importance of training intensity of body fat reduction

[fathead]

lets take cardio out of the equation of the getting ripped equation for a second and assume its being done optimally.

how important is training intensity and being an animal while weight training in the scheme of things when were talking about getting lean?

i have always been diligent with my cardio but my training sessions are in all reality not balls to the wall.... thoughts?

[JifeLacket]

IMO all lifting should be 100%. Of course with proper de-loading every 4-6 weeks so you don't get 'burnt out' but why go lift at 60% every session? While on diet i'm sure reps and max weight are down (lets say 20%) due to glycogen etc etc but that doesn't mean lifting at 80%. Still 100% intensity, one is just moving 80% of previous max weight because of other factors, not slacking on training.

[ubcpower]

Also interested, i would like to see the difference between the Kcal burned of the exact same workout with exact same # of sets/poundages. However, one workout is done balls to the wall and one workout done maybe 70% intensity (not every set until failure and maybe longer rest periods).

For example Leg workout (100% intensity) burns say 1000kcal , would the 70% intensity workout be significantly different....say only 1/2 kcals?

[bcaamuscle]

I've always found that if I train at a high intensity (low rest periods, and continuous tension on the muscle throughout each movement) I am to burn fat without needing to put myself through dreadmill training. Granted, I drop fat a hell of a lot faster doing cardio in addition to a weight training regimen

[Praetorian]

Intensity while dieting is relative to your energy levels...push hard and lift as heavy as possible but its not a marathon session and its not a race...take your time and let your strength levels return for each set. Training is about maintaining muscle...doing too much will increase cortisol and thats not good...keep it intense but not too long ie 75-90 ,minutes max...and dont rush it. Cardio burns fat...lifting maintains muscle...primarily.
Its called training smart.
P

[Thorgrim]

It is a complex question. First what is intensity? Would the way a power lifter trains with long rest periods and low reps be considered low intensity? Probably not it is just a different type of intensity. When I do very heavy squats sometimes my prostate fills like it is going to explode. I would say that is pretty intense.

If by intensity you mean the total volume of work done in a certain time period of time then I would say yes, that it does affect how much fat you burn.

German volume training, doing squats for 10x10 in 20 minutes is going to burn more fat during and after a workout then doing 5x5 squats in 20 minutes assuming that you put in a hard effort using both approaches.

[Praetorian]

It is a complex question. First what is intensity? Would the way a power lifter trains with long rest periods and low reps be considered low intensity? Probably not it is just a different type of intensity. When I do very heavy squats sometimes my prostate fills like it is going to explode. I would say that is pretty intense.

If by intensity you mean the total volume of work done in a certain time period of time then I would say yes, that it does affect how much fat you burn.

German volume training, doing squats for 10x10 in 20 minutes is going to burn more fat during and after a workout then doing 5x5 squats in 20 minutes assuming that you put in a hard effort using both approaches.

The question was not whether intense training burns calories ie fat...I think everyone realizes that it does. The question was what role does intense training play in the getting lean process in relation to cardio etc. The answer as stated above is that the primary role of training is to maintain your lean mass...the primary role of cardio is to burn bodyfat. If you increase volume and increase the tempo of your workout you are in essence REDUCING intensity and thus reducing the weight you are able to move and thus there is more of a risk of dropping muscle...ie use it or lose it.

The question of intensity is an easy one...low reps and higher weight = higher intensity. Anytime you increase reps you are dropping the level of intensity as intensity is determined by the level of CNS stimulation. 10 sets of 10 ie german volume in not intensity its high volume...do not misinterpret high volume as easy...its not...but there is a huge difference when you speak intensity and many people misinterpret what intensity means.

You can also see the level of intensity by the time required to recover from that set or exercise.
As an example:
-1 set of deadlifts doing 10 reps to failure with 405lbs will take the average trained athlete 1 week to recover from
-1 set of a single rep with 705lbs PR will take the average trained athlete 2 weeks to recover from
Hence the higher level of CNS stimulation the higher the intensity the longer the recovery.


P

[Thorgrim]

I don't think the OP is clear as to what's being defined as intensity, that is why I said it was a complex question. You have made it pretty clear what you think intensity is but I don't necessarily agree that that is what the OP meant.

It is quite possible that the 10th rep of the 10th set of squats could feel just as hard as a 1 rep max squat. The one rep max could take longer for your CNS to recover but if you gave a 10x10 full effort it would likely take your muscles longer to recover then from the 1 rep max. I am usually more sore from high volume then from doing a 1 rep max.

I think what he meant was how does the level of effort effect fat burning regardless of your training protocol. For example how much more fat would you burn if you fail on the last rep of the 10th set then if you finish every set with a little left in the tank.

[Praetorian]

I don't think the OP is clear as to what's being defined as intensity, that is why I said it was a complex question. You have made it pretty clear what you think intensity is but I don't necessarily agree that that is what the OP meant.

It is quite possible that the 10th rep of the 10th set of squats could feel just as hard as a 1 rep max squat. The one rep max could take longer for your CNS to recover but if you gave a 10x10 full effort it would likely take your muscles longer to recover then from the 1 rep max. I am usually more sore from high volume then from doing a 1 rep max.

