Friday, August 12, 2011

Notes on Training Intensity – Part 1: High Intensity all the Time?


This is part 1 of (potentially) a 3 or 4 part blog series. Read and enjoy, feel free to comment!

There are a lot of simple statements about training that just make sense. They tend to get overlooked by virtue of their simplicity and logic – overshadowed by more outrageous claims and marketing hype. The truth is that if you can keep your training philosophies as simple as possible, you will progress. In this blog I’m going to discuss training intensity, and by “intensity” I am referring to the level of effort/discomfort/stress of a training session. In support, I will supply two basic statements that if followed, will provide the guidance to higher and higher levels of physical fitness.

1. You can’t train high intensity all the time

2. Never underestimate the value of submaximal training

I’m sure to some of my CrossFit crew the first statement might seem like sacrilege, but give me a shot and I think I’ll convince you that I’m on the right side of the law. For those of you involved in other forms of training for sport, these concepts will resonate immediately.

Firstly, here are my observations of what happens to people who train to maximum (or close to maximum) too regularly:

1. They experience massive initial gains (GOOD – sort of)
2. After 3 months to a year they start to accumulate muscle and joint pain
3. They begin to get nagging injuries
4. Their “maximum” effort becomes, over time, a lower and lower percentage of their actual maximum capability
5. They burn out

So what exactly is happening here? Definitely the process of training to maximum is a powerful stimulus for adaptation – hence the very rapid gains in strength and overall fitness we often see in programs like CrossFit. Depending on the initial fitness level of the individual who starts such a program, they may progress very well for up to ~2years following a high intensity training program (generally, the lower the initial fitness level, the longer the person will progress in this system). After that point, there is a stagnation and then regression in performance and ability to tolerate high intensity work (increase in injury and symptoms of overtraining). For some individuals, this process may only take 6 months and is also dependent on the frequency and structure of the training they are performing (i.e. Crossfit.com versus a more progressive plan).

The main issue for both performance and overall body health is that by nature, high intensity work is low volume. Low volume work (either high or low intensity) does not inherently provide enough of a base level of development from which to progress from. High intensity work exposes muscles, joints, and connective tissues to aggressive stresses repeatedly – stresses that those tissues are not adequately prepared to deal with.

High intensity work is also high stress. This has both physiological and psychological impacts. Physiologically, too much intensity leads to a pervading environment of stress on your both your nervous and musculoskeletal systems. This stress leads to excessive muscular tension and alters hormone balance. Psychologically, high intensity is a fatiguing objective to obtain at every session, and can lead to lower interest in training and less motivation to push harder when the workout requires it.

These factors combine to create the situation I outlined above – “high intensity” becomes “moderately high intensity” over time by virtue of the inability of the body and mind to support true high intensity work. The fallacy is that the individual who is undergoing this performance decay will feel that they are executing at maximum output when in actual fact they are well below their potential.

In part 2, I'll discuss the value of submaximal training in support of high intensity activity. Comments, retorts, and questions are welcome!

4 comments:

  1. nice cam... i'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on implementing volume phases for the crossfit athlete, or at least what your thoughts are on balancing volume vs intensity.

    i know here you're talking about intensity more as a subjective, PRE kind of thing, but one thing that has always confused me is thinking of a 5x5 squat as volume, when it is going to hurt a lot, even if it is at 75% 1RM. would you put a number/percentage on intensity when we are purely talking about lifting?

    ReplyDelete
  2. hey mike,

    definitely the weights can be looked at both subjectively and objectively, with both being important in terms of the goal of the session.

    For example, I look at pure volume weights as "smooth - easy" (subjective) and in the range of 50-60% 1RM (objective). I usually work with sets of 8,10, or 12 reps, so they should be smooth, rhythmical, and fairly easy (much like easy running) - and weights in the 50-60% range typically will feel like that.

    So if giving this as a workout to somebody I think giving a percentage AND info about "feeling" is useful.

    If looking at higher effort sets, we can look at both subjective and objective cues to give people as both can be misleading at times - i.e. 5x5 @ 75% could also be described as "paused - tough", in which the expectation is that there will be breaks between reps and each one should be fairly difficult. OPT uses a simple system of both objective and subjective which I think is effective.

    Thinking about volume... High volume to me means building sets and reps as the main progression - so 5x5 would be on the low end of volume work (25 reps) versus building to 4,5,and 6 sets of 10 reps (40,50,60 reps). Even when we add in the third component of volume (load - let's say 100lb is 1RM) then 5x5x75lb = 1875 versus 5x10x55 = 2750lb. 5x5 is not a bad compromise between volume and strength work though and gives a balance of both.

    yeah budday.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I totally agree Cam. We all need lower intensity workouts mixed in with the occasional maximum intensity workout. As much fun as it is to go all out every time it will only lead to injury. I look forward to the next parts.

    ReplyDelete