CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (http://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Fitness (http://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity (http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=88982)

Dane Thomas 12-03-2015 10:27 AM

Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
The terms "force", "work", "distance", "time", "power", "area", and "intensity" all have well-defined meanings within the field of physics, and the relationships between these terms are precisely understood. Power = Work / Time, and Intensity = Power / Area (where the area is an imagined surface that is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy)

When writing for a more general audience there is a natural temptation to descend from these precise usages to more colloquial definitions. I do not, however, feel that this makes it accurate to claim that in the field of human performance "...power is the definition of intensity...", or that "...intensity is defined as power.". I can memorize those phrases to get a better grade on a certification test, but that does not make them factually correct. Likewise, the fact that the phrases came directly from Coach Glassman in an article published in 2002 and have been repeated by countless other since then also does not make them any more scientifically accurate.

It seems to me that a program that is empirically driven, clinically tested, and community-developed, with an open-source charter that makes co-developers out of participating coaches, athletes, and trainers through a spontaneous and collaborative online community should welcome a discussion on this topic. Doing so could improve the general level of understanding and consensus, and potentially enhance something that is already very good. Think of it as a way of chasing intellectual virtuosity.

Please be assured that I understand and agree with the spirit of the point being made by the phrases. I just think that making the point while respecting the terms in question would make the argument more sound.

I think that it would be more accurate (yet still understandable and meaningful) to say that power is directly correlated with intensity, which in turn has been linked to nearly every positive aspect of fitness.

Anybody else out there agree? Is it more laudable to preserve dogma for dogma's sake, or to improve upon it when the opportunity arises?

Patrick A Horsman 12-03-2015 04:21 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane Thomas (Post 1258925)
The terms "force", "work", "distance", "time", "power", "area", and "intensity" all have well-defined meanings within the field of physics, and the relationships between these terms are precisely understood. Power = Work / Time, and Intensity = Power / Area (where the area is an imagined surface that is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy)

When writing for a more general audience there is a natural temptation to descend from these precise usages to more colloquial definitions. I do not, however, feel that this makes it accurate to claim that in the field of human performance "...power is the definition of intensity...", or that "...intensity is defined as power.". I can memorize those phrases to get a better grade on a certification test, but that does not make them factually correct. Likewise, the fact that the phrases came directly from Coach Glassman in an article published in 2002 and have been repeated by countless other since then also does not make them any more scientifically accurate.

It seems to me that a program that is empirically driven, clinically tested, and community-developed, with an open-source charter that makes co-developers out of participating coaches, athletes, and trainers through a spontaneous and collaborative online community should welcome a discussion on this topic. Doing so could improve the general level of understanding and consensus, and potentially enhance something that is already very good. Think of it as a way of chasing intellectual virtuosity.

Please be assured that I understand and agree with the spirit of the point being made by the phrases. I just think that making the point while respecting the terms in question would make the argument more sound.

I think that it would be more accurate (yet still understandable and meaningful) to say that power is directly correlated with intensity, which in turn has been linked to nearly every positive aspect of fitness.

Anybody else out there agree? Is it more laudable to preserve dogma for dogma's sake, or to improve upon it when the opportunity arises?

I suspected that: "The word "intensity" [as used here] is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", "magnitude", or "level", as it sometimes is in colloquial speech" (directly from wikipedia on intensity).

However, if it was intended to be used in the true physics since (which I doubt) I still believe it is relatively accurate.

Given that Power = work / time and Intensity = Power/Area then it logically follows from the same article that if we are discussing a moving object rather than a wave:

"Intensity [of a moving object] can be found by taking the energy density (energy per unit volume) at a point in space and multiplying it by the velocity at which the energy is moving. The resulting vector has the units of power divided by area."

Energy per unit volume may differ from person to person, but within the individual with a given implement in a given workout the unit volume would be a constant no matter how fast the individual was moving. Thinking about it differently, the dimensions of the imagined perpendicular surface for each movement would not change.

if Area is therefore a constant when comparing within the individual (=1) then Intensity (within an given individual) = Power /1.

