Today's WOD
4 Sets of:
A1) "Touch and Go" DeadLifts - 15 Unbroken; rest 10 seconds
A2) Kipping Ring Dips - 10 reps; rest 10 seconds
A3) "Slap Chest" Push Ups - 10 reps; rest 180 seconds
4 Sets of:
B1) 25 GHD Back Extensions Unbroken; rest 10 seconds
B2) 25 Push Ups; rest 90 seconds
C) AMRAP of Double Unders in 5 minutes
D) Spend 5 mins working in HSPU
Results:
A1,2,3) Round 1: 185#/Unbroken/8-2
Round 2: 205#/Unbroken/ 7-3
Round 3: 225#/ Unbroken/ 5-3-2
Round 4: 235# broke once/Unbroken/ 4-2-2-1-1
B1,2) Round 1: Unbroken/ 20-5
Round 2: Unbroken/ 18-4-3
Round 3: Unbroken/ 15-5-5
Round 4: Unbroken/ 15-5-5
C) On my first attempt I only got 106 reps.. I was cramping up in my legs. So after I did part D I repeated C and got 173 reps.
D) Worked on form and used different grips and widths.
February 7, 2010
February 6, 2010
Training Day 40
Today's Wod:
A1.) High Bar Back Squats @ 40X1; 4-6 reps x 5 sets; rest 90 seconds
A2.) L Pull Ups @ 2121; AMRAP x 5 sets; rest 90 seconds
B.) Dumbbell Split Squat @ 3131; 5-7/leg x 4 sets; rest 45 seconds between legs
C.) 100 GHD Sit Ups for time! we did these on 1/27 so a good chance to compare and see improvement... Hopefully!
Results:
A1.) 135# x 7
155# x 6
165# x 6
175# x 5
185# x 4
A2.) 12/8/10/8/8... On the even number sets I used a palms facing out grip.. on the odds I used a palms facing in grip.
B.) 25# x 7/Leg for all four sets.. very challenging at tempo and my hip flexors were smoked going into those GHD's
C.) Time: 7:20
The last time we did these my time was 8:34.. So I knocked 1:14 off my total time.
Overall I felt strong today, especially on all those tempo Squats! And I was really happy with the progress I've made on the GHD machine!
Rx Post Wod Fuel was 45g Protein/30g Carbs which I got from a whey protein mixed with 4oz of sweet potato and 3 tablespoons of Apple Sauce with a little cinnamon. Delicious!!
A1.) High Bar Back Squats @ 40X1; 4-6 reps x 5 sets; rest 90 seconds
A2.) L Pull Ups @ 2121; AMRAP x 5 sets; rest 90 seconds
B.) Dumbbell Split Squat @ 3131; 5-7/leg x 4 sets; rest 45 seconds between legs
C.) 100 GHD Sit Ups for time! we did these on 1/27 so a good chance to compare and see improvement... Hopefully!
Results:
A1.) 135# x 7
155# x 6
165# x 6
175# x 5
185# x 4
A2.) 12/8/10/8/8... On the even number sets I used a palms facing out grip.. on the odds I used a palms facing in grip.
B.) 25# x 7/Leg for all four sets.. very challenging at tempo and my hip flexors were smoked going into those GHD's
C.) Time: 7:20
The last time we did these my time was 8:34.. So I knocked 1:14 off my total time.
Overall I felt strong today, especially on all those tempo Squats! And I was really happy with the progress I've made on the GHD machine!
Rx Post Wod Fuel was 45g Protein/30g Carbs which I got from a whey protein mixed with 4oz of sweet potato and 3 tablespoons of Apple Sauce with a little cinnamon. Delicious!!
February 5, 2010
Rest Day
The following is a piece from MarksDailyApple that talks about the Truth behind the Barefoot Lifestyle... Are those expensive running shoe doing more harm than good?
A Sea Change Coming to Wash Your Shoes Away
I’m sure you’ve seen it. It’s all over the news. People are finally beginning to come around to that inconvenient truth about our feet, that dirty little secret that shoe companies would prefer to keep under wraps: barefoot is better.
