Personal Trainer, Partner, or Simply Having an Audience - Three Ways of Boosting Training Intensity, Volume & Gainz

Ideally, your training partner is both competitive and supportive... and if there's no one around just asking the next best person to spot you will make a significant difference, too.

Are you training with a coach or partner? No? Well, after reading today's SuppVersity Special, you may want to get one; and that despite the fact that we know only relatively little about the effect of the presence of a training partner, coach or, as investigated most recently, a spotter on our exercise performance, yet.

In a recent study from the Edge Hill University in the UK, Sheridan et al. investigated the effect of spotter presence on bench press performance. To this ends, twelve recreationally trained participants (age, 21.3 +/- 0.8 years, height, 1.82 +/- 0.1 m, and weight, 84.8 +/- 11.1 kg) performed 2 trials of 3 sets to failure at 60% of 1 repetition maximum on separate occasions.

Even for people who know what they're doing a partner or coach may be very helpful.

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Mix Things Up a Bit to Make These Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodization

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodization

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

The 2 trials consisted of spotters being explicitly present or hidden from view (deception). During the trials, total repetitions (reps), total weight lifted, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and self-efficacy were measured.

Based on previous studies which attempted to investigate the effects of the social interaction during
resistance training programmes, the scientists expected to be able to measure a similar effect as it was observed by Wise et al. whose 2004 paper describes an experiment in which thirty-two women who had not bench pressed within the previous 18 months received positive verbal feedback by a trainer, resulting in significantly strengthened self-efficacy.

Who cares about self-efficacy? I want performance

No need to worry, though, your training partner may only have psychological effects, but as studies by Mazzetti et al. (2000) and Coutts et al. (2003) show social facilitation and the presence of
training partners, coaches or personal trainers can significantly improve your physical performance and - most importantly, the strength and power gains you will see in response to a 12-week training program.

• Mazetti et al. (2000) observed increased strength and size gains PLUS improved effects on lean body mass if training in the presence of a coach -- The scientists had twenty moderately trained men aged 24.6 ± 1.0 yr (mean ± SE) train either under supervision by a personal trainer (SUP) or unsupervised (UNSUP) for 12 weeks. Both groups performed identical linear periodized resistance training programs consisting of preparatory (10–12 repetitions maximum (RM)), hypertrophy (8 to 10-RM), strength (5 to 8-RM), and peaking phases (3 to 6-RM) using free-weight and variable-resistance machine exercises. Subjects were tested for maximal squat and bench press strength (1-RM), squat jump power output, bench press muscular endurance, and body composition at week 0 and after 12 wk of training.
  

  

  Figure 1: Training under supervision significantly increased the 1RM gains on squats (left) and the bench press (right) in twenty moderately trained men in a pertinent paper by Mazetti et al. (2000).

  The results were quite unambiguous (in favor of training under supervision): The subjects mean training loads (kg per set) per week were significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the SUP group than the UNSUP group at weeks 7 through 11 for the squat, and weeks 3 and 7 through 12 for the bench press exercises. The rates of increase (slope) of squat and bench press kg per set were significantly greater in the SUP group. Maximal squat and bench press strength were significantly greater at week 12 in the SUP group. Squat and bench press 1-RM, and mean and peak power output increased significantly after training in both groups.
  
  And what you will probably like best: The SUP group also saw the greater and exclusively statistically significant increases in lean mass (+1.38 ± 0.25 kg, p < 0.05 vs. 0.25 ± 0.37 kg, p > 0.05) - at virtually identical gains in fat mass, by the way.
• Coutts et al. (2003) found that the presence of a trainer potentiated the beneficial effects of a standardized resistance training program in Australian rugby players. In their study, the scientists had examined the influence of direct supervision on muscular strength, power, and running speed during 12 weeks of resistance training in young rugby league players.
  
   Two matched groups of young (16.7 +/- 1.1 years [mean +/- SD]), talented rugby league players completed the same periodized resistance-training program in either a supervised (SUP) (N = 21) or an unsupervised (UNSUP) (N = 21) environment. Measures of 3 repetition maximum (3RM) bench press, 3RM squat, maximal chin-ups, vertical jump, 10- and 20-m sprints, and body mass were completed pretest (week 0), midtest (week 6), and posttest (week 12) training program.
  
