See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239731099

Quantifying Workloads in Resistance Training: A Brief Review

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

34 12,387

1 author:

Guy Gregory Haff

Edith Cowan University
276 PUBLICATIONS   5,208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Accentuated eccentric loading View project

Subjective Training Load and Performance in Open & Closed Skill Sports View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guy Gregory Haff on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quantifying Workloads in
Resistance Training: A
Brief Review
Dr. Greg Haff is an associate
professor in the Division of
Exercise Physiology at the West
Virginia University School of
Medicine. He has published
numerous research articles on
sport science related topics and
has been recognised by the
National Strength and Conditioning
Association as the Young
Investigator of the Year in 2001. In
2008 Dr. Haff received the
Distinguished Teaching Faculty
Award at the West Virginia
University School of Medicine. Dr.
Haff has served as a strength and
conditioning consultant for Team
Arrow a Collegiate Cycling Team,
Canadian Track Cycling champion
Mark Ernsting, and several other
national and international level
athletes. Dr. Haff is a Fellow of The
NSCA, a former NSCA board
member, a Regional Level
Weightlifting Coach, and a Level 3
Cycling Coach.
© UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 31
G. Gregory Haff, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.*D, ASCC, FNSCA
Summary
The ability to quantify training loads and volumes is of particular
importance when working with periodised training plans. The ability to
plan and monitor resistance training loads allows the strength and
conditioning professional the ability to modulate training stressors and
better manage fatigue which ultimately leads to a greater potential that
performance is optimized. In order to better understand the methods
available for monitoring resistance training variables, the present review is
designed to explore the various methods for quantifying training volumes
and intensities used in the design and monitoring of resistance training
programs.
Introduction
When designing and implementing a periodised training plan the ability to
manage training stressors is an influential factor in determining the overall
effectiveness of the training interventions.3,29 Through the modulation of
training stressors, a periodised training plan can enhance the recovery
adaptation process which will result in a dissipation of fatigue in concert
with an elevation of preparedness, and ultimately, performance capacity at
predetermined time points. The accomplishment of these goals is
dependent on the ability of the coach to estimate and evaluate the
workloads accomplished in the various aspects of the training plan. This
ability allows the coach to appropriately sequence and integrate all of the
athlete’s training stressors. If these factors are not considered and/or
monitored, the likelihood that the training programme will result in less
than optimal results will increase markedly.
Depending upon the sport, there are several distinct components of the
training plan including technical, tactical, metabolic conditioning, sprint
agility, endurance and resistance training. The ability to estimate or
directly calculate the training loads of each of these training factors allows
for a better understanding of the workload encountered by the athlete and
can give keen insight into the fatigue factors generated by the training
plan. Of particular importance is the ability to estimate the amount of
work that the athlete completes during the resistance training component
of the overall training plan.19 Generally, the volume of resistance training
performed is considered to be indicative of the work performed and
proportional to the caloric expenditure that is accomplished in the training
session, day or training cycle. Mathematically, the amount of mechanical
work accomplished can be calculated by multiplying the force by the
displacement during the resistance training exercise performed. For
example, if an athlete were to perform 5 repetitions of the back squat
with 150 kg and were to move through a vertical distance of 0.6 m, the
work accomplished would be calculated with the following equation:
Work = weight (kg) x vertical displacement (m) x number of repetitions
Work = 150 kg x 0.6 m x 5 = 450 kg·m-1 = 4413.0 J = 1.051 kcal
In this example, the athlete would have accomplished 450 kg·m-1 or
4413.0 J of work during the performance of this exercise. When this
information is determined for an exercise or training session, it allows the
strength and conditioning professional to gain an understanding about the
amount of work or caloric expenditure accomplished.27 Generally, it is
impractical and virtually impossible to measure the displacement
accomplished for each repetition of every exercise undertaken in a
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
 resistance training programme. However, the ability to
directly estimate or quantify workloads in the
resistance training environment appears to be on the
horizon. Emerging technologies such as accelerometers
and linear position transducers may offer a mechanism
for directly quantifying the work accomplished by
allowing for the assessment of vertical displacements,
which can then be used in conjunction with the training
load and volumes to create a more reasonable
estimate of workload and potentially caloric
expenditure.
While a direct assessment or calculation of work gives
valuable information to the strength and conditioning
professional at this time, it may be impractical to
directly calculate it, especially when working with large
groups of athletes. Therefore, the primary purpose of
this brief review is to explore the various methods for
estimating the training volume and intensity in
resistance training. These methods may be used as
part of the training programme design process or the
athlete monitoring process in order to give the strength