There has been media coverage of the barefoot trend in the past, mostly intermittent, in running magazines and always taking a patronizing tone. It follows the same formula: more idle speculation on a bizarre fad that a select few crazies are promoting, with plenty of “balance” from stuffy foot specialists expressing doubt that the inherently fragile, gentle human foot could ever withstand the rigors of walking unshod without “serious injury,” than any serious consideration of the merits. But now we’ve got a nice, juicy study to hang our hats (or our shoes) on, and media outlets are falling over themselves to get the scoop.
Witness the Boston Globe’s take on the whole thing, or the LA Times feature. The Edmonton Journal got into the action, too, as did the Telegraph, while even San Jose’s Mercury News mentioned the study. The Popular Science blog did a piece on it. And of course, the rest of the blogosphere picked up on it, too: Open Water Chicago, Conditioning Research, and the Chi Running blog, to name just a few.
The study in question was Harvard evolutionary biologist Daniel Lieberman’s on “Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners.” (See comparison videos below. The difference between shod heel strike running and barefoot forefoot strike running is visually and graphically captured. For more on what you’re seeing check out NPR’s coverage.) It’s hard to believe that this is the first study of its kind, though, probably because it actually isn’t. Last year, researchers ran a similar study and decided that “Footwear Alters Normal Form and Function of the Foot” by exerting acute pressure to sensitive areas of the foot, whereas barefoot walkers enjoyed wider forefeet and more evenly distributed locomotive stress. Interesting, but probably because it didn’t make any bold pronouncements and because it dealt with the relatively mundane act of walking (rather than running), the study didn’t get any press. They could have recommended people throw off their shoes, but that wouldn’t be prudent. It wouldn’t be responsible. I can’t fault them for that, really. Researchers need funding, and you don’t want to make bold pronouncements if it means getting cut off or reprimanded. Unfortunately, scientists need to be bold to effect real change.
Even when the “experts” get it so, so right, they do their best to get it wrong in the end, or they hedge their bets and stick with the safe answer, rather than question Conventional Wisdom entirely (even if the data contradicts CW directly). I’m reminded of when Gary Taubes famously lamented a similar mindset in physicians and obesity researchers who, although they understood (and even witnessed in a clinical setting) the chronic insulin/body fat connection, continued to recommend the standard low-fat, high-carb, low-calorie diet to their patients. They connect all the dots, but fail to see the bigger picture clearly outlined by those dots. To their credit, though, researchers can and do make sensible recommendations within the context of Conventional Wisdom. The researchers from that walking study did ultimately call for the design of “quality footwear” that doesn’t “hamper the foot’s biologically normal function.” Better than nothing, I suppose.
Now, even though I agree with Lieberman’s conclusions (actually, because I’m such a huge fan of barefoot), it pays to be critical. I know Lieberman has affiliations with Vibram – in fact, he may have even helped them design the Fivefingers – and that they probably funded the study, and I know that we hem, haw, and cast skeptical eyes on Pfizer when they fund yet another statin paper. There’s a major difference between the two, though: Lieberman is right. His data is strong. He isn’t hiding anything or fudging the results. We’re right. Barefoot is better. There’s no shame in that, you know – being right. There are objective truths out there, and the objective truth is that most people aren’t born with genetically defective feet. Everyone’s imperfect, sure, but for the most part we’ve all got the same basic equipment with the same basic biomechanics working under the hood. Unless you have a birth defect, no one is born with feet that “won’t work right” or that “require shoes”. The flat footed (no arch) argument doesn’t stand up as an excuse, except when you’ve already spent a lifetime coddling your feet in supportive casts. A cautionary word that anyone transitioning to a barefoot lifestyle should take it VERY easy at first.
