go-lucky stuff is converted per unit time in order to preform the work.

I just don't know exactly what the "happy go lucky stuff" is in each context. My first guess would be that, in the anaerobic context, the higher the %1RM, the faster ATP is converted into energy in order to preform the work. I have no clue if this is accurate, it's just an semi-educated guess.

Can anyone give me a hand here?

Cheers,
Jeff

 

[majutsu]

actually jeff, very good question.

You actually stumbled across something very profound for an HITer. What you uncovered is actually the hidden reason behind the redefinition of intensity. Intensity was redefined specifically to eliminate an HIT flaw.

Let's start with HIT. HIT defines intensity as the subjective sensation of effort. STOP and absorb that. HIT defines intensity subjectively, based essentially on how you feel. IF you accept that one premise, then HIT follows in perfect logic.

Intensity therefore is maximum when you fail, because you can't push anymore. Gains are proportional to intensity in scientific study. Therefore maximum gains are had with maximum intensity. Maximum intensity is achieved with failure. This can be achieved in one set. Then you limit any drain on your anabolic system by working out infrequently, but to failure.

Sounds airtight, doesn't it?

But people started to notice it didn't work. Our HIT athletes lost olympics to periodization trained athletes repeatedly. Same with certain American football teams vis-a-vis others. Plus higher volume work still remained the builder of champions in the IFBB.

So where was the flaw in HIT. It had to be in the very beginning of the chain -- the definition of intensity.

Let's begin with some questions to highlight the flaws in defining intensity subjectively. Let's say you bench 315 for 6 reps usually. Which do you think would be harder: 1) physically well, 315 for 7 reps OR 2) ill, mal-nourished and exhausted, practically near death's door, 135 for 4 reps. Obviously the latter. So maximum intensity would be achieved by eating poorly, being continually infected and sleep-deprived, right? hmmmm . . . .

Next case. 1) physically well, 315 for 7 reps OR 2) physically well, 45 for 205 reps. If you can do it, the latter for sure will bring the famed "complete failure of the muscle to contract again". Aerobic athletes like marathons collapse in failure and exhaustion all the time, why aren't they huge? hmmmmmmmm

You see, the subjective definition of intensity is flawed. In true physical sciences, intensity is usually measured as a percentage of some upper bound or as the flux of a certain unit over time (like light intensity as candles per square inch or photons per meters squared per second etc). By using intensity as percentage of maximum effort, HIT appears very pseudoscientific. But maximum subjective effort has no upper bound except ... are you ready . . . death. You can always further increase your subjective effort for a task by just increasing the metabolic collapse of your system prior to starting the task, that is up to the point where you simply die. 100% intensity in HIT is death. So HIT contains the illogical seed that the easiest way to remain perfectly healthy is to be dead. In a way this is true, but only when health is defined negatively as the absence of any deterioration or fatigue.

Intensity needed a more logical definition. One the looked at health as success in function. It was hoped that this would result in an exercise science the actually created functional athletes, rather than athletes that should be best but weren't.

So let's define intensity as a percentage of a person's maximal function in a given movement. The maximum most appropriate seemed to be the one rep maximum of a movement.

Voila. The redefinition of intensity. It is out the greatest respect for the bulk of HIT and the logical tightness of HIT that this was done. It was necessary to "fix" the tiny flaw. However, since this flaw is at the beginning of the chain, it is correct to say, as many do, that HIT is dead. But it has the position in exercise science as respected father who's passed, not as the deadbeat dad.

 

[Jeff1]

Thanks for the interesting reply Majutsu.

I gave up on HIT in May of last year, and since then I've done my share of re-learning. I have defintately come to the conclusion that HIT has far more wrong with it that it does right. From subjectivism, as you pointed out, to contradicting the Stress Model, the lable "pseudo-science" is so appropriate. I am definately not a HITer any more.

I understand the problems with the HIT Model, so there's no need to get into that stuff here. Actually, the problem HITers have with the %1RM definition of intensity is that they think intensity alone is what "stimulates muscle growth." They know, however, that doing a 1RM isn't going to stimulate much in terms of hypertrophy, so they assume the %1RM definition is wrong. They refuse to accept that volume in an important variable in tiggering hypertrophic adaptations, and can't understand that both intensity and volume must be controlled properly. They're so confused and their definitions are so off that they actually say that adding reps (which is just raising the volume) raises the "intensity." This is obviously ridiculous and impossible given the Stress Model. I've actually heard some HITers go as far as defining intensity as "growth stimulation." Now if that's not a useless joke of a definition, then I don't know what is.

I could go on and on about the flaws in HIT theory, but we all know the story. I don't want this to turn into that kind of thread either.

But my question still hasn't been cleared up. Is there a physiological reason for using %1RM in the anaerobic context? If there is, what is that reason? I could imagine that the higher the percentage one RM lifted, the higher the rate of ATP turnover or something, but I'm not sure.

