Wiping yourself out with intense exertion, or even just doing a few reps with the more objective intensity measure of %max will not matter if you only are doing it once a month. If that's the intended meaning, I guess "consistency trumps intensity" might be less ambiguous. And heck, that's probably the most agreed on thing in fitness. There's even monetary incentive for the less knowledgable or even intentionally controversial coaches to agree
And conversely, if you employ "intensity" as %1RM, it's meaning in strength training, it becomes equally clear that working with very light loads with metronomic consistency is just as ineffective.
Good or bad the body will adapt. Depending on your lifestyle and activity level and quality you can make your body strong and resilient, or dysfunctional and injured.
Good or bad the body will adapt. Depending on your lifestyle and activity level and quality you can make your body strong and resilient, or dysfunctional and injured.
Nice. With the General Adaptation Syndrome model in mind - a Stress is followed by Recovery then an adaptive response in the direction of making the Stress less threatening in the future.
It's important to understand that retiring and sitting in a chair watching reruns of Matlock - is a Stress. The "Recovery" in this "backward-running" paradigm is better labeled as "Response" and the subsequent Adaptation is detraining culminating in the active shedding of that which is no longer needed: the ability to produce appreciable force, then finally the ability to move.
So while we can argue about what constitutes positive stress and how much may be required, the model can at least clarify how we might speak a common language about such things.
Last edited:
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.