I think what he meant was how does the level of effort effect fat burning regardless of your training protocol. For example how much more fat would you burn if you fail on the last rep of the 10th set then if you finish every set with a little left in the tank.

When training while on a precontest diet or when trying to preserve muscle mass ie calorie deficit it is unnecessary to go to absolute failure. Training this way does little more than raise cortisol levels...it doesnt cause more fat loss if the volume is the same. Training as a BB on a precontest diet for muscle maintenance requires training in the 5-10 rep range which is more intense then if the rep range was say 15-20.

The question: how important is training intensity and being an animal while weight training in the scheme of things when were talking about getting lean?

The answer: as long as you are training very close to failure in the 5-10 rep range then your intensity level is adequate...but it will not increase fat loss to any significant extent by going to absolute failure...this will only increase cortisol and slow recovery especially on a calorie deficit. It is important to push the muscles using the heaviest weight possible in this rep range in order to maintain lean mass...but going to absolute failure is not necessary...remember you are NOT building muscle.

If you wanted to burn higher levels of body fat while training you could simply increase the volume and voila...however it would be at the expense of lean muscle tissue...not what we want in this case.

INTENSITY: this is not what I think intensity is...this is fact....im just repeating it....the level of intensity increases with the level of CNS stimulation required to lift X amount of weight. As i said the higher the weight and the lower the reps the higher the intensity....and the longer recovery period. Muscle soreness is not an adequate indicator of recovery...CNS recovery takes time because when training to failure the amount of neurotransmitters being used up outweighs the rate of reuptake resynthesis of acetyl choline thus over time there becomes a neurotransmitter deficit...ie overtraining which only time will rebuild...thus the longer recovery form a single PR
Higher reps do not tax the CNS as much as singles...you may feel more exhausted etc but that is not an indicator of intensity or CNS stimulation

If you mean the level of work as in volume than yes it would increase the amount of calories burned..ie more work=more calories burned

P

[Thorgrim]

I don't disagree.

I think higher intensity could be employed, perhaps in the early stages of dieting without risk but you are right at some point you would be too depleted to recover and you would just burn off muscle.

[JonnyO]

Prea obviously has his own ideas of intensity and training ideologies, as most trainers do and you will find everyone will have their own opinion of what intensity is. But Prea you come off as if the way you say it is the end all be all way, thats it. I dont agree with it, and that is just your idea of intensity as I mentioned.

[Praetorian]

Prea obviously has his own ideas of intensity and training ideologies, as most trainers do and you will find everyone will have their own opinion of what intensity is. But Prea you come off as if the way you say it is the end all be all way, thats it. I dont agree with it, and that is just your idea of intensity as I mentioned.

As i said its not my opinion I am just reiterating what those at the elite levels of sport (track & field, PL, BB, OL, etc) have been using as a training tool for the last 50 or more years...not just in North America but in the EU and old USSR as well. Itensity can be looked at as somewhat of a constant which is measured by work output (amount of CNS stimulation) of an athlete in a specific time period...whether he be a BB, sprinter, powerlifter , olympic lifter etc....intensity is still the same. Volume and intensity have an inverse relationship...if you would like to know more do some reading on articles by Charlie Francis, Louie Simmons, Tudor Bompa etc...the information is readily available. There is a common misconception that hard work which generally includes volume is high intensity this is not the case.

P



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix10WjQ9ycc

[fathead]

i really didnt mean intensity in terms of maximal cns stimulation at a technical level, i meant more so in terms of a "hard workout" where youre busting your guts, sweating, and feel like youre taxing your body. so yes, im referring to doing x amount of work or sets or reps over x amount of time and the effect that has on calories burned, fat burned, or metabolic effect

so perhaps my use of the word intensity is touchy, but i do see some pros out there who do pretty limited cardio and at least claim to rely somewhat on the effects of serious and "intense" training sessions to get them lean (of course in conjunction with diet etc)

[O-Train]

So what you're referring to is energy expenditure. Which as Praetorian explained has nothing to do with the commonly accepted definition of intensity but to a layman the term becomes much more ambiguous. Basically what you're asking is does burning more calories burn more calories...the answer is yes.

[Praetorian]

Bingo....doing more work equals burning more calories. You need to burn calories to get lean yes...but to me it seems much easier to do some cardio then to train in the gym for 3 hours...especially when your glycogen stores are very low and you are trying to keep cortisol to a minimum. A short intense training session ie 1-1.5 hours of lifting combined with lower intensity cardio seems much more efficient at burning calories and maintaining muscle...then three hours of killing yourself in the gym, driving cortisol up, potentially coverting amino acids into glucose for energy etc.
P

[moh2010]

Bingo....doing more work equals burning more calories. You need to burn calories to get lean yes...but to me it seems much easier to do some cardio then to train in the gym for 3 hours...especially when your glycogen stores are very low and you are trying to keep cortisol to a minimum. A short intense training session ie 1-1.5 hours of lifting combined with lower intensity cardio seems much more efficient at burning calories and maintaining muscle...then three hours of killing yourself in the gym, driving cortisol up, potentially coverting amino acids into glucose for energy etc.
P

I was thinking that its after 45min of intense training that cortisol rise and testosterone start to diminish. Does this concern the natural athletes only?

[Praetorian]

1-1.25 hours is fine...yes it would definitely affect the natural athlete much more.
P