Jeff

 

[Madcow2]

Defining intensity as %1RM has been around far longer than HIT. I'm fairly sure it started with the Russians early in the century or somewhere around 100 years ago anyway. Keep in mind bodybuilding is a relatively new venture and despite its popularity it's more of a side tangent for strength sports (i.e. one is quantifiable as judged by how much vs. the other using exercise to get some subjective aesthetic look). Anyway the Russians used Intensity to describe a given percentage of their best lift with 100% being 1RM. This definition is very useful not only in strength sports but programming in general. It basically prevades the entire body of global literature on the subject. It's quantifiable and it's the difference between saying "2x5 at 75%" vs. "2x5 at a weight that your best effort would allow around 10 reps with". This is particularly useful when you get down to lower intensity work or work done for speed since few people keep track of their 15-20RM and it would likely be counterproductive to bother setting benchmarks at that range on a consistent basis.

Anyway, so you have a quantifiable variable for program design and workload can be tracked and calaculated as the combination of volume and intensity and various limits put in place. Fairly useful when programming is not as easy as going in and doing something to failure and hoping to come back better at it next time - under that training methodology you really don't need to get to fancy, it's just straight up linear progress. Unfortunately, you don't see anybody (and I mean no one) getting into the record books using something like that so obviously there's a point where such a system reaches its limit and that limit would apparently be quite a bit under world class performance. Granted you talk to some Hitters and they'll tell you everything is just perfect and everyone is doing great at every level and it's the ultimate best for every activity and they just don't compete in strength sports because they don't want to embarrass the rest of the world who trains too long, too frequently, and without enough intensity and that everyone else is wrong.

So anyway, intensity as %1RM is a lot more useful than making it some subjective claim of effort and it is subjective to the most extreme level in that no one really ever knows what 100% is, not even the trainee. Take the same trainee and feed him stimulants up the yin yang and 100% intensity to failure moves quite a bit from non stimulated 100% intensity to failure. And this is why Mentzer paired amphetamine with steroids (supperior stimulus, supperior response under that model of training).

Personally, I have no idea why HIT and BBing following them would take the term intensity when you can basically use any other word. It was very much in prevalent use before HIT rolled around. It's like me changing the definition of a circle tomorrow and telling everyone else they are wrong. People can call a circle whatever they want, but to knowingly change (or maybe it was out of ignorance which would mean REALLY ignorant on the subject of training theory) the definition from a really useful, globally known, transferable, and quantifiable variable to one that effectively has no use other than to say "work as hard as possible so we can measure best effort progress" and then tell everyone else they are wrong - is a bit odd. But then again, some stereotypes have a bit of base in fact and the one for bodybuilding is musclehead so seemingly gross illogic shouldn't be a real shocker.

 

[DZLS]

maybe i missed it, but what's HIT...?

 

[majutsu]

high intensity training
mike mentzer, arthur jones, etc

 

[Jeff1]

Madcow,

Thanks for the reply.

I understand the benifits of using %1RM in terms of prescribing training and planning progress, and I'm more than aware of the ridiculousness of the HIT Model (was a HITer for 7 years and the backlash is already a year in the making). I wasn't aware that the Russians began using it so long ago, so thanks for that info, but it still seems like my question is being missed here.

I am interested if there is a physiological reason why we define intensity as %1RM. In aerobics, as far as I know, the higher the % of maximum heart rate, the faster energy has to be converted to do the work, although I'm not sure what exactly is being converted. In anaerobic exercise, is there a similar thing going on?

If there isn't and it's simply a matter of being able to quantify variables, that's fine with me. If there is a physiological process that corresponds with the %1RM definitioin, it'd be nice to know.

Cheers,
Jeff

 

[majutsu]

i understand what you're asking. no. there isn't.

there couldn't be. In order for 1RM, and therefore intensity and hypertrophy training science to be reducible to a single physiologic parameter, two things would be logically necessary: 1)We would have to understand muscle hypertrophy at the biochemical level in full. We don't. 2) There would have to be a single factor for hypertrophy triggering, which with what we know in physiology is highly unlikely. IGF, satellite activation, ph, lactic acid, ATP and IP3, IL, enkephalins, etc are already implicated in a complex multi-factorial vector space.

While you continue to insist you are free of HIT, you keep making comments that suggest you are not free from their logical faults. HIT, being descended from Ayn Rand's cult, worshipped deductive logic. There were Aristotlean reductionists. To assume that there is a physiological root to exercise science is to assume that it is always possible to have complete reduction of every problem to some physical parameter that is simple and not complicated. Ayn Rand's epistemology, which Mike swallowed whole as did others in HIT less obviously, viewed any thing but a simple physical parameter (like ATP level) as a concept, an amalgam of many physical parameters in some yet unelucidated form.