  Results show that 12 weeks of periodized resistance training resulted in an increased body mass, 3RM bench press, 3RM squat, maximum number of chin-ups, vertical jump height, and 10- and 20-m sprint performance in both groups (p < 0.05).
  

  

  Figure 2: Percentage of change in the muscular strength and power measures during 12 weeks of supervised (SUP) or unsupervised (UNSUP) resistance training. *Sign. different from the UNSUP group (p < 0.05 | Coutts 2003)

  What's more important in the context in which we're looking at this study, though, is this: the SUP group completed significantly more training sessions, which were significantly correlated with strength increases for 3RM bench press and squat (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the SUP group significantly increased 3RM squat strength (at 6 and 12 weeks) and 3RM bench press strength (12 weeks) when compared to the UNSUP group (p < 0.05). Finally, the percent increase in the 3RM bench press, 3RM squat, and chin-up_max was also significantly greater in the SUP group than in the UNSUP group (p < 0.05). 

Now you will (rightly) say that the supervision of a trainer is something else than the presence of a training partner... and you're right, but a training partner can easily do what a coach would do and he is at the same time a competitor, whose presence during training has previously been shown to trigger performance improvements in response to an increase of external attentional focus mediated reductions in perceptions of effort (Williams 2015) - even if that was in an endurance exercise context (time trial cycling).

What's 'self-efficacy'? Psychologist Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges.

Studies by Rhea et al. (2003) support the notion that the mere presence of someone who would notice your failure/success has significant ergogenic effects in the gym, as well. More specifically, the scientists from the scientists from the Arizona State University observed significant increases in bench press performance in thirty-two recreationally trained participants (15 men, 17 women; 21 +/- 2.5 years) who performed a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press during 3 different situations in both, a situation in which an audience was present (105 +/- 48 kg) and when they were participating in a competition (103 +/- 46 kg vs. 93 +/- 43 kg in the control condition), male and female subjects performed significantly better than in the control condition, in which other athletes were present, but not perceived as competition.

Table 1: Mean difference in performance and activation measures when male and female recreationally trained subjects performed bench presses with non-competitors around, an audience or competition (Rhea 2003).

As Rhea et al. highlight, their data in their entirety "suggest that performing a maximal lift in the presence of an audience or in competition facilitates performance and support the self-presentation and self-awareness theories" (Rhea 2003). If and to which extent similar effects will be observed in the presence of a spotter hadn't been clear, however, when Sheridan et al. conducted their study to determine the effect of the presence of spotters on performance and the psychophysiological responses during bench press exercise.

Figure 3: Mean (± SEM) bench press repetition performance. (*) Denotes a sign. higher number of repetitions between conditions (p < 0.05); and (∆) Denotes a sign. reduction in repetitions from the previous set (p < 0.001)

As you can see in Figure 3, the authors' hypothesis that the visual presence of spotters would lead to improved performance because of an increased desire to perform mediated by associated social facilitation effects held true. More specifically, ...

• the number of total reps and weight lifted was significantly greater with spotters (difference = 4.5 reps, t = 5.68, p < 0.001 and difference = 209.6 kg, t = 5.65, p < 0.001, respectively)
• the RPE and local RPE were significantly elevated in the deception trials (difference = 0.78, f = 6.16, p = 0.030 and difference = 0.81, f = 5.89, p = 0.034, respectively), and
• the subjects' self-efficacy ratings were significantly reduced when the spotter was nowhere to be seen (difference = 1.58, f = 26.90, p < 0.001).

As the authors point out, this latest in a series of studies the results of which relate to training with a training partner demonstrates the psycho-physiological benefits of performing resistance exercise in the proximity of others... any guess what: the effects are likely to occur even if you didn't bring the spotter but simply ask the guy or gal on the bench to the left if he/she could spot you.

Training with a coach every fifth workout proved to be significantly more effective in improving the 1-RM bench press performance and knee extensor torque in an 11-week study by Gentil & Bottaro from 2010 than having someone supervise the training only every 25 workouts.

