← Sheiko Gold · forum archive

Sheiko Forum

Static archive of sheiko-program.ru/forum · Wayback merge · capture 20201112012928

Home · Universal Topics · Calculating Relative Intensity

Calculating Relative Intensity

6 posts · source: wayback

Source: Wayback Machine HTML · snapshot 20201112012928. Not present in the 2014-06-12 SQL dump.

rm_1994 · #1 · msg 8446
2018-03-11 10:17
Calculating Relative Intensity
Hello all, new member, happy to be here and have been enjoying going through the content of this forum

I am quite confused as to calculate the relative intensity.

For example I was reading the General Training Overview - Intensity, the Version 1 is laid out like this;

%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      4      1
70      3      1
80      3      2
90      2      3

Lifts = 24
Relative Intensity = 71.5%

How I tried to make sense of it is I added up the percentages and calculated the number of given percentages.

So 50+60+70+80+90 = 350 and 350 divided by 4 = 70.

But as it's laid out, it says the Relative Intensity is 71.5%.

I'm kind of lost here guys and any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance fellas.

RussianBear · #2 · msg 8447
2018-03-11 12:52
Re: Calculating Relative Intensity
Quote from: rm_1994 on March 11, 2018, 10:17:09 AM
Hello all, new member, happy to be here and have been enjoying going through the content of this forum

I am quite confused as to calculate the relative intensity.

For example I was reading the General Training Overview - Intensity, the Version 1 is laid out like this;

%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      4      1
70      3      1
80      3      2
90      2      3

Lifts = 24
Relative Intensity = 71.5%

How I tried to make sense of it is I added up the percentages and calculated the number of given percentages.

So 50+60+70+80+90 = 350 and 350 divided by 4 = 70.

But as it's laid out, it says the Relative Intensity is 71.5%.

I'm kind of lost here guys and any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance fellas.

The reason why it gives an intensity of 71.5 % is the following:

You forgot to multiply sets with reps and intensity . The right calculation is as follows:

50      5      1 = 5x50 = 250
60      4      1 = 4x60 = 240
70      3      1 = 3x70 = 210
80      3      2 = 3x2x80 = 480
90      2      3 = 2x3x90 = 540

Total volume = 250 + 240 +210+480+540 = 1720
Total reps =24
Max = 100

Relative intensity = 1720/24/100 ≈ 71.5 %

I hope it helped :)
Last edit: 2018-03-11 12:57
rm_1994 · #3 · msg 8448
2018-03-11 14:27
Re: Calculating Relative Intensity
Still quite confused pal.

I divided 1720 by 24 and on my calculator and I got 71.6666666667 haha.

And what does the "Max = 100" refer to?

Thank you for your help by the way  :)
RussianBear · #4 · msg 8449
2018-03-11 18:32
Re: Calculating Relative Intensity
Quote from: rm_1994 on March 11, 2018, 02:27:25 PM
Still quite confused pal.

I divided 1720 by 24 and on my calculator and I got 71.6666666667 haha.

And what does the "Max = 100" refer to?

Thank you for your help by the way  :)

You are almost there, if you divide the 71.6666 by 100 (your max) and round it to nearest 0.5 then you get 71.5%.

Max is best lift or 1RM (one rep max).

EXAMPLE 1:
1RM = 100. This gives the following:

%   reps   sets   weight
50%   5   1   50
60%   4   1   60
70%   3   1   70
80%   3   2   80
90%   2   3   90

then:
1. Multiplying "reps" with "sets" gets you "total amount of lifts"
2. Multiplying "total amount of lifts" with weight gives you "volume".

This is shown here:

%   Total lifts   Volume
50%   5   250
60%   4   240
70%   3   210
80%   6   480
90%   6   540


Then you add up the total amount of lifts and you get 24 reps/lifts. Similarly you do it for the volume, and this gets you a figure of 1720 kg. 

Dividing 1720 with 24 (1720/24) gives you the average amount of kg on the bar for an average lift/rep. This will become important in the next example. This numbers gives you 71.6666 and you need to divide it by your 1RM to get the relative intensity. This gives you 0.7166 -> rounding gives you 71.5%

EXAMPLE 2:
1RM = 200. This gives the following;

%   reps   sets   weight
50%   5   1   100
60%   4   1   120
70%   3   1   140
80%   3   2   160
90%   2   3   180


then:
1. Multiplying "reps" with "sets" gets you "total amount of lifts"
2. Multiplying "total amount of lifts" with weight gives you "volume".

This is shown here:

%   Total lifts   Volume
50%   5   500
60%   4   480
70%   3   420
80%   6   960
90%   6   1080

Then you add up the total amount of lifts and you get 24 reps/lifts like in the previous example. You don't make any more reps, so that stays the same. Similarly you do it for the volume, and this gets you a figure of 3440
 kg which is twice as much as before! But this makes sense, because you max is twice as high (200 now, 100 in example 1). So on average you lift a weight that is twice as high. 

Dividing 3440 with 24 (3440/24) gives you the average amount of kg on the bar for an average lift/rep. This numbers gives you 143.3333  and you need to divide it by your 1RM to get the relative intensity. so 143.3333 / 200 = 0.7166 !! which is the same number as before! So regardless of the max, the relative intensity is the same.

So the formula for the relative intensity can be summarized as "Total volume" / "Total amount of lifts" / "1RM"

If you are still confused, I can send you a stylized spreadsheet example in a personal message. 

Kind regards
RB



rm_1994 · #5 · msg 8450
2018-03-12 07:34
Re: Calculating Relative Intensity
AHHH!

Now I have it!

Thank you RussianBear for that explanation and clearing things up!

Again, delighted to be here

fabriciocovero · #6 · msg 9270
2019-04-01 23:19
Re: Calculating Relative Intensity
Sorry to bring this up again. Didn't want to create a new topic for the same subject.

I'm doing a relative intensity calculator on excel, but stepped in a problem.

If i'm doing only sets that are 100% relative intensity, shouldn't the average relative intensity be 100% too?

I figure that when I add up reps or sets, the average relative intensity goes down.

What am I missing here?