Modern science has no incentive to believe this. It has not held up in quantum mechanics etc. Ayn Rand is famous, like Einstein, for saying quantum mechanics must be WRONG because it didn't fit the idea of science pre-1960. Particularly that statistical prediction was incomplete knowledge and not scientific understanding. Now, instead, we view the science of anything, economics, biology, etc, as a body of definitions and rules for an activity that best determine function and plans future action in that field. For example, it is highly unlikely that economics will best be understood in electrons and ATP versus supply and demand. Same is true for muscle hypertrophy. In fact much of biology is like this. Interestingly enough, it is really modern biology that is bringing this new scientific revolution.

The modern understanding of life is going to be very real and very physical, but very different than the most recent scientific models which squashed every field of study into some poor-fitting physical sciences model. In the new biology, complex entities like function and adaption may be the root terms and cornerstones of a new human understanding.

This is a hot and deep topic. Another post I made in another thread on this sub-board goes into greater detail on this very issue if you are interested. Also, in the spirit/science/philosophy board (we are trying to separate science by petition, contact samoth), I recommend and detail the book this comes from. I ammend that recommendation now by saying to blend that book with churchland's new book is better.

If this is all too much for you, put it this way. Short answer - no. 1RM or intensity will not be converted into ATP or any physiologic variable because that is single-factor theory like HIT, and HIT is wrong. Single-factor means there is a single factor, and that's what you asking for. Though single-factor theory (like pre-newtonian cartoon physics) looks convincing and is hard to eradicate from the brain (as you see you are infected with single-factor theory HIT still), the first post was intended to highlight for you it's ridiculousness and the fact that it is as illogical as hell. "Attain you bodybuilding dreams -- suicide tonight." That's a laugh. Ditch the single factor theory of the 70s and shave them sideburns.











ps are you a grad student in physiology? The questions are great but over-the-top. Most people (self-included) only want BIG GUNS!

And MC, I never got to tell you how much I enjoyed that circle analogy. I really didn't know of HIT pirating of that term. I guess they even hoodwinked me on that one.

 

[Jeff1]

Majutsu,

Thanks for the reply.

I can assure you that I no longer think that hypertrophy is reducable to a single variable. In other words, intensity alone doesn't equal hyptertrophy, which is the screwed up pseudo-scientific hypothesis that HIT puts forward. I guess that's what happens when you get your terms all messed up eh. Volume, frequency, total work, calories, and the various physiological processes you mentioned are all involved, which HIT virtually ignores.

I was simply wondering if certain physiological processes speed up as the %1RM increases. In aerobics, the rate of energy conversion speeds up I think. I thought there might be an equvalent in anaerobic exercise, such as ATP conversion into energy, or perhaps protien degredation. Those are only guesses though, and I don't know the details. Of course this wouldn't be the only thing responsible for hypertrophy, but I thought it might play a role in the SAID principle. We know that training our 1RM causes different adaptations than training our 12RM, which also causes different adaptations than training our 1000RM. I thought this might have to do with the different physiological processes involed per unit time when training at different intensities (RM).

I'm also well aware of One and Two Factor Theories. I've actually spent the last 6 months on a HIT board trying to educate them on Two Factor Theory. That's a damn hard thing to do, and most of them still don't get it, despite the relative simplicity of the basic theory. Again though, I don't know all the physiological details, only the general theory.

Thanks again Majutsu,
Jeff

PS: Not a student of physiology at all. Most of it is greek to me.

 

[Madcow2]

I guess you could consider rate coding as a variable. Basically all your fibers are recruited well before 1RM - the exact %1Rm varies but 50-85% is safe and covers just about everything in the body. Given that all fibers are recruited you have synchronization and rate coding to increase from there. And from what I gather rate coding increases linearly and spikes at a very high clip once concentric failure is hit (someone fairly knowledgable that I'm inclined to trust said their research indicated exponential which anywhere near that kind of rate has massive implications for fatigue and 'beyond failure methods').

The only problem with aligning intensity with rate coding is that reps are often done in sets. Meaning, as you fatigue during a set your 'point in time' 1RM decreases. So your 20 rep set to failure might take a bit to get to the threshhold where all fibers are recruited, then rate coding will increase as fatigue continues until such point as it is maximized (or reached it's 'concentric success limit') when failure occurs. So a low intensity weight being used for the set but you get to the point during the set of high rate coding as your point in time 1RM is reached after enough reps.