and conditioning professional or sports scientist
information about the resistance training stressors
encountered by the athlete. This may in turn allow for
a better management of fatigue, which can increase
the potential for optimising performance at predictable
pre-determined time points.
Methods for Estimating Training
Volume
When examining the periodisation literature, there are
three main methods that can be used for the
estimation of training volume in resistance training:
1) determination of total repetitions completed10,
2) calculation of the volume load3,9,27, and
3) calculation of the volume index.1
Repetition Method: The most basic method for
quantifying the volume of resistance training and
estimating the work accomplished, is the calculation of
the total repetitions that have been completed in an
exercise, during a training session or training cycle.
Based upon this method of determining work, 3 sets of
10 repetitions would result in the same amount of total
repetitions as 10 sets of 3 repetitions. While both
loading paradigms result in 30 total repetitions, the
two protocols would actually result in vastly different
amounts of total work or physiological stress. This
contention is supported by a recent study by McCaulley
et al.20 in which various repetitions and set schemes
had their mechanical work equated in order to quantify
the physiological responses to each loading structure.
In order to equate the mechanical work accomplished
with 4 sets of 10 repetitions performed at 75% of 1
repetition maximum (1-RM) (work = 84.2 ± 8.5 J x 10-
3
), a total of 11 sets of 3 repetitions were performed at
90% of 1-RM (work = 84.2 ± 19.7 J x 10-3). Careful
inspection of this data reveals that one loading
structure resulted in 40 total repetitions, while the
other resulted in 33 repetitions even though both
structures resulted in similar work outputs.
Additionally, each protocol resulted in vastly different
hormonal profiles, suggesting that even though the
volume of work was equated, the physiological stress
encountered was very different. The differentiating
factor appears to be the load encountered, thus the
best estimate of volume or workload must consider the
amount of weight lifted and not simply rely on the total
repetitions completed.
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
32 © UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
Therefore, it is generally accepted that while the repetition
method is very simple to calculate, it offers a poor
estimate of the amount of work or volume of training
completed in a resistance training bout or training
programme.3,27 Even though this method is a poor method
for estimating or quantifying the training volume and
workload, it has continued to be used by several
researchers who are exploring various resistance training
models24,25 and practitioners who work directly with
athletes. A more accurate approach would be to either
directly quantify work accomplished,19 or use estimates
which account for the actual weight lifted by the athlete27
when attempting to either quantify or equate training
loads when comparing various training interventions.
Volume Load: In an attempt to better estimate the
workload that is encountered in a resistance training
setting, the volume load is generally calculated.3,19,27,30
This estimate of workload expands upon the repetition
method for determining volume or workload by
accounting for the weight lifted during the resistance
training exercise or session.
Typically the volume of training is reported as a metric
ton,1,3,9 a short ton,2 or the volume load.3,27 Where
volume load is reported as a kilogramme value, while a
metric ton is equivalent to 1,000 kg and a short ton is
1,102.3 kg. To calculate either the metric ton or short
ton, one must first calculate the volume load and then
divide by either 1000kg to get a metric ton or 1,102.3
to get a short ton (Table 1).
In order to calculate the volume load there are two
distinct methods which can be performed, one equation
which utilises the absolute load lifted and one equation
which utilises the percentage of 1-repetiton maximum
(% 1-RM).3,9 The first equation for calculating the
volume load is accomplished by multiplying the number
of repetitions completed in an exercise by the actual
resistance encountered. This equation can be
represented as the following:
Equation 1: Volume load (kg) = number of sets x
number of repetitions x weight lifted (kg)
If, for example, an individual were to perform 3 sets of
10 repetitions in the back squat at 150 kg, the
calculation would be performed with Equation 1 as
follows:
Volume load (kg) = 3 x 10 x 150 kg = 4500 kg
The second equation for calculating the volume load is
accomplished by multiplying the number of repetitions
by the percentage of 1-RM.9 This equation is
represented as the following:
Equation 2: Volume load (kg) = number of sets x
number of repetitions x %1RM
Another way of looking at this equation would be to
consider the percentage as a factor of 100 kg. For
example, if the athlete were to lift at 67% of their
maximal capacity, the %1RM number would be
represented as 67 kg. Therefore, if the same individual
as presented above performed the back squat for 3
sets of 10 repetitions at 150 kg and this load
represented 67% of their 1-RM, the calculation would
be performed with Equation 2 as follows:
Volume Load (kg) = 3 x 10 x 67 = 2010 kg
Once this factor is calculated, it can then be quantified
in terms of the actual maximum capacity for the
exercise. For example if the athlete’s maximum back
squat is 200 kg then the individualised volume load
would be calculated as follows:
Volume Load (kg) = 3 x 10 x (200 x 0.67) = 4020 kg
Table 1: Methods of Volume Conversions
Exercise Sets Repetitions Load Volume Load Metric Ton Short Ton
(kg) (kg)
Power Snatch 3 5 100 1500 1.500 1.367
Snatch Pull (from floor) 3 5 120 1800 1.800 1.633
Snatch Pull (from knee) 3 5 130 1815 1.815 1.647
Snatch Grip RDL 3 5 90 1350 1.350 1.225
Training day totals= 6465 6.465 5.865
Note: to get metric ton divides the volume load by 1000. To get the short ton divide the volume load by 1102.3.

