CLICK HERE for a podcast about this topic (episode 221 of Running Stronger)
When most people talk about training, they overlook a really important concept:
The difference between absolute and relative intensity.
Absolute intensity is an objective measurement.
It’s how much weight you lift.
It’s how far you run.
It’s how fast you run.
Relative intensity, however, is much more subjective.
It’s how much weight you lift compared to how much you’re capable of lifting.
It’s how far you run compared to how far you’re capable of running.
It’s how fast you run compared to how fast you’re capable of running.
When it comes to training, both of these concepts are incredibly important and we need to know how to use them in order to write an effective training program.
For example, let’s look at a 200-pound deadlift.
For me, that’s not that heavy.
It’s a bit less than half of what I’m capable of deadlifting.
So while it has the potential to provide some sort of stimulus, a single, standard deadlift at that weight isn’t going to do much for me.
In order for it to be beneficial, I would need to do multiple reps or focus on something like “bar speed” in order to make it useful.
Yet if I were to give that to my 83-year-old client, Nancy, she would have no hope of even moving that weight.
I’d say it would be unsafe, except it would be so heavy for her that she couldn’t really even hurt herself.
For all intents and purposes, I might as well tell her to lift a house.
Yet it’s still 200 pounds.
Same absolute intensity.
Incredibly different relative intensity.
This is why you don’t tend to see generic lifting programs written as “4 sets of 5 reps at 200 pounds.”
For some people, it would be too heavy.
For others, it would be too light.
Yet when it comes to running, this kind of programming is the norm.
Whenever you see a program written largely in “miles,” you are looking at a program focused predominantly on absolute intensity with very little regard for relative intensity.
Which is why far more programs should be written in terms of time.
It’s a better indicator of relative intensity and will therefore be a better tool to give you the stimulus you need.
Let’s imagine someone, Lucy, can run a 17-minute 5k.
For Lucy, something like “mile repeats at 5k pace” will largely be a VO2 Max stimulus.
She’s going to work incredibly close to her maximum heart rate for a little more than 5 minutes at a time.
Standard (albeit terrible) top-end training stimulus.
Now let’s imagine someone else, Greg, can run a 30-minute 5k.
For Greg, the same workout, “mile repeats at 5k pace,” will be more of a lactate threshold stimulus.
Same mileage.
Same workout (on paper).
Very different stimulus.
Let’s also imagine a midweek 10- to 12-mile medium-long run.
For Lucy, that’s probably 60-75 minutes of work in zone 2 because her aerobic threshold pace is very likely in the range of a 6-7 min/mi.
For Greg, the same 10-12 mile workout might take the better part of three hours.
Those are not the same.
Lucy is getting a medium-length, moderately-paced bit of work.
Greg is getting a very long, slow-paced effort where he’ll have to focus on a lot of fuel and hydration.
Both are valuable.
They’re not the same.
And they shouldn’t be programmed as if they are.
When programming, either for ourselves or for others, we really have to take both relative and absolute intensity into account.
If we don’t, we’re unlikely to get the amount of work we need in order to successfully achieve our goals.
If you aren’t quite sure how to do this for yourself, then hit reply.
I’d be happy to chat with you.
I still have a few coaching slots open for the summer.