[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
For “aerobic activity” I take a spin class (hangs head in shame…).
[/quote]
Don’t feel bad. I do this too from time to time. Can’t stand running anymore.
Oh DCA: You look about 19 in that shot![/quote]
Yes - the light and the camera were extremely kind that day.
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.[/quote]
so you’re jumping on the 6-4-2 bandwagon then…
sounds like a good plan.
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
Seems to help the weakness in my right hip and low back and makes me a better lover I hear. So why not?[/quote]
Indeed, why not? You’ve almost convinced me to run with that last reason.
[quote]soldog wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.[/quote]
so you’re jumping on the 6-4-2 bandwagon then…
sounds like a good plan.[/quote]
I’m calling it “The Not-Prime Numbers Workout” for the book Harry thinks I should write.
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]soldog wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.[/quote]
so you’re jumping on the 6-4-2 bandwagon then…
sounds like a good plan.[/quote]
I’m calling it “The Not-Prime Numbers Workout” for the book Harry thinks I should write.
[/quote]
Uh…isn’t 2 a prime number? Just sayin’…
How 'bout “The Almost Not-Prime Numbers Workout”?
[quote]LittleStrick wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]soldog wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.[/quote]
so you’re jumping on the 6-4-2 bandwagon then…
sounds like a good plan.[/quote]
I’m calling it “The Not-Prime Numbers Workout” for the book Harry thinks I should write.
[/quote]
Uh…isn’t 2 a prime number? Just sayin’…
How 'bout “The Almost Not-Prime Numbers Workout”?
[/quote]
Figures you would be the one to catch that.
2010-9-20
C1 W2 D2 - DL, 3’s
DL (all sets double overhand)
w/u 225x5 fast
305x3
345x3
387x4 (est max 438.55, TMax+8.55)
Clean High Pulls
237.5 5x4 sets
RDLs
237.5 10x3 (down slow, butt out, explode up)
Getting more glute and ham into the DL rather than depending mainly on my lower back. I suck at high pulls, they don’t go high at all. Think I’m doing double extension rather than triple due to very weak calves.
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]LittleStrick wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]soldog wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.[/quote]
so you’re jumping on the 6-4-2 bandwagon then…
sounds like a good plan.[/quote]
I’m calling it “The Not-Prime Numbers Workout” for the book Harry thinks I should write.
[/quote]
Uh…isn’t 2 a prime number? Just sayin’…
How 'bout “The Almost Not-Prime Numbers Workout”?
[/quote]
Figures you would be the one to catch that.[/quote]
Sorry… I’ll stay gone this time. Promise. lol
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
makes me a better lover I hear. So why not?[/quote]
Can you clarify?
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
makes me a better lover I hear. So why not?[/quote]
Can you clarify?[/quote]
Cardio vascular endurance?
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
makes me a better lover I hear. So why not?[/quote]
Can you clarify?[/quote]
Cardio vascular endurance?[/quote]
And good glute action.
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]soldog wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.[/quote]
so you’re jumping on the 6-4-2 bandwagon then…
sounds like a good plan.[/quote]
I’m calling it “The Almost Not-Prime Numbers Workout” for the book Harry thinks I should write.
[/quote]
Ok, I’m ready to buy a copy 
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
makes me a better lover I hear. So why not?[/quote]
Can you clarify?[/quote]
Cardio vascular endurance?[/quote]
And good glute action.[/quote]
I have been told that people who play sports involving running have good hips, whatever that means. I wish plain old running wasn’t so boring though.
[quote]Elaikases wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]soldog wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
So I figure I’m just going to try to beat my training max for each cycle in each week, at least according to the calculated 1 RM. That makes me do 6,4 and 2 reps in each respective week of the cycle.
I’ll be keeping the assistance weights the same through the cycle, but try to make them move faster, then bump upper stuff by 5 and lower stuff by 10 lbs on the next cycle. I was going to wave the assistance weights, but the volume is already enough that I don’t think it’s needed.
I see 4 or 5 months before I start hitting PR’s again, which is fine. I don’t really want to be thinking too hard about this stuff for the next while.[/quote]
so you’re jumping on the 6-4-2 bandwagon then…
sounds like a good plan.[/quote]
I’m calling it “The Almost Not-Prime Numbers Workout” for the book Harry thinks I should write.
[/quote]
Ok, I’m ready to buy a copy ;)[/quote]
What he said!!
2010-9-22
C1 W2 D3 - BP, 3’s
BP
w/u 115 10x2
165x3
190x3
215x4 - est max = 243.64 = TMax+8.64 (1st rep paused for 3 count)
BBB
145 10x5 sets
Pendlay Row
185 10x5 sets
Nice benching Tony. You really do have a strong row going on there.
[quote]j_willy3 wrote:
Nice benching Tony. You really do have a strong row going on there.[/quote]
Thanks Wilson. It feels a little doofy dinking along with the little weights, but I think it’ll pay off later with longer progression.
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]j_willy3 wrote:
Nice benching Tony. You really do have a strong row going on there.[/quote]
Thanks Wilson. It feels a little doofy dinking along with the little weights, but I think it’ll pay off later with longer progression.[/quote]
You think you feel doofy, try using my weights.
What calculator are you using for your max?
I’ve been using this one (for no particular reason) http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/OneRepMax.html
[quote]giterdone wrote:
[quote]DaCharmingAlbino wrote:
[quote]j_willy3 wrote:
Nice benching Tony. You really do have a strong row going on there.[/quote]
Thanks Wilson. It feels a little doofy dinking along with the little weights, but I think it’ll pay off later with longer progression.[/quote]
You think you feel doofy, try using my weights.
What calculator are you using for your max?
I’ve been using this one (for no particular reason) http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/OneRepMax.html
[/quote]
I’ve been using Wendler’s formula
weight x reps x .0333 + weight
which is not terribly accurate for higher reps, actually. I use that number as an indicator of whether I’ve improved when comparing disparate weights and reps rather than believe it is an actual maximum.