Table 2. Comparison of the methods for calculating training intensity.

Volume Load Calculation Volume Index **
Exercise Sets Repetitions Load % Total Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 4 Equation 5
(kg) 1RM Repetitions (kg) (kg)
Back Squat 3 10 150 67 30 4500 2010 45 205.7
¼ Back Squat 3 10 180 60 30 5400 1800 54 246.8
1-Leg Squat 3 10 50 22* 30 1500 660 15 68.6
Behind Neck Press 3 10 60 50 30 3000 1500 18 82.3
Training day totals= 120 14400 5970 132 603.4
Note: *= the 1-leg squat was calculated as a percent of the 1-RM back squat. Based upon a 1-RM back squat of 225 kg and the athlete weighs
100 kg
** = note the volume index calculations are based off of the volume load calculated with equation 1.
Equation 1: sets x repetitions x load (kg)
Equation 2: sets x repetitions x %1RM
Equation 4:sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg)
Equation 5:sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg)0.67

Another approach would be to calculate the
individualised volume load by multiplying the estimate
calculated with Equation 2 by a factor of 2. This factor
is selected because the maximum capacity in the lift is
2 times greater than the 100 kg factor used in the
estimation.
When comparing the two volume load equation, it is
important to note that they results in very different
estimates of workload (Table 2). For example, when
examining Table 2, it is clear that method 2
consistently results in lower volume load estimates
when compared to method 1 if it is not modified in the
context of the maximum capacity. This poses a
significant issue if the method for calculating volume
load is not specifically addressed in the methods of
research articles or reviews of literature on training.
Therefore, it is imperative that the method for
calculating volume load is clearly outlined. It may be
useful to use method 2 as a planning tool when writing
a training plan because it allows one to work with
percentages9 and then use method 1 as a monitoring
tool to see what the athlete actually accomplished.3
Even though the calculation of volume load does not
typically include a measure of distance traveled during
the exercise it should be considered a reasonable
estimate of workload.27 Support for this contention can
be found in the work of McBride et al.19 where various
methods of determining the volume of resistance
training were assessed and the volume load equation
(Equation 1) resulted in a reasonable estimate of work.
It is important to note that when comparing the
volume load of an exercise to a direct calculation of
work performed that the distance the barbell travels
will significantly impact the amount of work performed.
As a result, the volume load estimate may result in an
underestimation or overestimation of the workload
accomplished depending upon the exercise performed.
The fact that the distance the bar travels is not
considered in either volume load calculation can create
a potential error in the estimation of workloads
completed during a resistance training bout. It is
possible that there could be an under or overestimation
of workload depending upon the exercise being
performed.5,30 For example, when looking at Table 2,
the back squat resulted in a volume load of 4500 kg
(Equation 1), while the ¼ back squat resulted in 5400
kg (Equation 1). Clearly the ¼ squat required the
movement of a larger load and thus this accounted for
the higher volume load estimate. However, this is likely
an overestimation of the work performed because the
distance traveled is significantly less in a ¼ squat than
in a full back squat. Typically the ¼ squat is performed
by lifting the barbell from blocks which decreases the
distance the barbell travels when compared to a full
squat. In this instance, Equation 2 for calculating
volume load may be a better method of estimating
workload because the percentage of 1-RM is relative to
the lift being performed. For example, the back squat
would have a volume load of 2010 kg, while the ¼
squat would result a volume load of 1800 kg. While
method 2 creates a value that better represents the
workload because it is tied to the 1-RM of each
exercise, it is limited because it most likely
underestimates the actual workload performed. Ideally,
it would be best if the actual distance traveled during
each exercise was quantified and yielding a more
accurate method of estimating workload.
Because the volume load is significantly affected by the
distance the bar travels it may be warranted to re-write
the volume equation to the following:
Equation 3: Volume load (kg·m-1) = sets x repetitions x
load (kg) x distance (m)
If the distance traveled by the barbell were determined
for each exercise the athlete performs, this volume
load equation would give a better depiction of the
overall training loads encountered.
Bosoc4,6 suggests that the ultimate quantification of
training loads would require the direct monitoring of