There was one more response to the barefoot running study that bears mentioning: Brooks (world famous running shoe company) CEO Jim Weber’s scrambling blog post. You know – I feel for the guy. It’s gotta be tough to make a reasonable response to a scientifically sound piece of research that refutes almost everything you’ve built your business on. I mean, what is he supposed to do? Admit that he’s been wrong this whole time? Admit that his shoes are basically coffins for the feet? Naturally, he goes with the entirely unsubstantiated claim that the “vast majority of runners” should race “in a performance running shoe, not barefoot.” Apparently, we barefooters are a genetically gifted breed of athlete who are “biomechanically blessed” with “natural healthy gaits.” Hmm. So, the natural, normal gait is actually somehow rare and precious. It doesn’t occur naturally. Got it. Jim, did you ever stop to think why so many of your runners seem to lack that natural healthy gait? Perhaps it’s the shoes. Our “unique biomechanical needs” are only unique because we’ve been smashing, smushing, and confining our feet to too-small, too-constrictive, too-structured footwear for years. Check out your comments section, dude. The people have spoken. You can’t ignore anecdotal evidence pouring in from all sides forever.
I eagerly await your upcoming, inevitable barefoot-analogous running shoe model.
When the CEO of a major running shoe company makes a public acknowledgment, that’s a sign. A sea change is undoubtedly occurring here, folks. The media may help spur things along, but they’re just reporting what’s really happening out there. If there wasn’t a massive audience for the barefoot message present and willing to get out there and experiment for themselves, there’d be no story. Just check out the comment sections for all the blogs and all the newspaper articles dealing with the study. In previous barefoot articles, most of the comments were either dubious or dismissive of the “fad”; now, the naysayers clinging to their Nikes are being drowned out by barefoot evangelists. I applaud them.
You’re part of what made this possible. Now, let’s hope the rest of the Primal Blueprint gains some ground out there!
A Sea Change Coming to Wash Your Shoes Away
I’m sure you’ve seen it. It’s all over the news. People are finally beginning to come around to that inconvenient truth about our feet, that dirty little secret that shoe companies would prefer to keep under wraps: barefoot is better.
There has been media coverage of the barefoot trend in the past, mostly intermittent, in running magazines and always taking a patronizing tone. It follows the same formula: more idle speculation on a bizarre fad that a select few crazies are promoting, with plenty of “balance” from stuffy foot specialists expressing doubt that the inherently fragile, gentle human foot could ever withstand the rigors of walking unshod without “serious injury,” than any serious consideration of the merits. But now we’ve got a nice, juicy study to hang our hats (or our shoes) on, and media outlets are falling over themselves to get the scoop.
Witness the Boston Globe’s take on the whole thing, or the LA Times feature. The Edmonton Journal got into the action, too, as did the Telegraph, while even San Jose’s Mercury News mentioned the study. The Popular Science blog did a piece on it. And of course, the rest of the blogosphere picked up on it, too: Open Water Chicago, Conditioning Research, and the Chi Running blog, to name just a few.
The study in question was Harvard evolutionary biologist Daniel Lieberman’s on “Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners.” (See comparison videos below. The difference between shod heel strike running and barefoot forefoot strike running is visually and graphically captured. For more on what you’re seeing check out NPR’s coverage.) It’s hard to believe that this is the first study of its kind, though, probably because it actually isn’t. Last year, researchers ran a similar study and decided that “Footwear Alters Normal Form and Function of the Foot” by exerting acute pressure to sensitive areas of the foot, whereas barefoot walkers enjoyed wider forefeet and more evenly distributed locomotive stress. Interesting, but probably because it didn’t make any bold pronouncements and because it dealt with the relatively mundane act of walking (rather than running), the study didn’t get any press. They could have recommended people throw off their shoes, but that wouldn’t be prudent. It wouldn’t be responsible. I can’t fault them for that, really. Researchers need funding, and you don’t want to make bold pronouncements if it means getting cut off or reprimanded. Unfortunately, scientists need to be bold to effect real change.
Even when the “experts” get it so, so right, they do their best to get it wrong in the end, or they hedge their bets and stick with the safe answer, rather than question Conventional Wisdom entirely (even if the data contradicts CW directly). I’m reminded of when Gary Taubes famously lamented a similar mindset in physicians and obesity researchers who, although they understood (and even witnessed in a clinical setting) the chronic insulin/body fat connection, continued to recommend the standard low-fat, high-carb, low-calorie diet to their patients. They connect all the dots, but fail to see the bigger picture clearly outlined by those dots. To their credit, though, researchers can and do make sensible recommendations within the context of Conventional Wisdom. The researchers from that walking study did ultimately call for the design of “quality footwear” that doesn’t “hamper the foot’s biologically normal function.” Better than nothing, I suppose.
