Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

Intensity = %1RM

Jeff1

New member
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
 
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 :D

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.
 
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.
 
Guinness5.0 said:
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
 
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. :)
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Top Bottom