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION

© UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 33
 the dynamics of the lifting task including displacement,
force, velocity, and power characteristics. There are
several methods that can be used in this task including
the use of the V-Scope,13,15 force plate-linear position
transducer systems,7,20 video analysis12,26 and potentially
accelerometers. Many of these devices, such as the
force-plate linear position transducer and video
analysis systems are used in research settings but
have not typically been used in the applied settings of
coaching because of their cost and the time
commitment necessary for collecting and analysing
data.
In the applied setting, the training environment
requires instantaneous feedback, portability, and
relative ease of use.26 In the early 1990’s, there was an
attempt to address this need with the development of
the V-Scope weightlifting analysis system. This system
was designed as a coaching tool in order to provide
instantaneous information about a lift, but because of
the need for multiple devices when working with large
teams and the corresponding cost of the device, its
application did not become popular.
More recently, the development of accelerometer
technologies may result in a monitoring break through
which will allow for the direct quantification of training
workloads.26 Sato et al.26 recently reported the validity
of the acceleration measures determined during a high
pull. However, no data was reported on the ability of
the system to quantify displacements, and further
scientific inquiry is required in order to verify the ability
of the accelerometer to measure displacements and
ultimate quantify workloads. If accelerometer
technologies are proven by future scientific inquiry to
be both accurate and valid with the quantification of
displacement they will unlock an ability to better grasp
the workloads accomplished in the resistance training
environment.
One potential alternative to high tech devices would be
to actually measure the displacement of specific
exercises with a tape measure and place this rough
estimate into Equation 3 when attempting to calculate
the volume load.8 This rudimentary method for
calculating displacement expands upon the basic
volume load calculation but contains one potential
confounding factor. Specifically it assumes that the
displacement is consistent between each repetition of a
set or across a loading spectrum. The fact that the
displacement may change across a set for a specific
exercise is supported by work by Haff et al.13 In this
study it was determined that the vertical displacement
varied across a set of 5 repetitions at both 90% and
120% of the 1 repetition maximum power clean during
the performance of a clean pull. Therefore, while a
basic measure of displacement improves upon the
basic volume load calculation, a more accurate
approach would be to have a method or technology
which measure displacement for each repetition of
every set.
While the volume load is generally a useful tool for
quantifying work encountered by the athlete during
resistance training, the inclusion of displacement in the
equation may be necessary to maximize the accuracy
of the estimation. Additionally, when looking at power
exercises, the volume load without the inclusion of
vertical displacement may underestimate the workload
accomplished during the exercise19 while partial
movements may result in an overestimation of work
accomplished. Even with these potential limitations,
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
34 © UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
research studies, as well as example training
programmes, should at least report the basic volume
load estimate as it is still a better representation than
only reporting the number of repetitions performed.
This practice should be encouraged because it gives a
more accurate picture of what is planned for or has
been accomplished in the training session.
Volume Index: When looking at the volume load
estimate of work, it does not account for the athlete’s
size, which may significantly impact the amount of
work the athlete has performed. Depending upon the
athlete’s size, the amount of work that is actually
performed can vary significantly. One method for
accounting for an athlete’s size in the calculation of
volume is the calculation of what has been termed the
volume index.1 The volume index calculation method
results in significantly different estimates of workload
when compared to the traditional volume load
calculations (Table 2). There are several potential
methods or equations for calculating the volume index
which can be used when attempting to evaluate the
volume of training.
The first equation that can be used to normalise the
volume load to body mass is to divide this volume load
by the athlete’s body mass (Equation 4)1:
Equation 4: Volume index =
(sets x repetitions x load (kg)) = Volume load (kg)
Body mass (kg) Body mass (kg)
If, for example, a 100 kg athlete were to perform 3
sets of 10 repetitions with 150 kg the equation would
be formatted as follows:
Volume index =
(3 x 10 x 150) 4500 = 45
=
100 100
If, for example this athlete were to lose 2 kilogrammes
(body mass = 98 kg) and perform the same workout,
the volume index would be able to address this
change:
Volume index =
(3 x 10 x 150) 4500 = 46
=
98 98
The basic assumption that is made when dividing the
weight lifted by body mass is that strength levels are
proportional to body mass and how that muscle mass
is distributed.11 However, it has been recently
suggested that to normalise strength measures,
allometric scaling needs to be employed.11,16,17 The
principle of geometric scaling serves as the foundation
for the concept of allometric scaling, which suggests
that the load lifted should be divided by some variable
related to body size. This effectively will remove the
effect body mass on the training load.16 The most
common methods for normalising is divide the force by
body mass to the 2/3 power.
Therefore, the next equation that can be used when
attempting to normalise the volume load would utilise
an allomterically scaled force value (Equation 5) and be
calculated with the following formula:
Equation 5: Volume index =
(sets x repetitions x load (kg)) = Volume load (kg)
Body mass (kg)0.67 Body mass (kg)0.67
If, the athlete described above was 170 cm tall and
weighed 100 kg and performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions
Table 3: Comparison of Method for Calculating Training Intensity
Warm-up Sets Target Sets Volume Load Training Intensity
Method Exercise Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6 Total Target Sets Total Target Sets
% 1-RM Back Squat 30 45 55 60 60 60 1550 900 52 60
5 5 5 5 5
Kilogram Back Squat 67.5 101 124 135 135 135 3488 2025 116 135
5 5 5 5 5
Note: 60 = % 1-Repetition Maximum , percentages are based off of a 225 kg back squat maximum. %1-RM = percentage of 1 repetition maximum.
5 Repetitions

at 150 kg, the normalised volume index would be as
follows:
Volume index =
(3 x 10 x 150 (kg)) = 4500 (kg) = 205.7
100 (kg)0.67 21.9 (kg)0.67
If the athlete then lost 2 kg and performed the exact
same workout, the volume index would be:
Volume index =
(3 x 10 x 150 (kg)) = 4500 (kg) = 208.5
98 (kg)0.67 21.69 (kg)0.67
By allometrically scaling the body mass and then
calculating the volume index the coach is able to
compare the training loads encountered by athletes of
different sizes and effectively monitor the training
stressors encountered as the athlete’s body weight
changes. Ideally, this estimation would be stronger if
the volume load calculated was based upon the actual
distance traveled by the bar during the lift. This would
be accomplished with the following equation:
Equation 6: Volume index =
(sets x reps x load (kg) x distance (m)) = Volume load (kg)
0.67
Body mass (kg)
If, for example, the same lifter above moved the
barbell a total of 0.6 m during the back squat
performed in the previous example, the volume load
equation would be calculated as follows:
Volume index =
(3 x 10 x 150 (kg) x 0.6 (m)) = (2700 kg·m-1)
98 (kg)0.67 21.69 (kg)0.67
Comparing the results of the volume load calculated
with Equations 5 and 6 reveals a slightly different
workload value for this exercise. This small difference
in the quantification of work for an individual exercise
can be meaningful when a total training session’s
volume load is calculated and, therefore, should be
considered when attempting to evaluate training
workloads.
Methods for Quantifying Training
Intensity
The ability to represent the training intensity of an
exercise or training bout is essential when evaluating a
training plan. When examining the periodisation
literature it is clear that there is a distinct interplay
between the volume of training and the intensity of the
training bouts encountered.3,14,18,21,22
Traditionally there are two methods which can be used
to quantify intensity during a training session:
1) the training intensity, and
2) the intensity index.
Training Intensity: Training intensity is considered as
the average kilogrammes lifted for an individual
exercise or overall training session. Typically this
estimate of intensity is calculated as follows:
Equation 7: Exercise intensity = Volume load
Repetitions
0.67
Body mass (kg)
For example, if an athlete were to perform three sets
of 5 repetitions at 135 kilograms the volume load could
be calculated with Equation 1 yielding a volume load of
2025 kg and plugged into Equation 7 as follows:
Exercise intensity =
2025 kg = 2025 kg = 135 kg
= 124.5 Total Repetitions 15
If the calculation was performed based upon the
percentage of 1-repetition maximum (RM) method,
then volume load would be calculated with the use of
Equation 2 and the volume load determined would then
be plugged into Equation 7. If the athlete, in this
example, had a maximum back squat of 225 kg, the
target loads of 135 kg would represent 60% of their 1-