Now, even though I agree with Lieberman’s conclusions (actually, because I’m such a huge fan of barefoot), it pays to be critical. I know Lieberman has affiliations with Vibram – in fact, he may have even helped them design the Fivefingers – and that they probably funded the study, and I know that we hem, haw, and cast skeptical eyes on Pfizer when they fund yet another statin paper. There’s a major difference between the two, though: Lieberman is right. His data is strong. He isn’t hiding anything or fudging the results. We’re right. Barefoot is better. There’s no shame in that, you know – being right. There are objective truths out there, and the objective truth is that most people aren’t born with genetically defective feet. Everyone’s imperfect, sure, but for the most part we’ve all got the same basic equipment with the same basic biomechanics working under the hood. Unless you have a birth defect, no one is born with feet that “won’t work right” or that “require shoes”. The flat footed (no arch) argument doesn’t stand up as an excuse, except when you’ve already spent a lifetime coddling your feet in supportive casts. A cautionary word that anyone transitioning to a barefoot lifestyle should take it VERY easy at first.
There was one more response to the barefoot running study that bears mentioning: Brooks (world famous running shoe company) CEO Jim Weber’s scrambling blog post. You know – I feel for the guy. It’s gotta be tough to make a reasonable response to a scientifically sound piece of research that refutes almost everything you’ve built your business on. I mean, what is he supposed to do? Admit that he’s been wrong this whole time? Admit that his shoes are basically coffins for the feet? Naturally, he goes with the entirely unsubstantiated claim that the “vast majority of runners” should race “in a performance running shoe, not barefoot.” Apparently, we barefooters are a genetically gifted breed of athlete who are “biomechanically blessed” with “natural healthy gaits.” Hmm. So, the natural, normal gait is actually somehow rare and precious. It doesn’t occur naturally. Got it. Jim, did you ever stop to think why so many of your runners seem to lack that natural healthy gait? Perhaps it’s the shoes. Our “unique biomechanical needs” are only unique because we’ve been smashing, smushing, and confining our feet to too-small, too-constrictive, too-structured footwear for years. Check out your comments section, dude. The people have spoken. You can’t ignore anecdotal evidence pouring in from all sides forever.
I eagerly await your upcoming, inevitable barefoot-analogous running shoe model.
When the CEO of a major running shoe company makes a public acknowledgment, that’s a sign. A sea change is undoubtedly occurring here, folks. The media may help spur things along, but they’re just reporting what’s really happening out there. If there wasn’t a massive audience for the barefoot message present and willing to get out there and experiment for themselves, there’d be no story. Just check out the comment sections for all the blogs and all the newspaper articles dealing with the study. In previous barefoot articles, most of the comments were either dubious or dismissive of the “fad”; now, the naysayers clinging to their Nikes are being drowned out by barefoot evangelists. I applaud them.
You’re part of what made this possible. Now, let’s hope the rest of the Primal Blueprint gains some ground out there!
February 4, 2010
Training Day 39
So last night I had a little Heart to Heart with my Jump Rope... And Finally... For the first time since starting my training back in September, I was able to string together Double Under jump ropes!! (where you jump once and the rope passes under you twice)
The most I have done unbroken with my new jump rope was 10! This morning I was able to string 5 sets of 30 Unbroken. Best day of training in a long time! These things really had me worried that they were going to ruin my attempts at placing this year. I feel so much more confident now that I KNOW I can put together 50,60, 70 or more in a row!
Today's WOD:
7 Rounds for Total Time:
30 Double Unders
20 Chin Ups
10 Push Jerks @ 135#
rest 2 minutes between sets
Results:
Rounds
1) 2:01
2) 2:45
3) 3:14
4) 3:29
5) 3:41
6) 3:00 - for whatever reason, I thought this was my last round... My Adrenalin kicked in and I tried to make up some lost time..This was also the round I got the most Push Jerks and Pull Ups in a row... bad shock to see I still had one more round to go!!