Given that we define intensity in CrossFit as only being relative to the individual I think the statement that Intensity = Power is actually accurate.





Also I think you can tell I had some time to kill at work today.

Sean J Hunter 12-03-2015 06:13 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick A Horsman (Post 1258935)
Also I think you can tell I had some time to kill at work today.

:rofl:

Dane Thomas 12-03-2015 11:45 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick A Horsman (Post 1258935)
I suspected that: "The word "intensity" [as used here] is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", "magnitude", or "level", as it sometimes is in colloquial speech" (directly from wikipedia on intensity).

However, if it was intended to be used in the true physics since (which I doubt) I still believe it is relatively accurate.

Given that Power = work / time and Intensity = Power/Area then it logically follows from the same article that if we are discussing a moving object rather than a wave:

"Intensity [of a moving object] can be found by taking the energy density (energy per unit volume) at a point in space and multiplying it by the velocity at which the energy is moving. The resulting vector has the units of power divided by area."

Energy per unit volume may differ from person to person, but within the individual with a given implement in a given workout the unit volume would be a constant no matter how fast the individual was moving. Thinking about it differently, the dimensions of the imagined perpendicular surface for each movement would not change.

if Area is therefore a constant when comparing within the individual (=1) then Intensity (within an given individual) = Power /1.

Given that we define intensity in CrossFit as only being relative to the individual I think the statement that Intensity = Power is actually accurate.



Also I think you can tell I had some time to kill at work today.

Thanks for this! You are of course correct that they are equivalent within this single, narrow context. Even so, I think that my suggestion (that Power and Intensity are correlates, rather than one being the definition of the other) could be considered to be correct within a much wider range of contexts. Would that not be an improvement?

David Meverden 12-04-2015 09:17 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
I think I can help fill in a gap in the OP.

The term POWER has a scientific and a "dumbed down" colloquial definition that both get used, and often conflated, in these discussions.

The term INTENSITY has a scientific definition, but it also has OTHER definitions that, while less clearly defined, are useful in these discussions and equally legitimate as a meaning of the word. Once you accept that these other definitions are not "dumbed down" versions of the Power/Area concept, but are expressing a different concept, then the correlation of power to intensity makes sense.

Intensity is "the quality of being intense" and intense is "of extreme force, degree, or strength". In the context of CrossFit workouts the "intensity" will be a measure of how extreme the metabolic fatigue is (in other types of training it means something else, but lets not get distracted).

If this definition is used then power WILL be a measure of the relative intensity of a workout. If I do 10 rounds of Cindy in 20 minutes then the work done per time is low and the intensity of the work out for me is low. I'll have plenty left in the tank at the end. If I do 20 rounds in 20 minutes then the work per time is doubled, as is the intensity of the workout for me.

Now that explanation isn't perfect (for instance, metabolic intensity won't go up linearly with power as you start to get near max capacity) but if you start dissecting it at that level you will miss the forest for the trees. These concepts merely help us frame and understand issues of human performance and health.

Does that help?

Sean J Hunter 12-04-2015 11:21 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Double Post

Sean J Hunter 12-05-2015 12:01 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Not a physics guy, not much of a kinesiology guy either, for that matter, but here's my take on it...might be wrong...I look forward to being corrected.

1) Its easy to get bogged down in the word Intensity. When looking for a word to decribe what this 'thing' is, it's probably the best worst thing we could find in Phsyics vocab to decribe it. My understanding is it's technically a deriviative of the actual Physics term. So kinda correct.

2) I think we might be mixing up effort with intensity here, two different things in my book.

Intensity is a metric used to decribe the relationsbhip between amount of resource used per cycle (rep) and the number of cycles (reps) when there's a fixed variable of wanting to use 100% of the resource (go to max reps) i.e. 5RM = 87.5% of 1RM.

Effort is how much of that resource you use, or more precisely how much you deplete.