Table 4. Example calculation of volume load and training intensity for a workout.
Method 1 Method 2
Load % Total Volume Training Volume Training
Exercise Sets Repetitions (kg) 1RM Repetitions Load Intensity Load Intensity
Equation 1 (kg) (kg) Equation 2 (kg) kg
Back Squat 3 10 150 67 30 4500 150 2010 67
¼ Back Squat 3 10 180 60 30 5400 180 1800 60
1-Leg Squat 3 10 50 22* 30 1500 50 660 22
Behind Neck Press 3 10 60 50 30 3000 60 1500 50
Training day totals= 120 14400 110 5970 50
Note: *= the 1-leg squat was calculated as a percent of the 1-RM back squat. Based upon a 1-RM back squat of 225 kg and the athlete weighs
100 kg
** = note the volume index calculations are based off of the volume load calculated with equation 1.
Equation 1: sets x repetitions x load (kg)
Equation 2: sets x repetitions x %1RM
Method 1: uses Equation 1 in the calculation of volume load
Method 2: uses Equation 2 in the calculation of volume load

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION

© UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 35
 RM and Equation 7 would be as
follows:
Exercise intensity =

Intensity
Training

(kg)

116

137
900 kg = 900 kg = 60 kg

88

15

30
Total
Total Repetitions 15
If you examine Table 3 closely, it is

Volume

3475

4100

2650
Load
(kg)

225

450
clear that when the training load is
held constant at the target sets, the
kilogrammes lifted or the %1-RM
and Training Intensity

represents the exercise intensity.

Intensity
Total Volume Load

Training

(kg)
However, if the load fluctuates this will

145

170

100

15

30
Target Sets
not be the case. For example, looking
at the total workload, which includes
the warm-up sets the exercise intensity

Volume

2175

2550

1500
Load
is represented as either 52 or

(kg)

225

450
Table 5: Example of Examining the Volume Load and Training Intensity Based upon the Type of Exercise or Category of Exercise.

116 kilograms depending upon the

method of quantification.
The training intensity for individual
Intensity
Training

exercises can then be used to calculate

(kg)

103
87

77
an overall intensity for the training day
Warm-up

(Table 4).3,27,28 In Table 4, for example,

the athlete performed a basic 4
Volume

exercise training day which was part of

1300

1550

1150
Load
(kg)

a strength endurance block of training.

After calculating the volume load the
training intensity for the day was
determined. It is important to note
by Exercise Classification

that the training intensity is an

Total Volume Load

average intensity for all the exercises

performed, and thus, smaller muscle
mass exercise will result in a decrease
in the average intensity for the
145

170

100
Set

15

30

training day.
5

5
6

One strategy that can be used to deal

Target Sets

with this issue is to calculate the

145

170

100
Set

15

30
5

5
5

volume load and training intensity for

the warm-up, target sets and down
sets while examining the results based
145

170

100
Set

upon the whole workout or by exercise

15

30
5

5
4

type. For example, when looking at

Table 5 there is a difference between
the total session volume load of
110

140
Set

90
5

5
3

10900 kg and the target set volume

load of 6900 kg. Additionally, the
Warm-up

inclusion of the warm-up sets in the

110
Set

90

80

calculation of the training intensity will

5

5
2
Total Volume Load
by Exercise Type

result in a lower training intensity

value as will combining auxiliary and
core exercise in the calculation. In this
Set

60

60
Power Clean 60
5

5
1

example, the volume load for the core

exercises is 10225 kg and the training
Back Squat

Front Raise

Bicep Curls
Push Press

intensity is 114 kg while the auxiliary

Exercise

exercises have a volume load of

675 kg with a training intensity of
23 kg.
Regardless of how the training
intensity and volume load are sub-
divided, it is important that the
Strength

Strength

method is clearly defined and

Exercise
Type of

Power

consistently applied. By examining the

training intensity depicted in the
various aspects of the training session
(i.e. warm-up, target sets, down sets,
Core Exercises

and total workout) the strength and

conditioning professional can garner a
Exercises
Category

Auxiliary
Exercise

more accurate picture of the training

stressors encountered by the athlete.

