Well the reason it's confusing is because you are using stepped sets (or at least different weights). If it had been all the same weight sets then it would be very clear.
volume is reps x sets
workload is reps x sets x weight
Simple enough right.
Here is why you are confused. You are looking at individual weights. You are thinking 450 versus 455 versus 435 and all of that. What you have to realize is that when you are increasing density and volume, you are really only concerned with the average intensity.
The difference between 435 and 455 is about 4 percent. The difference between 450 and 455 is negligible. That means for the purposes of these workouts, whether you hit 455 versus 450 really doesn't matter. And if you were to choose all sorts of weights between 435 and 455 it still wouldn't matter if you were able to keep the average instensity on par.
Get the average intensity:
Take the workload: 6585
And divide it be the total sets: 15
439 is the average
So that is your median weight.
So think about that as all you HAVE to do on average in terms of weight. Then think about the top weights 450 or 455 as what you'd LIKE to do.
Now I don't know what you are able to put on the bar. But say you did 440 x 4 x 4. That would increase density while keeping the intensity within the proper range.
But since you looking to 'blitz' it for a short time period, you would LIKE to go heavier.
So any thing heavier than that 440 for sets of 4 would do it. And you'd need at least 4 sets. Preferably at least one of those sets at 450 or 455 but it is not completely necessary at all.
Your plan increases the density of the sets but it lowers the volume so that within the time frame of the workout the total density is lower.
Look at density as the amount of work you do in a certain time frame. Well there are different time frames within a workout, right?
One timeframe is the time from the beginning of one rest period to the end of the next, for instance. The beginning and end can be any point of reference, really.
Say the rest period is 5 minutes, then a set, then another 5 minute rest periods. The time it takes you to do the reps is negligible. That is, assuming you are doing one after another as quick as you can safely, the time it would take to add another rep or two doesn't add time to your frame.
So assuming all that, you add reps to any set you increase the density in that way.
But there is also the timeframe of the entire session. If you take the individual sets and increase them all by one you've added maybe, what, 10 seconds or so to each of your time-frames. As far as your body is concerned the work has increased a LOT per unit of time.
Just increasing work per unit of time, in itself is increasig density. If you decrease the overall volume so that you are asking your body to do less overall work it's like you've traded work per unit of time for volume of work, see? So you want to try and at least match the overall volume..reps x sets.
And within that you think about workload. If you can match or beat the workload that would be great but workload is what throws us under the bus. Instead, think about the average intensity like I explained above and then think about maybe hitting your upper weight limits for at least one of your sets. And that set doesn't even have to be more dense.
Now, I know we don't time our workout precisely. This is not 'density' training. We are assuming that our rest periods are reasonably similar and our rep cadense is fairly constant. So your workout is separated into several timeframes that contain a set, and those timeframes make up the total time which is the session.
As long as you increase work in some, most, or all of those timeframes and don't do less overal volume or take more overall time..you've increased density.
It's hard to spell this out in a precise way. It's quite intuitive.
No comments:
Post a Comment