For example, my 1RM DL is 200kg. my 5RM is 87.5% of this (less intense) = 175kg. And on deload days I do 70% 5RMs = 122.5. (less effort) (but I still do 3 sets = volume)

Intensity = 100% 87.5% 87.5%
Effort = 100% 100% 70%

Another example is how you don't want novice lifters lifting to 100% effort every lift otherwise it encourages an early stall effect.

So a novice may do 5RM for 3 sets (volume) but you want him lifting to 95% effort (i.e. last rep should be fast, not a grind). That's one reason why its poor programming to simply say do 3 x 5 DL to a new PR for a noivce, they're gonna overlift and stall early, or underlift and not gain. Targeted Effort = Optimal novice gains.

Intensity vs Effort

Still can't speak into the Power = Intensity thing. But it's interesting. Do we have a link to Coaches discussion on this?

Sean

Sean J Hunter 12-05-2015 12:59 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Article on Intensity vs Effort

This is why I have an issue with the term "High Intensity Training", what we're really trying to achieve is High Neuroendocrine Response, which tends to be best achieved thru maximal effort over short time, shocking the body into a greater neuroendocrine response.

Its Maximal Force in a short period of time = Power while using maximal effort. So what we do is High Power Max Effort Training?

The reality is once we get to Power, any other term after this, Intensity, Effort, Volume, Training Resource, are at best using physics terms ina derivative fashion.

Another issue is the term Max Effort Training, which discusses lifting at 90% or more of your 1RM. so 1-3 RM. This is an incorrect use of the term Effort. Similar to how Power lifting isnt about speed, which differentiates Power from Force.

Sean

Sean J Hunter 12-09-2015 11:30 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick A Horsman (Post 1259085)
But if it was Force lifting I wouldn't be able to do it - I'm not Jedi

lol, ok what did I miss here....I a terrible at using terms correctly. :P

Sean

Patrick A Horsman 12-09-2015 11:39 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter (Post 1258980)
Article on Intensity vs Effort

This is why I have an issue with the term "High Intensity Training", what we're really trying to achieve is High Neuroendocrine Response, which tends to be best achieved thru maximal effort over short time, shocking the body into a greater neuroendocrine response.

Its Maximal Force in a short period of time = Power while using maximal effort. So what we do is High Power Max Effort Training?

The reality is once we get to Power, any other term after this, Intensity, Effort, Volume, Training Resource, are at best using physics terms ina derivative fashion.

Another issue is the term Max Effort Training, which discusses lifting at 90% or more of your 1RM. so 1-3 RM. This is an incorrect use of the term Effort. Similar to how Power lifting isnt about speed, which differentiates Power from Force.

Sean

But if it was Force lifting I wouldn't be able to do it - I'm not Jedi

Sean J Hunter 12-09-2015 11:44 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick A Horsman (Post 1259085)
But if it was Force lifting I wouldn't be able to do it - I'm not Jedi

lol, ok what did I miss here....I a terrible at using terms correctly. :P

Sean

Chris Mason 12-13-2015 07:17 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Want to know the facts as they exist in the strength training world?

Intensity = load percentage of one repetition maximum. Ex. trainee can bench 200 lbs for one repetition as a maximum. That is 100% intensity.

Power = the aforementioned physics definition. In strength training taken to indicate the ability to generate a high degree of force quickly.

Someone mentioned High Intensity Training (HIT) which was a form of bodybuilding popularized by Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden, and Mike Mentzer in the 70s and 80s and then revitalized by Mr. Olympia competitor Dorian Yates in the 90s (his was a tweaked version with the same underlying concepts). The word intensity was used there in a different way and was a form of expression of effort. It was load related, but the loading permitted multiple reps, not just one. In a nutshell, if you performed 10 repetitions to concentric failure (until you failed attempting to complete a rep), that last rep met and exceeded 100% of your momentary maximum and thus made for high intensity training.

Dane Thomas 12-13-2015 07:43 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter (Post 1258979)
Still can't speak into the Power = Intensity thing. But it's interesting. Do we have a link to Coaches discussion on this?