Why train with coach/partner? Supervision, spotting / safety, competition/motivation, and accountability are only four of the ways you can benefit from having a coach or knowledgeable training partner in the gym. Studies show that "supervision" in any form (including simply having an audience) may increase your self-efficacy, motivate and allow you to train with greater loads/intensities, push you through a greater training volume, and make sure that you don't miss a set or complete workout because "it's just not [your] day, today".

Luckily, research suggests that you don't have to bring a coach to every workout: Gentil & Bottaro found in 2010 that doing only 20% of your workouts with a trainer (vs. 4%) will facilitate significant increases in both bench and leg press performance in response to an otherwise identical 11-week resistance training program | Comment!

References:

• Coutts AJ, Murphy AJ, Dascombe BJ. The effect of direct supervision on a strength coach on measures of muscular strength and power in young rugby league players. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2003.
• Gentil, P and Bottaro, M. Influence of supervision ratio on muscle adaptations to resistance training in nontrained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 24(3): 639-643, 2010
• Mazzetti SA, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Duncan ND, Ratamess NA, GÓmez AL, Newton RU, HÄkkinen K, Fleck SJ. The influence of direct supervision of resistance training on strength performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2000 Jun 1;32(6):1175-84.
• Rhea MR, Landers DM, Alvar BA, Arent SM. The effects of competition and the presence of an audience on weight lifting performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2003 May 1;17(2):303-6.
• Sheridan, A, Marchant, DC, Williams, EL, Jones, HS, Hewitt, PA, and Sparks, SA. Presence of spotters improves bench press performance: a deception study. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2017
• Williams EL, Jones HS, Sparks SA, Marchant DC, Midgley AW, Mc Naughton LR. Competitor presence reduces internal attentional focus and improves 16.1 km cycling time trial performance. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2015 Jul 31;18(4):486-91.
• Wise JB, Posner AE, Walker GL. Verbal messages strengthen bench press efficacy. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2004 Feb 1;18(1):26-9.

Not Making Progress? New RCT: 'Personal Training' Sheds Twice as Much Body Fat and Quadruples Muscle Gains...

Certainly not a photo from the study.

I have to admit that I have never even remotely thought about hiring a personal trainer or coach. A mistake? Well, unlike the lives of the obese subjects in a recent study from the Western State Colorado University (Dalleck. 2016), my life does not depend on it and still, with my tendency to always do too much instead of too little, I am almost certain that I would have made similarly larger strides towards my personal training goals as the sedentary male and female subjects in the previously alluded to recently published study.

One important feature of both training protocols is that they implement periodization schemes.

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Mix Things Up to Make Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodization

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodization

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

The 46 subjects were randomly assigned to one out of three experimental groups: the standardized program group (STD), the ACE IFT group (ACE) and a control group (see Figure 1):

Figure 1: Flow chart of the experimental procedures (Dalleck. 2016).

All underwent the same baseline tests and the subjects in the std. program (according to the guidelines of the American College of Sports Medicine | ACSM) and ACE IFT group trained at the same volume of 150 min/week. What exactly they did and how intense they were training, on the other hand, differed. More specifically...

• the STD group was prescribed a standardized progressive cardio workout based on the previously determined HR-max (maximal heart rate) values
• the ACE group was prescribed the same cardio workout, but with the intensity being based on the ventilatory threshold, i.e.the point during exercise at which ventilation starts to increase at a faster rate than VO2. In that, we distinguish between VT1 and VT2, with the former, the First Ventilatory Threshold marking the intensity at which lactate begins to accumulate in the blood (it's also the point where the breathing rate begins to increase and you cannot talk comfortably anymore). VT2, i.e. the Second Ventilatory Threshold, marks the intensity when lactate has already accumulated in the blood and the person needs to breathe heavily - it's also called the anaerobic threshold or lactate threshold.
• the resistance training program for the STD group was likewise designed according to the ACSM guidelines and involved bench presses, shoulder presses, lateral pulldowns, seated rows, biceps curls, triceps pushdowns, leg presses and extensions, prone lying leg curls, and seated back extensions. Two sets of 12 reps at a moderate intensity of 5-6 on the modified Borg rating of perceived exertion scale (RPE). Resistance was progressed every 2 weeks by ~3-5% for the upper and ~6-10% for the lower body exercises.
• the resistance training program for the ACE group was designed according to the ACE guidelines (Bryant. 2014) and consisted of multijoint/multiplanar exercises with both free weights and machines (still allowing for free motion during the exercise). The following exercises were performed: stability ball circuit (hip bridge, crunch, Russian twist, plank), lunge matrix, kneeling/standing wood chops, kneeling/standing hay bailers, dumbbell squats, one-arm cable row (standing), step-ups w/ dumbbells (onto 15 cm step), pull-ups (assisted), dumbbell bench press. For each exercise two sets of 12 reps were completed with the resistance progressing by 5%  of the 5-RM every two weeks from 50% in week 1 to 80% in the last week (for the circuit and other exercises where you couldn't change the resistance the same progression model was adapted to the volume).

