Other/Mixed Too much, too little, or just right?

[Justin_M]

When it comes to training volume load, how much is too much and how little is too little?

For strength training I have tried to align with Intensity Number of Lifts (INOL) to choose appropriate intensity and volume and have found certain ranges for different lifts. Attached is a paper on it. The gist is to sum the number of lifts divided by the inverse intensity to get a value. There are guidelines for what is too little volume, what's good for overloading, and what is too much. Those guidelines exist for both individual sessions and weekly cumulative values. It has been a good way to ensure my lifts are in an appropriate range to cause "good" adaptation. Here are the rough guidelines from the paper:

	Individual Session	Weekly
Minimum Effective Dose (MED)	0.4	?
Maximum Adaptable Volume (MAV)	1.0	3.0
Maximum Recoverable Volume (MRV)	2.0	4.0

I think it is important to consider that between MAV and MRV is a place that seems to be "wasted" in my experience. I am able to recover from it but I've still maxed out the adaptation and it just requires me to get more volume later on to meet the MAV. It's that area where more isn't better, it's just more.

Conditioning on the other hand is more elusive to me for identifying the appropriate individual training session volume load and the cumulative weekly training volume load. Other than anecdotal experience and recommendations provided by experienced coaches, I don't know if there is a better way to choose a training volume load for conditioning. Perhaps, there is a similar method of using the minutes of effort with the intensity of heart rate.

I am curious to learn of the methods others use for determining MED, MAV, and MRV for conditioning.

 

[wespom9]

There is (IMO) a FANTASTIC book called "Agile Periodization" by Mladen Jovanovic that discusses many ways to look at this, although he definitely stops short at assigning an INOL to each specific lift - I propose that to be impossible as there are far too many factors. He cites Hristov as well in his discussion

The book is part philosopher, part S&C and I can't recommend it enough. Besides that aspect, he works in a team sport setting, as do I, so perhaps that's why his discussion rings true for me. Many S&C books focus on lifting for the lifter (oly/power), or the rec lifter that still focuses on lifting.

 

[Justin_M]

My Polar watch and accompanying software use TRIMP which I've found some content about. It is essentially (intensity * duration) with modifications made by various researchers to fit different intensity focuses. I did find a recommendation for TRIMP values being

• <70: Easy
• 70-140: Moderate
• >140: Hard

Instead of straight percentages, using a multiplier for the intensity zone seems like a common modification. The 3 zone method uses AeT and AnT as the demarcation lines. The 5 zone basically breaks up the top and bottom into two separate zones each.

One of the things I've come across recently was Work Endurance Recovery (WER) which quantifies a ratio of work and recovery in relation to the endurance limit (think rep max). This seems like a hybrid between INOL and RPE and adaptable to different activities. I haven't come across recommended session values but some thoughtful comparison of popular sessions might reveal some commonalities.

 

[wespom9]

Truly and effectively quantifying physiological load might be the next big frontier in sports performance. I think great strides have been done in motor control, motor learning, injury reduction, strength/power of course, RSA for team sports, I think many sports are getting closer to how much strength is "enough".... just incredible.