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION

36 © UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
Table 6. Example calculation of volume index and intensity index for a workout.
Method 1 Method 2
Exercise Sets Repetitions Load % Total Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 4 Equation 5
(kg) 1RM Repetitions (kg) (kg)
Back Squat 3 10 150 67 30 45 1.5 206 6.9
¼ Back Squat 3 10 180 60 30 54 1.8 247 8.2
1-Leg Squat 3 10 50 22* 30 15 0.5 69 2.3
Behind Neck Press 3 10 60 50 30 18 0.6 82 2.7
Training day totals/averages= 120 114 1.1 603 5.0
Note: *= the 1-leg squat was calculated as a percent of the 1-RM back squat. Based upon a 1-RM back squat of 225 kg and the athlete weighs
100 kg and is 170 cm tall.
Method 1: uses Equation 4 [sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg)] to calculate volume index
Method 2: uses Equation 5 [sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg)0.67] to calculate volume index

Table 7: Example use of Volume Load and Training Intensity Projections in the Planning Process.

Load (%1M) Total Block Values

Day Exercise Sets Reps Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Volume Load Training Intensity
Monday Squat 3 5 70 75 80 73 4470 75
Power Clean 3 5 70 75 80 73 4470 75
Bench Press 3 5 70 75 80 73 4470 75
Wednesday Power Snatch 3 5 65 70 75 63 4095 68
Snatch Pull (FL) 3 5 65 70 75 63 4095 68
Overhead Squat 3 5 65 70 75 63 4095 68
Friday Front Squat 3 5 60 65 70 63 3870 65
Power Clean 3 5 60 65 70 63 3870 65
Incline Bench Press 3 5 60 65 70 63 3870 65

Intensity Index: The intensity index is another Applying Methods of Quantifying

method of representing the intensity of the training
bout or exercise.1 Typically, the intensity index is
calculated with the following equation:
Equation 8: Intensity index = Volume index
Total repetitions
When employing this equation the volume index can be
calculated with either Equation 4 or 5 and then divided
by the total number of repetitions performed in the
various aspects of the training session.
For example, looking at Table 6, it is clear that
allometric scaling (method 2) alters the volume index,
which in turn, alters the intensity index when
compared to the more traditional method for
computing both variables (method 1). With this
method, the intensity index allows for the
quantification of an intensity which accounts for body
size and shifts in body mass that can occur as a result
of weight gain or weight loss, and thus, may have an
impact on training stressors.1
Volume and Training Intensity
The ability to accurately plan, track and monitor the
volume and intensity of the resistance training
programme allows for a better understanding of the
training stressors encountered by the athlete.
Specifically employing basic calculations allows the
strength and conditioning professional the ability to
more accurately determine the dosage of training and
ensure that the athlete’s level of preparedness is
tracking in the appropriate direction. Conceptually, the
application of the materials presented in this brief
review can be considered in the context of either the
planning or monitoring process.
Planning Training: When the strength and
conditioning professional is designing the periodised
training plan it is important that he/she understands
the variations in the workloads and patterns of loading
contained in the various phases of their overall plan.
One method that can be used to accomplish this goal is
to use Equation 2 to project the volume loads of

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION

© UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 37
 Table 8: Example Use of Volume Load and Training Intensity as a Monitoring Tool.

Load (kg) Total Block Values

Day Exercise Sets Reps Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Volume Load Training Intensity
Monday Squat 3 5 154 165 176 161 9834 164
Power Clean 3 5 112 120 128 117 7152 119
Bench Press 3 5 95 101 108 99 6034.5 101
Wednesday Power Snatch 3 5 78 84 90 82 5004 83
Snatch Pull (FL) 3 5 85 91 97.5 88 5421 90
Overhead Squat 3 5 78 84 90 82 5004 83
Friday Front Squat 3 5 108 117 126 113 6966 116
Power Clean 3 5 96 104 112 101 6192 103
Incline Bench Press 3 5 72 78 84 76 4644 77
Notes: Based upon the following actual and estimated 1-repetition maximums: Back squat = 220, power clean = 160, bench press =135, power
snatch = 120, snatch pull = 130, overhead squat = 120, front squat=180; and incline bench press = 120.

Table 9: Example Use of Allomertically Scaled Volume Index and Training Index as a Monitoring Tool.

Load (kg.kg-0.67) Total Block Values

Day Exercise Sets Reps Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Volume Load Training Intensity
Monday Squat 3 5 104.1 111.4 118.3 108.7 442.6 7.4
Power Clean 3 5 75.7 81.0 86.0 79.1 321.9 5.4
Bench Press 3 5 63.9 68.4 72.6 66.7 271.6 4.5
Body Mass 102.1 102.3 103 101.9
Wednesday Power Snatch 3 5 53.1 57.2 60.9 55.4 226.5 3.8
Snatch Pull (FL) 3 5 57.5 62.0 65.9 60.0 245.3 4.1
Overhead Squat 3 5 53.1 57.2 60.9 55.4 226.5 3.8
Body Mass 101.2 101 102.1 101.6
Friday Front Squat 3 5 73.4 79.2 85.5 77.1 315.2 5.3
Power Clean 3 5 65.2 70.4 76.0 68.6 280.2 4.7
Incline Bench Press 3 5 48.9 52.8 57.0 51.4 210.1 3.5
Body Mass 101.4 102 101.5 101.2
Notes: Based upon the following actual and estimated 1-repetition maximums: Back squat = 220, power clean = 160, bench press =135, power
snatch = 120, snatch pull = 130, overhead squat = 120, front squat=180; and incline bench press = 120.