7) 3:31
Total Time: 33:41 minus the (6) 2 minute rest periods between rounds = my Total Working Time = 21:41
The most I have done unbroken with my new jump rope was 10! This morning I was able to string 5 sets of 30 Unbroken. Best day of training in a long time! These things really had me worried that they were going to ruin my attempts at placing this year. I feel so much more confident now that I KNOW I can put together 50,60, 70 or more in a row!
Today's WOD:
7 Rounds for Total Time:
30 Double Unders
20 Chin Ups
10 Push Jerks @ 135#
rest 2 minutes between sets
Results:
Rounds
1) 2:01
2) 2:45
3) 3:14
4) 3:29
5) 3:41
6) 3:00 - for whatever reason, I thought this was my last round... My Adrenalin kicked in and I tried to make up some lost time..This was also the round I got the most Push Jerks and Pull Ups in a row... bad shock to see I still had one more round to go!!
7) 3:31
Total Time: 33:41 minus the (6) 2 minute rest periods between rounds = my Total Working Time = 21:41
February 3, 2010
Training Day 38
Today was a pretty light day compared to yesterday!!
Today's WOD:
A.) Quickly build to a tough 3 reps in the DeadLift, but not a 3 RM; rest 60 seconds between sets.
B.) Bench Press @ 10X0 - 60% of 1RM; 8 sets of 3 reps; rest 30 seconds between sets.
C.) Hang Power Clean @ 12X1; 3 sets of 3 reps - 80% Effort; rest as needed; rest as needed.
D.) GHD Raises @ 2010; 5 sets of 15 reps; rest 90 - 120 seconds.
Results:
A.) 300# felt good... close to a 3 RM but felt quick!
B.) 155# on all sets pretty easy
C.)155# on all sets
D.) All 5 sets unbroken with hands behind head!
Wanted a little extra so I did a quick little "Gasser" WOD of:
5 round for time of:
7 Wall Balls @ 20# ball
7 Burpees
Time: 2:53 (two minutes and fifty-three seconds)
Now I'm done!
Today's WOD:
A.) Quickly build to a tough 3 reps in the DeadLift, but not a 3 RM; rest 60 seconds between sets.
B.) Bench Press @ 10X0 - 60% of 1RM; 8 sets of 3 reps; rest 30 seconds between sets.
C.) Hang Power Clean @ 12X1; 3 sets of 3 reps - 80% Effort; rest as needed; rest as needed.
D.) GHD Raises @ 2010; 5 sets of 15 reps; rest 90 - 120 seconds.
Results:
A.) 300# felt good... close to a 3 RM but felt quick!
B.) 155# on all sets pretty easy
C.)155# on all sets
D.) All 5 sets unbroken with hands behind head!
Wanted a little extra so I did a quick little "Gasser" WOD of:
5 round for time of:
7 Wall Balls @ 20# ball
7 Burpees
Time: 2:53 (two minutes and fifty-three seconds)
Now I'm done!
February 2, 2010
Training Day 37
Today we had to do Three Separate Work Outs.. 2 minutes rest between each round of each workout (except for the last workout which is Timed) with 2 minutes rest between workouts.
Today's Definitions:
21, 15, 9 - Its a rep scheme.. You do 21 reps of the Rx movements then repeat the movements for the 2nd set but only 15 reps, then 9 reps for the third set.
Thrusters - are a front squat + a push press
Burpees - jump down to a plank, chest to floor, push up, tuck your knees, then jump up with hands overhead...Should be done as one quick aggressive move... Google it if this makes no sense!