Do you notice something? Yeah, you can do the ACE program without a personal trainer, as well. As different as it may be, it does not provide any of the individuality a personal trainer who's not following yet another cookie cutter approach (in this case the ACE personal trainer manual | Bryant. 2014) would ideally provide. 

Figure 2: Overview of the pre-post changes in control, STD and ACE (% of baseline | Dalleck. 2016)

This doesn't make the study superfluous or its results invalid (see Figure 2), but it does make the scientists' conclusion kind of confusing, and that despite the fact that...

• the STD protocol produced 35.7% VO2max non-responders, while the ACE program produced none (all subjects saw increases of 5.9% or more)
• the STD protocol had only 42.9%, 50%, 85.7% and 42.9% of the subjects achieve meaningful improvements in blood pressure, HDL, triglycerides, and blood glucose, while the corresponding figures for the ACE protocol were 100% for BP, 100% for HTL, 85.7% for trigs and 92.9% for blood glucose - and that in spite of the fact that potential influencing factors such as age, baseline value, exercise adherence, and sex didn't differ
• the ST program produced improvements in waist and body fat in only 78.6%, while 92.9% and 100% of the subjects in the ACE group saw their waist trim and their body fat melt.

After all, the authors write in their article in the Journal of Fitness Research that their "novel findings [...] underscore the importance of a personalised exercise prescription to enhance training efficacy and limit training unresponsiveness" (Dalleck. 2016) - well, and in all honesty, I cannot see how the ACE program is more "personalized" in the sense of being adapted to the individual than the training according to the ACSM guidelines.

Figure 3: Individual variability in relative VO2max response(%change) to exercise training in (A) the STD and (B) the ACE group (Dalleck. 2016).

So what do we make of the results, then? While you can debate whether the ACE program is more "personalized" than a program that's designed according to the ACSM guidelines, there's no debating its efficacy. As you can see in Figure 2 and 3, the ACE program is not just more effective (sign.so  for body fat, lean mass, VO2max, blood pressure, and all balance and strength parameters), there were also no non-responders (see Figure 3 | I personally would have excluded the one individual that regressed significantly; there are probably different reasons than the ACSM program for that) in the ACE group while 5 of the subjects in the STD group saw no or non-significant VO2 improvements.

Overall, the authors of the study at hand are thus right. Their study does "underscore the importance of a personalised exercise prescription to enhance training efficacy and limit training unresponsiveness" what you have to keep in mind, though is that we're not comparing an actually personalized to a standardized exercise prescription, but rather prescribing according to different criteria (cardio: heart rate vs. ventilatory threshold/strength: RPE vs. 5-RM).

Now, one could assume that everything was thus only a result of higher intensities in the ACE group. The actual heart rates, however, didn't differ sign. between the two groups: 107-120 bpm vs. 104-127 bpm for the STD and ACE group respectively. If you're a trainer or a trainee who's not happy with his clients or his own results, trying to train according to the allegedly "personalized" ACE guidelines may well rekindle/promote your progress | Comment!

References:

• Bryant, Cedric X., Sabrena Newton-Merrill, and Daniel J. Green, eds. ACE personal trainer manual. 2014.
• Dalleck, Lance C., et al. "Does a personalised exercise prescription enhance training efficacy and limit training unresponsiveness? A randomised controlled trial." Journal of Fitness Research 5 (2016).

Want to Double Your Gains? Get a Trainer to Kick Your Lazy Ass, Periodize & Personalize Your Workouts & Off Times!

Bad news for lone wolfs.

