Dude, i spent no time finding that quote…and YOU were the one who even mentioned quotes!
Dude, you must be talking to yourself. You have chimed in numerous times making incorrect statements, just as you did on this one. We’re not talking about overall intensity or CNS impact, we were discussing intensity as it relates to load in the weight room, and I was/am using the term correctly. You pulled a quote to defend your argument, but the fact remains that in the weight room, intensity is defined as the % of 1RM.
And you say i don’t understand what i read on here? What is the basis of that statement? You don’t know me at all, you know nothing about my education level or experiences. Who has mentored me, what i’ve read, what conferences i’ve been to, who i’ve watched and spoke with…nothing! Shall i go and tell all the coaches, presenters, proffessors etc that i’ve heard speak about insensity that they are wrong?
Again, we were not talking about CNS impact, we were talking about load. You can’t seem to understand the difference. Many things, including sprinting with no load, are very CNS intensive. Everyone on this board knows that. But when discussing loads in the weightroom, intensity has a specific definition. A 1RM is a maximum intensity load, but if there is only a few ‘maximum intensity loads’ performed, it actually doesn’t impact the CNS with relatively great intensity compared to 600m of max v work. One word, two slightly different uses, depending on context. YOU changed the context…we were never talking about CNS impact, only loads and rep ranges. And you were wrong.
STOP changing your arguments all the damn time…You said ONLY…i said it isn’t ONLY to do with heavy weights…You speak in absolutes and then change it when your made to look stupid. You’ve done it all through this thread.
I have been consitently talking about the same thing…the load range, or intensity, and its impact on max strength. If the context changed, you changed it, not me. You are the one looking stupid continuing to defend an incorrect statement. You were wrong.
How do you have a high intensity plyo workout or anything of that nature? It’s also known that one of the most highly intense times of the training year is the time that doesn’t include a high percentage of heavy lifting. So how is this? You can have a very high intense workout and never lift above 30%…Anyone in the field or who knows anything about S&C knows this…
Why and how can you even argue against it…
I’m not, and never have. You have tried to change the context of the discussion, not me, to cover up a stupid post. And yes, you can have an impact on your CNS using no load at all, but thats not what we’re talking about. Intensity has been defined, as it relates to load in the weightroom, as % of 1RM, period. The word intensity can be used to describe many things, some that don’t even relate to training. We weren’t talking about that it either. We were talking about load in the weightroom. Period.
The funny thing is, so many people on this site alone have told you numerous times that your wrong, or your ideas aren’t accurate etc etc etc…but you still ignore most of them becuase your head is too far up you know where…You honestly need to listen to others a lot more.
Funny thing is, only a few people agree with you and Daven about 70% loads being as effecient, or even more effecient, for building max strength. Is Mike still your coach? Ask him if including reps in the 85% intensity range is beneficial. Do you not even know what your own coach advocates? That’s one of the reasons why I beleive you don’t understand fully the importance of strength, and how it is best developed.
And ironically, you have been posting that you are considering giving up catches on cleans (something Mike thinks is very imporant) just to increase the load of your pulls. Why give up the benefits of eccentric loading on the catch just to increase the load on your pulls if lifting at 70% is the best way to develop strength and explosive power? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.