Originally Posted by
SamiTheFrenchman
Specifically, in the context of the Stress-Recovery-Adaptation cycle, I have heard Rip and other coaches refer to a workout as a dose of stress.
The first definition that comes to mind would be, in line with Hans Selye, a disruption of homeostasis. Where I find this unsatisfactory is that this is not quantifiable.
When some particular set / rep / weight increment protocol starts to fail (3 sets of five, adding 5lb per workout), the explanations tend to be that it is either too much stress (squat for example) or too little (bench), and we need to modify the protocol to adjust the stress.
This implies that a physical quantity that would measure stress would be a function of multiple factors: reps per set, number of sets, load, range of motion…
On the other hand, the practical approach I have heard from my coach is the following: if you are not recovered at the next workout, it means we applied too much stress and you are not recovering fast enough. If you are failing to lift the increased load, it means we did not apply enough stress to produce an adaptation. This is very simple, but does not allow us to compare two workouts directly. For example, moving from 3x5 twice a week to volume day (5x5) / intensity day (5x1) on the bench has the same number of reps per week, but the load on the volume day is smaller than previously on 3x5, and the load on the intensity day is higher. It is not clear a priori that this is more stress than 3x5.
This is where the case for NLP and intermediate programming from PPST goes from first principles to phenomenology.
Don’t get me wrong, both are necessary, but the further we can extend first principles, the better.
All this prompts me to ask the following questions:
What is stress? Is it quantifiable? Are the factors listed above sufficient to measure it?
Or is it vain to try to quantify it, our only option being to measure stress by recovery and adaptation?