Sean

The question came up for me because I revalidated my L1 last weekend and they are still saying that Intensity ≣ Power, where the triple bar indicates strict equivalence, or that Intensity defines Power.

The reason that bothers me is that in my experience, the other relationships taught in that lecture could easily be brought back into a high school or entry-level college physics or mechanical engineering or exercise physiology course and put directly to use in a homework project without raising many faculty eyebrows. They are on solid enough ground to be useful across broad modal domains scientifically, but if a student tried to claim that Intensity ≣ Power in the same classes it would be very likely to be contested.

I agree that part of the confusion is due to the common conflation of the terms "intensity" and "effort" in the realm of physical fitness and training. The relationship between effort and actual, measured power output is complicated by many factors including efficiency and fatigue, as well as structural factors.

We can all agree that maximizing results is dependent upon eliciting sufficiently high levels of intensity under the proper conditions. That is not in dispute. I am just questioning whether it might be useful to revisit that specific definition in that specific context to see if it can't be improved.

(I can't help but wonder whether the claim that Intensity ≣ Power would raise Dr. Glassman's eyebrows, stickler for scientific accuracy that he is.)

Chris Mason 12-13-2015 08:42 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane Thomas (Post 1259180)
The question came up for me because I revalidated my L1 last weekend and they are still saying that Intensity ≣ Power, where the triple bar indicates strict equivalence, or that Intensity defines Power.

The reason that bothers me is that in my experience, the other relationships taught in that lecture could easily be brought back into a high school or entry-level college physics or mechanical engineering or exercise physiology course and put directly to use in a homework project without raising many faculty eyebrows. They are on solid enough ground to be useful across broad modal domains scientifically, but if a student tried to claim that Intensity ≣ Power in the same classes it would be very likely to be contested.

I agree that part of the confusion is due to the common conflation of the terms "intensity" and "effort" in the realm of physical fitness and training. The relationship between effort and actual, measured power output is complicated by many factors including efficiency and fatigue, as well as structural factors.

We can all agree that maximizing results is dependent upon eliciting sufficiently high levels of intensity under the proper conditions. That is not in dispute. I am just questioning whether it might be useful to revisit that specific definition in that specific context to see if it can't be improved.

(I can't help but wonder whether the claim that Intensity ≣ Power would raise Dr. Glassman's eyebrows, stickler for scientific accuracy that he is.)


I'm confused, are you simply trying to wow us with your brilliance, or did you want an answer?

Intensity does not equal power. Intensity is a measure of load vs. force production capacity in a given plane etc., and power is work over time. There is a correlation in that high power normally requires high force production capacity, but they one does not equal the other.

Dane Thomas 12-13-2015 09:12 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Mason (Post 1259181)
I'm confused, are you simply trying to wow us with your brilliance, or did you want an answer?

Intensity does not equal power. Intensity is a measure of load vs. force production capacity in a given plane etc., and power is work over time. There is a correlation in that high power normally requires high force production capacity, but they one does not equal the other.

I want to know if others agree with me that Intensity and Power are correlated rather than bring exactly equal to each other.

I also want to know if others think that it would be positive to update that section of the article/study material (seen here: http://journal.crossfit.com/2002/04/foundations.tpl) and in the L1 lecture.

Sean J Hunter 12-13-2015 11:48 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Intensity is a measure of load vs. force production capacity in a given plane etc
Would you break that down for us Chris, and how, if it does, relates to the scientific term.

Sean

Steven Wingo 12-13-2015 04:44 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
The question I would have is how would changing the currently used definitions within CrossFit be useful for me as an athlete and coach?

We are training athletes, training ourselves, trying to educate our athletes/members, and measuring their performance and progress. The current definitions seem pretty useful to me.

How would complicating the discussion improve the utility of the current analysis for us as coaches?

Chris Mason 12-20-2015 07:01 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter (Post 1259185)
Would you break that down for us Chris, and how, if it does, relates to the scientific term.

Sean

Right, what I am saying is that the term in its strength training world "proper" definition is a measure of the load vs. individual one rep max capacity (1RM) in a given exercise. If your 1RM bench press is 200 lbs and you use 200 lbs you are at 100% intensity.