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION

38 © UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
training and Equation 7 to project the expect training
Figure 1: Example 3:1 Loading Paradigm.
intensity that will be encountered by the athlete. This
method can be especially useful when working with
large numbers of athletes as individualisation can occur
after the basic planning is completed.
For example, if a 4-week block of training was being
designed with a 3:1 loading paradigm, the basic volume
load and training intensity would increase across the
first 3 microcycles of training, and then, the 4
microcycle would represent an unloading week (Figure
1). The basic daily programme may look like the
example presented in Table 7. By using percentages of
the athlete’s 1-RM’s for each of the exercises planned, a
basic training intensity variation can be visualised
during the planning process. While this is only an
estimate of the intensities, it does give the strength and
conditioning professional a rough idea of what the
training load variation might be.
Looking at the basic structure of the mesocycle
presented in Figure 1 and Table 7, it is clear that a
classic model of periodisation has been structured
based upon the examples presented by Plisk and
Stone23 in the planning process. Careful inspection of
the example plan demonstrates daily and microcycle Figure 2: Example 3:1 Loading Paradigm Based upon
fluctuations in volume load and training intensities. Volume Load and Training Intensity Values From
Even though Figure 1 and Table 7 allow for the ability Actual Training Results.
to visualise the basic loading structures, it is important
to note that the actual accomplished work may be
slightly different depending upon the ability of the
athlete to complete the prescribed workloads and their
1-RM’s for each exercise.
Monitoring Training: From a monitoring perspective
the actual lifts completed and the kilogrammes lifted
should be used in the calculations of both volume load
and training intensity. Using the same basic exercises
and loading patterns as presented in planning training
section (Table 7) of this article could be completed by
an athlete. Based upon the number of repetitions
completed and the athletes maximal capacity in the lifts
planed, the basic 3:1 loading pattern was completed
(Figure 2). While this basic pattern is slightly different
than the one used in the planning process, it still
represents what the structural pattern established.
Further inspection of the training plan and results can
be done by looking at Table 8 where the actual weights
lifted are recorded. While it is highly unlikely that the
athlete will make every lift at a prescribed load for this Figure 3: Example 3:1 Loading Paradigm Based
example, let’s assume that they have. Based upon the upon Volume Index and Intensity Index Values
basic volume load and training intensity calculations we From Actual Training Results.
can see that daily and microcycle variations in volume
and intensity of training are created. However, the
exercise selected and the athlete’s maximal capacities
in these lifts, the Wednesday workout had a lower
volume and intensity then planned in Table 7.
Another potential method for monitoring the training
programme is to calculate the allometrically scaled
volume and intensity index (Table 9). Central to the
ability to employ this monitoring tool is the daily
determination of body weight. In this example, the
same programme as presented in Table 8 is re-analysed
with the use of the volume and intensity indexes. As
with the previous examples, a 3:1 loading paradigm has
been performed (Figure 3). Careful inspection reveals
that the basic loading pattern depicted in Table 8 is
only slightly altered when presented in the context of
the volume and intensity index values. The small
difference in loading patterns is largely a result of the
fact that the athlete in this example only demonstrated