Don't we all know this? There are those days when you hit the gym, go through your workout routinely, go home and tell yourself: "Well, I've done the best I could, I will try to increase the weight next week!" ... I see, you know what I am talking about ;-)

Just like the subjects in a recent study from the University of California Los Angeles, I suppose. All of them were member of the Exquinox Fitness Club, 30–44 years of age, and had a history of exercising 5–7 days per month at the club over the previous 3 month - archetypical average ambitious Gymrats, so to say.

Looking for the rules to design optimal workouts? Look no further!

Periodize to Get Strong(er)!

Sequential or Alternating?

From 16% to 8% Fat W/ CrossFit

Cardio! Before or After?

12% Less Fat in 12 Weeks?

Determinants of Training Success

After randomly selecting 40 men who met the above criteria, Thomas W. Storer and colleagues randomly assigned the subjects to either

• a nonlinear periodized training program (TRAINED, N=17), or to 
• a self-directed training (SELF, N= 17)

The total training volume and frequency, i.e. three training sessions per week, was identical for both groups. The same goes for the food intake which was not recorded in either of the groups (unquestionably a drawback).
"The templates for the supervised training regimen were developed by senior EFC staff and guidance

from outside experts including exercise physiologists, physical therapists, certified PTrs, and athletic trainers.[...] The training regimen consisted of a 3-cycle, nonlinear program in which acute program variables including exercise selection, volume, and intensity were varied over both the 4-week mesocycles and within the weekly microcycles."

The volume or intensities of each training session were categorized as high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) and applied on a given day during the course of each week of training. That's in stark contrast to the SELF group, the members of which had to log their workouts, but were otherwise totally free to train whatever they thought fit for the compulsory training goal "maximize lean mass!"

Figure 1: Changes in weight, lean body and fat mass, as well as body fat % (left) and corresponding rel. (%) changes in chest press, leg press, leg peak and average power (Storer. 2014)

If you take a look at the data in Figure 1 it's plain to see that "what you see fit", is not exactly the way of training that worked for the average Joes in the study at hand.

Let's not forget the exercise selection! Eventually, the way the trainers picked the optimal exercises for their clients may have been as important as the periodization; and the procedure is intriguing: "[T]he xercise selection for each subjects’ training program was based in part on use of a screening method that highlighted fundamental movement patterns that could be performed without compensation and movements that were dysfunctional; these were subsequently addressed by corrective exercise during the course of the 12 weeks" (Storer. 2014). In other words, the trainees performed only exercises they could master... much in contrast to 90% of the trainees I see squat and deadlift hilarious weights on their self-designed routines at my local gym.

What's interesting, though, is the fact that all of them made progress - at first that sounds great, but without the comparison to the TRAINED group the guys would never have realized that they could have reduced their body fat % twice as much in the same 12 weeks, if they had had a trainer to plan their routines and kick their asses.

Figure 2: The lean body mass (LBM) gains in the self-directed training group did not gain any muscle on average. One guy even lost ~4kg of lean mass in 12 weeks - in spite of being told to train for maximal hypertrophy (Storer. 2014)

If you take a closer look at the data in Figure 2 you will also see that for some, the self-selected training regimen - although designed to deliver maximal muscle growth - led to significant decreases in lean muscle mass - in one of the subjects almost 4kg of lean muscle mass in 12 weeks in the course of which he was told to "maximize muscle growth".

Although I can only speculate about the reason for his misery, I suspect he was overtraining. Doing more instead of less, when the gains he was expecting as a reward didn't come.

"Are You Overtraining? Two Scientifically Proven Methods to Test Yourself - Method 2: The ABEL Sport Test. Plus: 54 Item Questionnaire + 8 Additional Clues to Identify Overtraining" | learn more

Bottom Line: In the end, I am not telling you that you have to pay a trainer to be successful. It's well possible that the direct influence of the trainer is negligible. What's not possible, though, is to ignore the importance of periodization, exercise selection and variable and personalized training planning. It was after all probably not the missing kick in the ass which is to blame for the loss of 4kg lean mass in 12 weeks (see Figure 2). It's way more likely that a kind, but determined "you got to take more rest" was what the poor wretch who set out to "maximize" his muscle mass was missing.

So, if you don't want to or simply cannot afford a trainer, use what you('ve) learn(ed) here at the SuppVersity and don't succumb to either your own laziness or ambition.