In that sentence you quoted I was just saying the above in a slightly different fashion.

Chris Mason 12-20-2015 07:07 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Wingo (Post 1259189)
The question I would have is how would changing the currently used definitions within CrossFit be useful for me as an athlete and coach?

We are training athletes, training ourselves, trying to educate our athletes/members, and measuring their performance and progress. The current definitions seem pretty useful to me.

How would complicating the discussion improve the utility of the current analysis for us as coaches?

My two cents is that I have always believed education should always relay the current, most accepted ideas/theories etc. Terminology should be correctly used to the degree possible so that the individual being trained can then take that information and use it to learn more useful information on their own etc. In other words, I want to give my pupils the tools they need to learn and to expand their knowledge.

I don't think noting the differentiation and relationship between intensity and power is over complicating matters. The correct answer in this case is fairly simple and explained in a few sentences. What you might be noting is the convolution of answers in this thread and the attempt to overly complicate matters with verbiage.

Sean J Hunter 12-20-2015 12:04 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Mason (Post 1259331)
Right, what I am saying is that the term in its strength training world "proper" definition is a measure of the load vs. individual one rep max capacity (1RM) in a given exercise. If your 1RM bench press is 200 lbs and you use 200 lbs you are at 100% intensity.

In that sentence you quoted I was just saying the above in a slightly different fashion.

Thanks Chris,

Great thread.

Sean

Shawn M Wilson 12-20-2015 12:37 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Mason (Post 1259331)
Right, what I am saying is that the term in its strength training world "proper" definition is a measure of the load vs. individual one rep max capacity (1RM) in a given exercise. If your 1RM bench press is 200 lbs and you use 200 lbs you are at 100% intensity.

In that sentence you quoted I was just saying the above in a slightly different fashion.

I'll have some fun here with this but just as a jumping off point I agree with what you wrote.

So does intensity stay consistent or change based on each day?

Let's look at training days vs competition days.

In competitions I often do A LOT better than a typical day in the gym. It's weird / funny how I can power clean 265 in a competition and yet struggle to squat clean that same amount in the gym.

Both days I feel like I'm giving 100% of that current day. One guy at my box said I cannot be giving 100% intensity because I'm not achieving the same results as I do on my meet days.

Obviously I'm attempting to give the same intensity but is my power level lower thus causing a change in my intensity or is my intensity causing a change in my ability to produce power? (Because obviously the guy in my box struggles to understand how some days you feel stronger and more prepared (wave training) for a comp).

Chris Mason 12-21-2015 04:50 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn M Wilson (Post 1259337)
I'll have some fun here with this but just as a jumping off point I agree with what you wrote.

So does intensity stay consistent or change based on each day?

Let's look at training days vs competition days.

In competitions I often do A LOT better than a typical day in the gym. It's weird / funny how I can power clean 265 in a competition and yet struggle to squat clean that same amount in the gym.

Both days I feel like I'm giving 100% of that current day. One guy at my box said I cannot be giving 100% intensity because I'm not achieving the same results as I do on my meet days.

Obviously I'm attempting to give the same intensity but is my power level lower thus causing a change in my intensity or is my intensity causing a change in my ability to produce power? (Because obviously the guy in my box struggles to understand how some days you feel stronger and more prepared (wave training) for a comp).

Well, it would depend on what you are basing the percentage off of. A meet max is a psychologically stimulated maximum and thus a true 1RM (for all intents and purposes).

Of course, if progress is being made then your 1RM is always changing. Intensity, and its percentages are thus approximations.

In the end, the point of the intensity scale is really just to permit planning for training.

Shawn M Wilson 12-24-2015 09:35 AM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Mason (Post 1259372)
Well, it would depend on what you are basing the percentage off of. A meet max is a psychologically stimulated maximum and thus a true 1RM (for all intents and purposes).

Of course, if progress is being made then your 1RM is always changing. Intensity, and its percentages are thus approximations.