Unbroken - Not resting/dropping the bar until all reps are complete
Today's WOD's
1) 3 Sets of:
10 Thrusters @ 120#
Row 2 minutes @ 90% Effort
rest 2 minutes
+
2) 3 Sets of:
10 Front Squats @ 135#
90 Seconds of High Knee Skipping
rest 2 minutes
+
3) 21, 15, 9 Rep Rounds for Time of:
Chin Ups
Burpees
Results:
1) Rx Weight
1st Round) 10 Unbroken Thrusters/520 meter Row
2nd Round) Broken Thruster @ 7 - 3/510 meter Row
3rd Round) Broken Thruster @ 5-3-2/ 502 meter Row
2) Rx Weight
1st Round) 10 Unbroken Front Squats/ 90 seconds Unbroken
2nd Round) Broken Front Squats @ 8 - 2/ one 5 second rest
3rd Round) Broken Front Squats @ 7 - 3/ one 5 second rest
3) 21 Rep Round - Unbroken Chin Ups and Burpees
15 Rep Round - 8 - 7 Broken Chin Ups and Burpees
9 Rep Round - 5 - 4 Broken Chin Ups and Unbroken Burpees
TIME: 5:35 (Five Minutes & Thirty-Five Seconds)
I hit a wall after that first round of 21 Chin ups/Burpees but managed to struggle through it.. Probably rested about 15+ seconds between rep rounds 21 and 15 before I felt recovered enough to get back on the bar.. All three workouts really pushed my wind!! Overall though I'm pretty happy with today. My goals are always to do these types of moves (i.e. Thrusters and Front Squats) Unbroken.. Long way to go before I'm to that level but I'm definitely improving and yet still not peaking to early.. Everyday seems to be of better than the day before!
Today's Definitions:
21, 15, 9 - Its a rep scheme.. You do 21 reps of the Rx movements then repeat the movements for the 2nd set but only 15 reps, then 9 reps for the third set.
Thrusters - are a front squat + a push press
Burpees - jump down to a plank, chest to floor, push up, tuck your knees, then jump up with hands overhead...Should be done as one quick aggressive move... Google it if this makes no sense!
Unbroken - Not resting/dropping the bar until all reps are complete
Today's WOD's
1) 3 Sets of:
10 Thrusters @ 120#
Row 2 minutes @ 90% Effort
rest 2 minutes
+
2) 3 Sets of:
10 Front Squats @ 135#
90 Seconds of High Knee Skipping
rest 2 minutes
+
3) 21, 15, 9 Rep Rounds for Time of:
Chin Ups
Burpees
Results:
1) Rx Weight
1st Round) 10 Unbroken Thrusters/520 meter Row
2nd Round) Broken Thruster @ 7 - 3/510 meter Row
3rd Round) Broken Thruster @ 5-3-2/ 502 meter Row
2) Rx Weight
1st Round) 10 Unbroken Front Squats/ 90 seconds Unbroken
2nd Round) Broken Front Squats @ 8 - 2/ one 5 second rest
3rd Round) Broken Front Squats @ 7 - 3/ one 5 second rest
3) 21 Rep Round - Unbroken Chin Ups and Burpees
15 Rep Round - 8 - 7 Broken Chin Ups and Burpees
9 Rep Round - 5 - 4 Broken Chin Ups and Unbroken Burpees
TIME: 5:35 (Five Minutes & Thirty-Five Seconds)
I hit a wall after that first round of 21 Chin ups/Burpees but managed to struggle through it.. Probably rested about 15+ seconds between rep rounds 21 and 15 before I felt recovered enough to get back on the bar.. All three workouts really pushed my wind!! Overall though I'm pretty happy with today. My goals are always to do these types of moves (i.e. Thrusters and Front Squats) Unbroken.. Long way to go before I'm to that level but I'm definitely improving and yet still not peaking to early.. Everyday seems to be of better than the day before!
February 1, 2010
Rest Day
Get Well Soon Pap
O Father of mercies and God of all comfort, our only help in time of need: We humbly beseech thee to behold, visit and relieve thy sick servant Jack Garland for whom our prayers are desired. Look upon him with the eyes of thy mercy; comfort him with a sense of thy goodness; preserve him from the temptations of the enemy; and give him patience under his affliction. In thy good time, restore him to health, and enable him to lead the residue of his life in thy fear, and to thy glory; and grant that finally he may dwell with thee in life everlasting; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