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION

© UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 39
 small changes in body weight across the block of
training. If the athlete had been attempting to lose
weight for a weight class based sport, the variation in
the results would be much greater.
Conclusions and Practical
Applications
When working with periodised training programmes, it
is useful to employ methods for estimating volumes
and intensities of resistance training in the planning
process. By doing this, the strength and conditioning
professional will be able to better plan for higher
volume or intensity training days. Any one of the
methods presented in the brief review could be used in
this process, but using actual loads based upon 1-RM
may be problematic when working with large groups of
athletes. In this case, it may be warranted to use
Equations 2 and 7, which are based upon percentages
of 1-RM.
In the monitoring process, it is best to use the actual
sets, repetitions, and weights lifted in the analysis of
what has been done in the training plan. By using
these values, a more accurate depiction of the training
plan can be presented. If possible, the inclusion of
displacement (Equation 3) should be used to increase
the accuracy of the evaluation. While including
displacement may be warranted in most cases it is not
necessary or easy to accomplish. Therefore, using the
Equations 1 and 7 would be an acceptable alternative.
Regardless of the method used to analyse the training
plan, it is important to be consistent in the application
of the various methods.
Additionally, if presenting research on periodisation or
training models it is important that the volume load,
training intensity and total repetitions be reported. If
only repetitions are reported, the volume of training will
be clearly misrepresented and open to misinterpretation.
Adding the volume load and training intensity to the
programme analysis will allow for a better understanding
of the model of training being employed.
References:
1. Aján, T. and L. Baroga. Weightlifting: Fitness for All Sports.
Budapest: International Weightlifting Federation.1988.
2. Bompa, T.O. and M.C. Carrera. Periodization Training For
Sports: Science-based strength and conditioning plans for 20
sports. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, p 258.2005.
3. Bompa, T.O. and G.G. Haff. Periodization: Theory and
Methodology of Training. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics Publishers.2009.
4. Bosco, C. Eline neu Methodik zur Einshätzung und
Programmierung der Trainings. Leistungsport 5:21-28. 1992.
5. Bosco, C., A. Belli, M. Astrua, J. Tihanyi, R. Pozzo, S.
Kellis, O. Tsarpela, C. Foti, R. Manno, and C. Tranquilli. A
dynamometer for evaluation of dynamic muscle work. Eur
J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 70:379-386. 1995.
6. Bosco, C. A new training method with Ergopower - Bosco
System. Acta Academia Olympiquae Estoniae 5:24-34. 1997.
7. Cormie, P., J.M. Mcbride, and G.O. Mccaulley. Validation
of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body
resistance exercises. Journal of applied biomechanics
23:103-118. 2007.
8. Dvorkin, L.S. Weightlifting and Age: Scientific and
Pedagolofical Fundamentals of a Multi-Year System of
Training Junior Weightlifters. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press,
p 125.1992.
9. El-Hewie, M.F. Essentials of Weightlifting & Strength
Training. 1st ed. Lodi, NJ: Shaymaa Publishing
Corporation, p 524.2003.
UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION
40 © UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk
View publication stats
10. Fleck, S. and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance
Training Programs. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, p 375.2004.
11. Folland, J.P., T.M. Mc Cauley, and A.G. Williams.
Allometric scaling of strength measurements to body size.
Eur J Appl Physiol 102:739-745. 2008.
12. Garhammer, J. A review of power output studies of
Olympic and powerlifting: methodology, performance
prediction, and evaluation tests. J. Strength Cond. Res
7:76-78. 1993.
13. Haff, G.G., A. Whitley, L.B. Mccoy, H.S. O'bryant, J.L.
Kilgore, E.E. Haff, K. Pierce, and M.H. Stone. Effects of
different set configurations on barbell velocity and
displacement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res
17:95-103. 2003.
14. Harre, D. Principles of Athletic Training. In: Principles of
Sports Training: Introduction to the Theory and Methods of
Training. D. Harre, ed. Berlin, Germany: Sportverlag,
1982. pp. 73-94.
15. Hiskia, G. Advanced electronic technology for real-time
biomechanical analysis of weightlifting. In: Proceedings of
Proceedings of the Weighlifting Symposium. eds. Greece,
1993. p. 89-95
16. Jaric, S. Muscle strength testing: use of normalisation for
body size. Sports Med 32:615-631. 2002.
17. Jaric, S., D. Ugarkovic, and M. Kukolj. Evaluation of
methods for normalizing muscle strength in elite and young
athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 42:141-151. 2002.
18. Matveyev, L. Periodization of Sports Training. Moskow,
Russia: Fizkultura i Sport.1965.
19. Mcbride, J.M., G.O. Mccaulley, P. Cormie, J.L. Nuzzo, M.J.
Cavill, and N.T. Triplett. Comparison of methods to
quantify volume during resistance exercise. J Strength
Cond Res 23:106-110. 2009.
20. Mccaulley, G.O., J.M. Mcbride, P. Cormie, M.B. Hudson,
J.L. Nuzzo, J.C. Quindry, and N. Travis Triplett. Acute
hormonal and neuromuscular responses to hypertrophy,
strength and power type resistance exercise. Eur J Appl
Physiol 105:695-704. 2009.
21. Nádori, L. Training and Competition. Budapest:
Sport.1962.
22. Nádori, L. and I. Granek. Theoretical and Methodological
Basis of Training Planning With Special Considerations
Within a Microcycle. Lincoln, NE: NSCA.1989.
23. Plisk, S.S. and M.H. Stone. Periodization strategies.
Strength and Cond 25:19-37. 2003.
24. Rhea, M.R., S.D. Ball, W.T. Phillips, and L.N. Burkett. A
comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized
programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J
Strength Cond Res 16:250-255. 2002.
25. Rhea, M.R., W.T. Phillips, L.N. Burkett, W.J. Stone, S.D.
Ball, B.A. Alvar, and A.B. Thomas. A comparison of linear
and daily undulating periodized programs with equated
volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. J
Strength Cond Res 17:82-87. 2003.
26. Sato, K., S.L. Smith, and W.A. Sands. Validation of an
accelerometer for measuring sport performance. J
Strength Cond Res 23:341-347. 2009.
27. Stone, M.H., H.S. O'bryant, B.K. Schilling, R.L. Johnson,
K.C. Pierce, G.G. Haff, A.J. Koch, and M. Stone.
Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity.
part 1. Strength and Cond 21:56-62. 1999.
28. Stone, M.H., K. Pierce, W.A. Sands, and M. Stone.
Weightlifting: program design. Strength and Cond 28:10-
17. 2006.
29. Stone, M.H., M.E. Stone, and W.A. Sands. Principles and
Practice of Resistance Training. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics Publishers, p 376.2007.
30. Viru, A. and M. Viru. Biochemical Monitoring of Sport
Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.2001.