Uncomplicated Fitness, Part 2
Previously we defined energy systems, so now it’s time to look at how to define difficulty and complexity. Despite what “science” says, no amount of intensity will make up for a lack of volume. HIIT has become the darling of the “evidence based” world, but is all too congruent with our insatiable desire for short-term commitment and short-term results.
Part 1 of this series focused on operational and experiential definitions of the 6 energy systems I develop my fitness training around. Often times this characterizes the focus of a given training block or program.
Individual sessions may focus on a specific energy system, but the intention or objective of the session can be specified by a difficulty or intensity measure as well. Is the goal today to test my limit or is it to recover from yesterday’s hard training?
After choosing an energy system of focus and an intentional difficulty we can use our creativity and various structures (e.g. rep/set schemes) and implements (e.g. bodyweight or barbells) to achieve those objectives.
Part 3 of this series will zoom out and use Part 1 and Part 2 to structure weekly programming and entire training blocks, as well as provide a “Choose Your Own Adventure” template.
Difficulty and Intensity Descriptions:
Subjective rating scales such as Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) are just that, and assessment of perception, which assumes that our perception is accurate.
We’ve all had days we “weren’t feeling it” and still produced good results. Conversely, we’ve also had days where our smartwatch / fitness-device produced a number that said “we’re recovered and ready to train”, but we felt like trash or tried to train anyway with dismal results.
I don’t think the RPE scale is bad, it just belongs in the “reflection” part of a training session. It’s the subjective counterpart to the objective results (e.g. weight lifted, miles ran, calories burned, etc.).
The term “intensity” is therefore highly subjective and equally misleading. “Difficulty” on the other hand, also depends on the limitation you’re challenging or the adaptation you’re seeking.
Controlled articular rotations (CARs) are hard because they, by definition, challenge our ability to move; but it’s a very different “hard” than aerobic capacity. Refer back to the emotional responses in Part 1 if you need more clarification on this.
This is the 5-point difficulty scale that I use in my training:
OFF: Passive Rest. You didn’t do any intentional training at all.
Rebound (RBND): Active Rest. You trained with the intention of feeling more restored and better prepared to train tomorrow after today’s session.
Cultivation (CUL): If it doesn’t fit another category, it probably goes here. This has the widest range of application; more exhausting than a “rebound” session, but not a structured “development” progression either.
Development (DEV): You trained with intention, focus, significant effort, at great recovery cost, and as part of progressive overload.
Test (TEST): Your level of effort came with risk and provided an accurate assessment, reflecting your current state and if training has produced the desired adaptation.
The term “active recovery” has become synonymous with willy-nilly, unstructured, and unfocused activity; similarly to how mobility has come to mean “yoga and some static stretching stuff.”
I much prefer the term “rebound training” from the Morpheus platform because it implies a specific intentionality.
This also isn’t as simple as adhering to fixed output levels (e.g. heart rate zones) for an arbitrary amount of time. It takes quite a bit of skill to get these sessions right as you need sufficient stimulation and blood flow, but don’t want to take away training time / recovery energy from your main focus or development sessions.
Cultivation sessions are more about art and expression than structured builds. Ask a question, use your existing knowledge to seek an answer. What we’re trying to “cultivate” here is curiosity and confidence; hopefully with minimal consequences. Meanwhile, we’re going to allow more risk and be far less restrictive than the above rebound sessions.
Development sessions are the “go hard days.” The Morpheus framework calls this the “overload” zone. However, keep in mind that we want that overload to be “progressive” and also provide sufficient recovery to adapt to that stimulus.
These sessions are so-named because we should be developing or building a specific attribute. This is the big-burner on the stove, the main dish. In sport, think of competitions as “tests” and scrimmages / sparring as development. The later builds skill, but also resilience and novel adaptation.
Setting an Intention:
Just like programs as a whole, each session should have a goal (intention). We should also have a process to see if that goal was met (reflection). In between those two we can employ various structures (rep/set schemes), movements (exercises), and implements (tools and equipment).
Whether it’s for whole programs, a given week, or a specific day, energy system related intentions might look like:
What do I want to do (or get better at)?
What do I need to do (or get better at)?
We can then layer this with a difficulty-related intention and ask something like:
What sensation am I seeking?
Challenge myself?
Test myself?
Build confidence?
Maintain an attribute of secondary focus?
How do I want to feel?
Get after it and grind?
Hard, short, and quick?
Easy, focused, and restorative?
Session Structure and Implements:
Obviously different implements and structures lend themselves better to different energy systems. However, it’s very much the spirit of “cultivation” sessions where we may mix things up for the sake of learning and experiencing what atypical pairings may feel like.
Here are some of the structures I use:
Monostuctural: defined by duration (e.g. 30 minutes)
Straight Sets: defined by sets and reps (e.g 3 x 3, 2 x 10, 5 x 2, etc.)
Every Minute, On the Minute (EMOM): one minute intervals with a given amount of work to do each interval. Usually this is also written with total time descriptor as well (EMOM/10 = every minute, on the minute, for 10 minutes).
As Many Reps / Rounds As Possible (AMRAP): similar to EMOMs, you’re give an workflow that repeats without rest for a total time duration (e.g. AMRAP/60 = as many rounds as possible in 60 minutes).
Descending: a reducing set structure (e.g. a given exercise(s) done for 50-40-30-20-10 reps each, 150 reps for each exercise).
Ascending: an accumulating set structure (e.g. sets of 10-20-30-40-50 reps for each identified exercise).
Reverse / Ladder (“to hell and back”): a descending structure followed by an accumulating structure (e.g. 50-40-30-20-10-20-30-40-50 reps of each identified exercise).
Circuit: also known as “chipper” or complex. This can be similar to an AMRAP, but usually “unbroken” or without breaking from the implement (e.g. putting the barbell down, letting go of the kettlebells).
Death-By… : a combination of EMOM and ascending structures where the load or rep requirements of a given movement are increased each minute (e.g. one burpee during the first minute, two during the second minute, three during the third minute, etc… until failure).
Implements are simply the tools being used. There’s a lot of fancy gear out there and “weaponized specificity” has made “functional training” a dirty word. At any rate, a few simple tools can take you a long way:
Erg / Cardio Equipment (bike, rower, ski-erg, etc.)
Dumbbells / Kettlebells
Barbell + Plates
Medicine Balls / Sandbags
Bodyweight
Resistance Bands
Boxes (for jumping / stepping on)
Results and Reflection:
The last two things we want to document for each training session are the results and a reflection. That is, what was produced and how do we feel about it?
The results are cut-and-dry, pure quantitative output:
Calories
Time
Distance
Load
Etc.
Reflections don’t have to be grandiose or profound. They just have to be accurate and honest. Obviously, after completing a program, or a test, a lot more may be provoked.
On the average day-in-day-out though, I really just want to know:
Was the session intention achieved?
Did the session contribute towards my weekly and program goals?
What did I learn that I didn’t know before?
Greg Everette has offered a pretty good prompt as well:
What worked well, and what allowed it?
What didn’t work, and why?
What’s my plan for next time?
All of these things offer valuable insights that we don’t get from quantitative results alone. They’re a vital part of learning to train yourself. No spreadsheet or coach can accurately predict what your training, recovery, stress, or adaptation will look like 6-weeks from now, let alone 12.
Furthermore, we should not only be achieving physical progress, but psychological clarity and understanding of our being. What’s learned from one session to the next (or one week to the next, one program to the next, one year to the next, etc.) should inform the goals and intention of the following interval.
