OK, I'm not interested in the XF-bashing circle jerk, but I really think that using power output as a measure of workout intensity is misguided.
Cross-posted from XF:
Discussing instability, IMO, misses what is most problematic about the use of power as a metric.
I think you are referring to efficiency (how well power is converted into from one form to another). Take the overhead squat and the back squat. The weight, distance and time are the same but to a novice, it takes much more power to lift the same weight with an overhead squat. As you technique becomes more efficient, your max overhead squat gets closer to your max back squat even though there is no increase in strength or conditioning.
If the above were true, the difference between the overhead squat and the back squat would be analogous to the difference between ring dips and parallel dips: The same muscle group would be doing the work, the difference in difficulty would be due to the instability of the implement inherent in the former exercise, and the this instability and the consequent difference in difficulty could be mitigated (although never fully eliminated) by training in the unstable medium.
But this is NOT the case. The overhead squat is not harder than a back squat of the same load because it is unstable--it is harder because your shoulders have to hold the load overhead, and shoulder strength is, in everyone but novices, the limiting factor.
As you technique becomes more efficient, your max overhead squat gets closer to your max back squat even though there is no increase in strength or conditioning.
No it doesn't. Your overhead squat approaches your back squat when your overhead squat-specific shoulder strength increases but your back squat-specific leg strength stays the same. So someone who has a relatively weak overhead and relatively strong legs will increase their overhead squat: back squat ratio by training, whereas someone with a relatively strong overhead and relatively weak legs will decrease their overhead squat: back squat ratio by training.
Take me, for example: My best jerk-grip overhead squat is 230 pounds. My best back squat is 290 pounds. I missed the 235 overhead squat simply because I lacked the leg strength to drive through the sticking point, rather than because I lost the support. If I don't see my overhead : back squat ratio decrease with training, I'm going to be one unhappy camper.
General inference to be drawn from this: Measuring work done by power output abstracts from the fact that different muscle groups handle the loads. According to power output, doing 15 jerk-grip overhead squats with a load equal to your bodyweight is just as hard as doing 15 back squats with a load equal to your bodyweight.
This is not to say that power measurement is useless. Talking about power gets people thinking about the different ways they can make an exercise harder--not just load, but ROM and speed. Fine. But as a metric for measuring overall training effect of a workout--?
-----------------
Another example: Which will burn harder: 3 rounds for time of 10 swings, 5 Bodyweight+25 chins, 5 bodyweight+25 dips? Or 3 rounds for time of 10 swings, 10 95-pound front squats? The second circuit generates more power output, but because the legs are way the hell stronger than the upper body, the latter workout will even be easier with respect to cardiovascular impact. The overall 'oomph' of the workout will be much lower.
Maximal power output is best acheived with incredibly low loads, using the strongest muscle groups. Maximal power output = lackluster conditioning, as far as I can see.
I forgot to be thumotic.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
That's a little more irongarmxesque.
