Recording workouts to track progress - how to measure intensity

[Myrmecia]

I have settled on timing the duration of my work sets (not the warm-up sets).

I am recording:
• weight lifted (iron + an appropriate proportion of body weight)
• sets
• reps
• distance lifted
• duration of work sets.

For example, on Monday I did chins with:
• 18.75 kg (41 lbs) weight suspended from my waist;
• 8 sets
• 6 reps per set
• distance: 1.8 feet
• I weigh 80kg, but I'm estimating I'm effectively lifting only 65kg of that
• The 8 sets took me a total of 12 minutes.

That gives me 15,921 ft lbs or 1,327 ft lbs a minute for my chins.

I find it's a useful way to compare intensity as I progress through a cycle.

Is this a valid measure? Any comments?

[phalzee]

I am quite bewildered by this post. What does it have to do with Starting Strength? What were the other options that you rejected in favor of this arcane system? What's wrong with linear progression as described in the books? Foot/pounds?

[Gene61]

Given that 1 watt = 1.36×ft-lb/sec your math would have you doing 16 watts of work doing your pullups, averaged over the time period. This is indeed a way to measure intensity, like the stationary bikes do. Not sure that it matters that much for strength training. Measuring strength by the ability to move a certain weight a certain number of reps, seems to be more pertinent.

[Mark E. Hurling]

I have to agree with Gene. I use an Excel spreadsheet to forecast the weight I will be using and the reps I am aiming for and record that. When I use a 5-3-1 I get a little fancy with the Wendler projections week to week but in the same way as when I use sets and reps in a less complicated manner.

I don't know what the intensity buys you. If you want some measure of that I'd suggest a heart rate monitor. I get a damn good reflection of my cardio and intensity from that by reviewing my total calories burned as an algorithm of my heart rate.

[Keith Friedman]

Hi Myrmecia. You've obviously put some thought into this and come up with an interesting system.

Is it valid? To me, the primary purpose of tracking is to help you progress. If this helps you, it's valid.

A minor point: the term "intensity" frequently refers to the percentage of your maximum that you use for work sets.

[Oldster]

Wow Mermecia, that is a whole lot of thought going in to recording!

I just record my workout. Every set, every rep of every movement. Then a few notes as to how things went. When I need to change things up I'll go back through my notes and see what worked and what didn't, what produced the most gains and go from there.

In my own personal opinion, the battle with iron is something that is hard to do yet oh so simple. The biggest problem is ALWAYS over thinking the process.

[Mark E. Hurling]

The biggest problem is ALWAYS over thinking the process.

The paralysis of analysis. Followed closely by Chronic Routine Changing (CRC).

[pkelly54]

Myrmecia, your method records numbers with units of work (ft-lbs) and power (ft-lbs/time), but I don't believe there is any significance to the numbers. The strength gains starting strength focuses on is measured by the max weight. Your measurements seem to focus on a Crossfit style of workout. The difference is similar to comparing a maximum deadlift to time on a stationary bike. Oldster and Mark are both correct on two important factors, but I think your analytical approach in not on the same page as they are. If you doing a cross fit endurance type program intensity will have one meaning. If you are doing a Starting Strength program, intensity will have a different meaning. I hope this helps.

[Myrmecia]

Thanks everybody!

My workout log might look complicated if it's the first time you have come across it, but all I am doing in addition to what you are (apparently) doing is measuring the time I am taking on my work sets. You already record your weight, reps and sets. I have also measured the distance the iron travels, but that never changes - it's always the same for any given exercise.

I was looking at Mark's discussion of intensity in Practical Programming for Strength Training. On page 55 he writes "Intensity is the amount of weight lifted, or the average amount of weight lifted in a workout, or group of workouts, in relation to 1RM". A few pages on he discusses power and this requires measuring the time taken for each lift, using Newton meters to derive watts. I gave up a focus on power 10 years ago (for 3 months in 2002 I held the world record for my age group for the 500 metre Concept 2 sprint), but if I was still interested in it, I'd be tracking that too and aiming to improve it. "Paralysis by analysis" to some people can be to others just adding to their understanding and taking out some of the subjectivity. Fun, too, if your workouts are part of an enjoyable lifetime hobby and not just a chore, a reluctant obligation or a penance. Back in the 1960s through to the 1980s, I'd record each workout (but not in the way I have described), yet I don't think I ever went back to analyze it. Today I see guys in the gym writing down what they lift, but I wonder if they are learning anything, or just "keeping a log" because it's what every guide recommends.

To me Mark's definition of intensity omits the important dimension of time. If I took a couple of hours for a workout, I could lift a greater total weight, but because of the longer rests between lifts, it would seem to me to be a less "intense" workout than one in which the total weight lifted was less and so was the time.

As you so rightly say, if it helps me it's valid. I like to have an objective measure that takes into account time, as I feel this enriches my perception of progress from workout to workout. When I get off my bike after the ride home from the gym, I feel great. But sometimes I feel fantastic - just swimming in a sea of endorphins - and I want to track what creates that buzz. Maybe it has something to do with the speed with which I complete the workout; recording the variables I listed in my OP, perhaps I can pinpoint this.

One final point, I have never thought of this as anything like a CrossFit approach. For example, today my 8 deadlift worksets of just 5 reps across took 10 minutes, so you can see I spent far more time puffing, recovering, tidying up etc. than I did lifting. A Cross Fitter would regard me as boring, as missing the best part of the challenge, as stuck in the old-fashioned, passé basic lifts. I hope they're still at it, loving it, 47 years on - but I doubt it.

[Mac Ward]

To me Mark's definition of intensity omits the important dimension of time. If I took a couple of hours for a workout, I could lift a greater total weight, but because of the longer rests between lifts, it would seem to me to be a less "intense" workout than one in which the total weight lifted was less and so was the time.

You have a different goal/approach than Rip. Rip wants you to lift as much weight as possible. He doesn't care how many times you cycle a 45lb bar to increase your work performed - that does not equate to a bigger 1 RM.

Rest will be dictated by the amount of time it takes to recover - without getting cold.

If your goal is to do more work faster, while training faster, well then, you're not truly interested in SS. If you want a bigger Press/Bench/Squat/DL - then the other calculations are, interesting, and that's about it. SS will allow you to cycle the smaller weights faster, but cycling the smaller weights won't necessarily bump your 1 RM.

If you're rushing to get the next set and not recovered from the last, you clearly won't do as well - it's a matter of goals, and your opinion is the only one that matters when it comes to your goals.