Since working with speed-power athletes I've always defined intensity as a % of what a person is capable of relative to their 100% maximal. So in weightlifting terms, I'm basically speaking of activities in the 85+% range or activities performed with maximal speed. One way I like to differentiate / reconcile the various different definitions of intensity by making a clear cut distinction between effort and intensity. Most coaches and athletes understand effort regardless of their background (endurance vs. speed power) or sport. As a general guideline:
*High intensity activity = very high effort over a very short period of time.
*Medium intensity activity = medium to high effort over a short to medium duration period of time.
*Low intensity activity = low to medium effort over a short to medium duration of time.
Mike, I agree with everything you state here. One question, though. In my opening post I wrote…
"This same problem with semantics plagues strength training, and is compounded by the fact that PRs aren't set in just a single lift, such as the squat, they are also set at different rep levels. For example, a lifter may have a 1RM of 500 in the squat, a 2RM of 475, and 3RM of 460. My understanding of the scientific literature, (or at least those who attempted to quantify) is that in order to make optimum progress in strength and power, a significant percentage of reps must be done at a high "intensity", at least 90% of 1RM."
If you instructed a lifter to do a five reps at 90% intensity, would you be referring to 90% of 1RM, or 90% of 5RM? This may seem anal, but there is a big difference between 5RM and 1RM. A lifter doing 5 reps at 90% of 5RM may actually be lifting at less than 80% of 1RM.
Again, I ask because many powerlifting types, like the Westside crew, imply that you really need quite a few reps per week in the >90% of 1RM to make optimal progress. Is that your understanding?