Rethinking Load & Intensity: Valuing Bodyweight Work and Effort

Obstacles bring opportunity.

For many athletes and athletic development coaches, this is the first time they have not had access to a facility and traditional weight training equipment. Can we really do effective work with non-traditional/submaximal implements and bodyweight movements?

ABSOLUTELY.

This is our opportunity to see the power of simplicity. The power of consistency, intention and effort. Done well. Applied over time.

This is a great opportunity to reflect upon our ideas about intensity and load -- and the traditional definitions (%1 RM) we use to drive programming and periodization. The development of equipment to easily measure barbell velocity has prompted many coaches to seriously think about how they use a barbell. Many now see value in lighter absolute loads on the bar.

Can we get more coaches to value movements that don't use a bar? Maybe now we can. Because they are being forced to use bare-minimum loads. Maybe more coaches will actually try and do the bodyweight and other non-traditional work they've always seen as inferior to the "real" strength work.

We must learn to value and apply work that doesn't have a traditional method of quantification. Rise above the cult of heavy. Find value in the development of graceful, coordinated expression of physicality.

We have rigid definitions of "load" and "intensity" for training, relying on numbers to quantify everything. These numbers drive periodization and yearly training plans. They fit nicely into elaborate Excel spreadsheets.

Bodyweight and non-traditional resistance training implements force us to think outside the %1RM box. They ask us to understand "load" and "intensity" differently. They ask us to see "quality" and coach quality over "load." They ask us to value loads that are traditionally seen as too light to really do anything productive with regard to the development of useful strength. Research in strength, as it relates to performance, tends to emphasize the value and pursuit of maximal strength.

Now is the time to open our minds. If we only value maximal strength and practicing for the test of maximal strength (1RM), then we miss out on many other aspects of strength and it's role in developing athleticism -- that quality not easily captured in a spreadsheet.

Can we see the value in approaching the 1 rep/sec bodyweight squat -- even though you don't have anything actually giving you a number to record?

Can we train our eyes to see what productive / quality movement is?

Can we feel the value of multi-planar movements in our hips and spine?

Can we see the value in using timed sets? 1:1 and 2:1 work to rest ratios in the development of relative strength?

Can we rethink ideas on effort? And the value of consistency of effort? 

I like this discussion of effort from James P. Fisher, James Steele, Dave Smith, Paulo Gentil in their article "Periodization for optimizing strength and hypertrophy; the forgotten variables" from the Journal of Trainology. Who knew there was such a thing? Anyway, these guys ask us to think differently. Link to the full article here:

A key aim of periodization is to manage or reduce the risk of overtraining through modification of variables over time2. However, whilst fatigue and recovery are usually discussed, it is interesting that effort is not referred to. For example, Williams, et al.3 repeatedly discussed training intensity in reference to the load (% 1-repetition maximum; RM) being used. It has been suggested that intensity might best be thought of as the effort applied, rather than the load used9 and further that intensity actually refers to a measure of something and as such requires clarity (e.g., intensity of effort) when used, or should be dropped from the lexicon when discussing RT10. The use of the term intensity in reference to load is a relatively common error in RT publications, however as Leo Tolstoy stated; “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it”.11 The maximal number of repetitions performed at the same relative load (% 1RM) shows considerable heterogeneity across the population, as well as variation between exercises.12-14 Therefore, the effort required by an individual to complete a set number of repetitions at a particular relative load can differ between and even within individuals. As such, it has been argued that, not only should the term intensity be avoided and instead load or effort simply used,10 but that effort should be considered with respect to proximity to momentary failure and controlled by appropriate definition and applications of set endpoints15.

I hope this unanticipated time outside of traditional weight rooms gives coaches the opportunity to think about the why and how of "strength" and the time to explore the world of bodyweight and non-traditional resistance training implements. These are powerful tools that are effective at every level of athletic development. They are the foundations of basic physical health and infrastructure. As coaches, we must become comfortable dosing and using movements that are not easily defined by programming software or some % of a 1RM.

This is the art of building strength "in" vs "on." This is the art of coaching and human performance.