In the end, the point of the intensity scale is really just to permit planning for training.

I agree on all points of that which brings back and old discussion that has been discussed here a few times but often without the topic of intensity to much.

When training we are looking at increasing our 1RM most often in regards to weight training (vs 5rm, etc).

Entire programs are written around that goal and the topic of debate comes up on which program does it best. Often we talk about a training max versus a competition max and using the training max for the program %s. THis often confuses some people as they may not compete and don't understand the difference in intensity between the gym and a competition.

On competition day my mind is focused, my body is primed and each lift has as much CNS and muscle output as possible. I do feel a bit drained later in the day but during that short period of time I am riding high.

Realizing that doing this every day would be difficult because of the amount of effort and focus one has to put into "pumping" oneself up for this moment helps to me understand why my intensity seems so much less in a normal gym day.

We see issues in overtraining in boxes when intensity in WODs is high for weeks on end and people can't recover and injuries and overtraining pops up. I have seen trainers struggle to figure out why their people are dropping like flies when every WOD is a hero or games one day after day. The constant pressure to succeed and do better bogs down all but the elite athlete quickly.

So understanding the concept of intensity, the different levels of intensity and how to properly program and train around it is where success is found or burn out and injury takes over.

As we learn to better control the training and desired level of intensity I think we can effectively start to see ways to increase the other areas discussed (power, etc) by again developing or using well designed training programs that create positive gains in 1RM, cardiovascular improvements, etc by managing the athletes intensity over the long haul.

I know since I scaled by on my intensity in training and focused more on other areas (volume, recovery, technique, strength) my lifts have improved in both training and competition. Sometimes this means I do my own thing at the box (much to the displeasure of some fellow box mates) and sometimes I do the WOD simply for a break and recovery of my current training.

Chris Mason 12-24-2015 12:40 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
Right. That is one problem I have seen in the CF world in general. The crowd mentality and support of others really pumps people up and every training day becomes like a meet day. In other words, the training is fueled by adrenaline. The problem, as you noted, is stagnation and burnout. One simply cannot go all out in an elevated state with great frequency and not overtrain.

Sean J Hunter 05-29-2016 01:31 PM

Re: Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity
 
I'm big on using terminology correctly, so did some digging on this.

WHAT IS IT (PHYSICS)
Intensity, as we use it incorrectly in fitness, has three variables
1 - A constant which is 100% of energy usage in the system (body). Often referred to as reps max, or max fatigue
2 - An inverse correlation between weight and time to use all energy (namely reps)

THE TERM
Yes, I think we use intensity colloqually...."man that 1RM intense"
But in physics sounds intensity for example when compared to our situation is..
A constant variable the energy being produces, let's say an alarm going off
Is then applied to two other inversely correlated variables, the sound and the volume is ha to fill
As the sounds travels away from the source point its intensity (loudness) decreases as it was greater volume (a larger area / circle) to fill.

The constant energy (Sound) being released from the point source could be compared the constant of intensity which is 100$ energy usage (reps max)

The sound moving away from the point source has to fill greater volume, this volume increase could be compared to reps 1 rep is less area 10 reps is a greater area.

When the reps (area) is low, the weight (sound intensity) can be greater.

Although I believe the term Intensity likely originated colloquially ("Man that 1RM was intense"), it can be argued that without a discrete term to describe the correlation between how quickly a system is using energy (weight per rep) and how quickly that system will run out of energy (with-in 5 reps), the term intensity (physics) can be highjacked.

Hope this makes sense.

CF essentially sells High Intensity Programming that creates far greater neuroendocrine response for less investment than typical Gym "Mod Training". so CF delivers a far greater return on investment.

Even the UNs world health org, has gotten in on the act and started redefining its fitness prescription to include high intensity and weights.

My main issue is this, my experience so far is that High Intensity has a negative connotation to the public, it sounds scary, and has been high-jacked by the media as dangerous.

We use Neuroendocrine Training...out this can sound a little snakeoil-ish to the avg punter.

Just some thoughts.

Sean


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.