I think that's as close as you can get to what you are looking for. Maybe check out this thread and NWLifter's posts which are basically straight out of Enoka's Neuromechanics book: http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do?id=394848

 

[Jeff1]

Thanks Madcow,

I don't think Rate Coding is what I'm looking for though. As you said, most fibres are recruited immediately with even a weight of medium intensity, and rate coding is simply the frequency at which they're firing. Fibres can hit their limit at any point on the fatigue curve, depending on the intensity of the weight. I guess though, if rate coding is higher on rep 1 of your 1RM compared to rep 1 of your 10RM, then rate coding would be higher per unit time at a higher intensity (%1RM).

Maybe I could ask the question in a different way. My understanding of muscle physiology is not the best, so you'll have to fill in the blanks a bit, or correct me to help me out.

When our muscles do anaerobic work, what do they use as energy? I thought ATP was converted into usable energy. Whatever it is, does lifting my 1RM once convert more energy per unit time than lifting my 10RM once? "Intensity" is defined in exercise science independentally of effort, so although more reps increases the effort, it doesn't increase the intensity. It does, however, increase the volume, and thus the demands, under the Stress Model.

I'll try it another way. If I do one rep at my 1RM and one rep at my 10RM, how will the physiological process in my body differ? Do I convert more energy per unit time to lift my 1RM compared to my 10RM? The 1RM is "harder," or "more demanding," but does the physiological process in my body speed up or something so I can actually do the work?

I know these are annoying questions, and answering them won't change how we train, but I'm just curious.

Thanks in advance,
Jeff

 

[Madcow2]

I see where you are trying to go with it but I don't think you are ever going to fit intensity into something so clean and tidy from a physiology point of view. Intensity is a programming term used to define and construct training and it originated specifically for this purpose at a time when we really knew almost nothing about the internal workings relative to today. It's usefulness is in program design and workload/tonnage calcs but mainly just so we can talk about this stuff using common terms and communicate. Using the weightlifting intensity on aerobic work reveals that areobic work is performed so far out on the 1RM spectrum that it's going to basically be homogenous on the body's systems with only speed/heart rate/duration that are really going to be factors (i.e. this stuff is far far out on the <1% intensity spectrum). A lot more going on and too many things impacted over the rest of the spectrum and a lot of it will probably be driven by the combination of volume and intensity as I can really only think that the amount of weight in any single rep impacting recruitment (which maxes well below 100% intensity) and rate coding (which is clean within the context of a single rep). To be honest, strict physics and physiological definitions are far far cleaner. In weightlifting, intensity is mainly just utilitarian rather than attempting to describe internal processes.

 

[Jeff1]

I'm not really trying to fit intensity into a nice neat physiological package. I do understand that it is mostly a utilitarian measurement so we can calculate workload and the demands of our training. Makes perfect sense to me in that respect.

I was just curious as to what energy systems are used to do anaerobic work, and if those systems increase something as the %1RM increases. Looking at Zat's book, I see that the rate of protien degredation increases as the intensity (%1RM) increases, so maybe that's something?

Under the Stress Model, the intensity of the stress is defined as the "qualitative measurement." The intensity determines the quality of the stress, while the volume determines the quantity. I was thinking that, perhaps, intensity is your "SAID Principle Regulator" or something like that, as training your 1RM will elicit different adaptations that training your 10RM will. The differing physiological processes going on, given your intensity of exercise, may be what regulates the adaptations.

I don't know enough about the physiological stuff going on to say anything about this. In areobics, the body has to convert energy faster as the % of maximum heart rate increases, hence the definition of intensity as % maximum heart rate. I don't know the details though, but was thinking that perhaps some similar processes were going on as %1RM increased in anaerobic exercise. I'm pretty much just rambling and thinking out loud now lol.

Cheers,
Jeff

 

[Kane Fan]

lol....Hi, my name is Jeff and I'm a recovering HITaholic.


I do understand the three variables under the Stress Model, those being intensity, volume, and frequency, and do understand how they interact and how we calculate them to get the "magnitude of demands" of a training protocol (ie: work done).

What I'm missing though is the physiological reasons for the %1RM definition. I think the aerobic % of maximum heart rate definition is used because the higher the percentage of maximum heart rate, the faster happy-go-lucky stuff is converted per unit time to preform the work. I would assume that the anaerobic %1RM definition is used because the higher the percentage of one rep maximum, the faster happy-go-lucky stuff is converted per unit time in order to preform the work.

I just don't know exactly what the "happy go lucky stuff" is in each context. My first guess would be that, in the anaerobic context, the higher the %1RM, the faster ATP is converted into energy in order to preform the work. I have no clue if this is accurate, it's just an semi-educated guess.

Can anyone give me a hand here?

Cheers,
Jeff

well it's more a factor of what can be quantified and what cant
% of 1 RM can be easily put to a number
no other definition of INtensity can
I don't know if there is any internal body reason tho

 

[silver_shadow]

high intensity training
mike mentzer, arthur jones, etc

similar to rest pause isn't it? isn't DC training in this category too?