What this means practically? Well, "don't skip workouts" and "don't avoid increasing your training weights", but also "don't add another workout to an overcrowded weekly schedule" and "don't punish yourself for not making results by training even more frequently".

References:

• Storer, Thomas W.; Dolezal, Brett A.; Berenc, Matthew N.; Timmins, John E.; Cooper, Christopher B. "Effect of Supervised, Periodized Exercise Training vs. Self-Directed Training on Lean Body Mass and Other Fitness Variables in Health Club Members." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Ahead of Print.

Medium Intensity Interval Training (MIIT) Increases Fitness of Overweight Sedentary Women Slower, But Eventually Just As Effectively as HIIT. Neither Cuts Fat / Body Weight

It does not always have to be "all out", but 70% is probably the minimum for intervals - esp. for the non-obese.

If you know all SuppVersity articles by heart, the name Astorino may ring a bell. I mentioned a previous study by Todd A. Astorino in my 2012 article "Are You Still Burning Calories or Already Losing Fat? Study Shows: 5x15 Min HIIT Reduce Body Fat & Improve Fitness Twice as Effectively as 5x40min of Classic Cardio" (read more). In their most recent study, the researchers from the Department of Kinesiology at the California State University took another look at HIIT exercise for the average female US citizen, to be precise. And the observation they made is actually quite astonishing.

MIIT vs. HIIT: Can both be equally effective?

In this group of healthy sedentary (<1h/week of regular physical activity) women (n=30; age 18-40; BMI >35kg/m²) it did effectively not make a difference, whether the participants trained at a high or medium intensities.

As you can see in figure 1, over time, both workouts yielded the exact same increases in VO2Max (marker of cardiovascular fitness)., What is however significantly different is the slope and the general look of the VO2max graph.

Figure 1: Study design and results of the 12-week intervention; training was performed 3 days/week on a cycle
ergometer and consisted of 6–10 bouts of 1 min duration at the given intensities; the asterisk after the week # indicates that the intensity values were adapted to the increase in W-Max over the past weeks (Astorino. 2013)

While the latter is clearly logarithmic for the high intensity interval training arm (HIIT; intensities see figure 1, left), the MIIT (LO in figure 1) VO2Max development is much more linear and does not display the same ceiling effect you see in the HI group. It would thus be reasonable to argue that...

MIIT hits HIIT, but...

... it is VERY likely that this is a "overweight woman phenomenon". After all, the heart rate was essentially the same regardless of whether the ladies worked out at an average intensity of 176W (MIIT) or 202W.

Figure 2: Heart rate and workload develoment over the 12-week study period (Astorino. 2013)

At first that may seem odd, but to push your heart rate through the 200 mark, you actually need a pretty decent fitness level. If you have been sitting around your whole life, you will be up to 190bpm when you simply take the stairs instead of the elevator; and while this is no health benefit it makes the same walk in the park that's just a nasty way of locomotion for the average athletic person an intense workout for the morbidly obese.

And what do we know about "intense workout"? Right, those are the true "cardio workouts" adaptation does not happen in the comfort zone and it does not entail weight loss (!) - I don't know how often I have to repeat that, but weight loss happens in the kitchen. You can only steer and promote what and how much you lose by working out... but that's the topic of another article.

---

"Men are different women, too..." We all know that, but can we still train together or will women have to do cardio first, while men would be better off starting out lifting weights? (learn more)

Bottom line: If you, family or friends are starting out to work out - keep things at a pace that's intense for YOU - not for whomever you are trying to emulate or you are training with. If there is one beauty of doing cardio in the gym instead of outside, it is that you can train right next to a friend at your personal intensity level.

So don't put a spoke into your own wheels by trying not too look bad in front of a friend. Stick to your own tempo and use yourself as a reference to judge your progress - and if the latter looks like the orange graph in figure 2 (right) you know you are on track, no matter what the absolute wattage (or RPMs) say.

References:

• Astorino TA, Schubert MM, Palumbo E, Stirling D, McMillan DW, Cooper C, Godinez J, Martinez D, Gallant R. Magnitude and time course of changes in maximal oxygen uptake in response to distinct regimens of chronic interval training in sedentary women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Sep;113(9):2361-9.