Redefining the relationship between Power and Intensity

[Sean J Hunter]

Originally Posted by Patrick A Horsman

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter

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]

Originally Posted by Dane Thomas

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]

Originally Posted by Chris Mason

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter

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]

Originally Posted by Steven Wingo

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]

Originally Posted by Chris Mason

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