Archive for December 2008
Throwing Heavy Stuff First, Then Sprints
Mahatma Gandhi
Here’s how Sunday’s workout shaped-up:
- Hurdle bounds (5 hurdles, dual-foot, minimum reset between bounds) x 10 rounds
- Caber Toss with the 45 lb medicine ball x 8 throws (see explanation below)
- 5-second, fixed-time sprints for distance x 16 sprints (drop-off method)
The hurdle bounds acted as a bit of post activation potentiation (PAP) to set me up for a good series of heavy, all-out throws. Note that if I were “competing” in the caber toss, I would not have done as many rounds of the hurdle bounds, but would have done only 3 sets or so — just enough to “prime the system”. Here’s an informative video clip on PAP. Also note that at 3:21 into this particular clip is a fantastic demonstration of the medicine ball overhead throw (i.e., caber toss). She’s using a much lighter implement here, so as to work on the speed component of this power exercise, whereas I’m using a much heavier ball, and working the strength end of the speed/strength continuum. The take-away message here is know thy weakness and endeavor to fix said weakness.
Let’s take a look at how the throws shaped-up, and how I used the drop-off method to know when to “pull the plug” on the exercise:
I initially set my distance marker at approximately 30 feet. I knew this to be an “in the ball park” range from previous (and logged) experience, but again, I could have just as easily thrown first and then set the initial mark. Here are the throws, results and actions taken:
- beat initial mark (reset to new distance)
- beat mark (reset to new distance)
- beat mark (reset to new distance)
- beat mark (reset to new distance. This wound up being the day’s PR, at approximately 33 feet. I then figured my drop-off from this point. For a high threshold, power dominant exercise like this, I like to use about a 6 – 10% drop-off. This keeps me sufficiently challenged, yet clean of the overtraining abyss. With a little rounding, fudging, finger and toe counting, I finally settled on a drop-off of approximately 2 feet. Now I’ll keep on throwing until I fail to reach 31 feet.
- equaled mark
- slight miss
- larger miss (just a shade over 31 feet)
- something less than 31 feet. Drop-off acheived.
One thing to note with using drop-offs is this: It’s a play between numbers and percentages, accurate measurement and “feel” and past experience. I could have just as easily decided to pull the plug because my technique was faltering (a sure sign of fatigue, especially in sprints and in the high-power weight room exercises). Also of consideration is the ease of modality measurement. This kind of distance is both easily standardized and measured, so it lends itself to a more conservative interpretation of the drop-off method. Short distance sprinting, for example (where the drop-off can be as little as 1%), is a little more fuzzy and, therefore, calls for a little more “feel” input.
After this, I moved on to some 5-second, fixed-time, barefooted sprints, using the same type of drop-off set-up (albeit with a much reduced drop-off goal of approximately 1%, as “guesstimated”, in feet). I managed 16 sprints (with full recovery) before I finally reached drop-off.
So Why the preference for this kind of a workout?
This is all about fast-twitch muscle fiber activation, central nervous system activation, and prompting a favorable gene expression; it’s all about pushing my body to acheive a higher (and in my opinion,a healthier) peak anaerobic power (PAPw) output. It’s about fine-tuning a fast-twitch dominant, fat burning machine. It’s also a hellovalota fun! Compare this to a bout of mindless jogging — ugh, parish the thought!
…and an abundance of inspiration on hand ~
I really wish I’d have brought my camera to document the inspiration on display Sunday afternoon, at the ECU outdoor track. Some photojournalist I am, huh? Way to always be prepared, big guy! A Bot Scout you’re not. Anyway, let me see if I can recreate the scene: At the far end of the track — where the sprint events normally start — was a dreadlocked and wiry college-aged kid, a 60-meter and sprint-hurdles athlete, working with his coach (who I’d spoken with earlier, in between my sets of hurdle bounds) on block-starts and 60-meter acceleration. A picture of fluid, sprint perfection if there ever was one, blazingly — and I do mean blazingly — fast. Juxtaposed to this, puttering around the inside lane of the track, was an elderly man in a wheelchair. Not just any old wheelchair, mind you, this man — who by his limp posture, and the manner and multitude of straps required to keep him secure and upright in the chair, undoubtedly had recently suffered some form of severe paralysis — “pedaled” himself around the track by means of a hand-powered mechanism, attched to the wheelchair, that resembled a bicycle crank. The device was geared rather low, as the man, though “pedaling” in earnest, only managed a snail’s pace around the track. This he did, though, for the duration of my extended workout, while his companion (wife?) walked along beside offering small talk and encouragement. Two “coach-and-athlete” teams; two wildly differing sets of goals. Individually inspiring scenes in and of themselves; their juxtaposition, though, was a scene — and a lesson in both life, and fitness “goals” that I won’t soon forget.
It’s back to the gym on Tuesday and Wednesday, then another 5-day, no-gym stretch, with a trip to Atlanta thrown in.
In Health,
Keith
Sprints for Time; Throwing Heavy Stuff for Distance
- I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A bird will fall frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
Sprinting for a fixed time vs sprinting for a fixed distance. Now, you might legitimately ask if there’s any real difference here — why the bother to differentiate? Well, in the simplest of terms, it allows one to more easily identify proper drop-off (defined below) in a particular exercise — when to appropriately call it quits, in other words. Let me explain.
I prescribe to the theory that an individual’s ability to tolerate stress (be it exercise induced or otherwise), will fluctuate day-to-day, workout-to-workout. When we hit the gym — or as in my case recently, the track — we really only have but a vague idea (at best) as to what we are truly capable of. We don’t really know how much training-induced stress is too much, not enough, or just right at that particular time and under that day’s unique set of circumstances. In other words, if it were possible to control and standardize all the variables of a particular workout session (set, reps, weight, speed of execution, total time under tension, etc.), and actually re-perform that exact same workout at various times throughout the year, the net affect on the body would indeed vary at each instance. Very few times, in fact, would that workout’s particular workload be “just right” for our needs. In an attempt to remove some of the guessing-game element from knowing how much workload is sufficient, I usually incorporate some manner of “drop-off” measurement in my workouts. Now ideally, I’d do this for every exercise of every workout. Realistically, however, I don’t, due to practical reasons (lack of time usually being the most limiting factor), and some real-world timing and/or speed-measuring limitations that make measuring a drop-off impractical for my needs. I will say tough, that if my living were dependent upon my sporting performance, I would make sure to use drop-offs with every exercise. That said, when the practical option does exist for a particular exercise and modality, I will certainly use it. Sprinting for a fixed time is just one example. Throwing repeats, for either distance or height, is another. I touched on this subject a bit in this post, but now I’d like to expound a bit on the notion of the measured “drop-off”.
I think this explanation will be made easier by jumping right to an example. Let’s look at an initial exercise from a recent workout — and by “initial” I mean only if we are to discount the pre-sprint, lugging of a 45 lb medicine ball (via fixed-speed bicycle) to the track. I’ll use this recent sprint/throw session as an example.
The set-up here is simple: I’ve got a time-down stopwatch that I’ve set for 10 seconds (why 10 seconds? I’ll get into energy systems in a later post), and I’ve stationed a marker approximately 85 yards away from my starting line. Now, my goal for each sprint, after the initial sprint, is to better my previous “best distance” covered in that 10 second span. Now I’ve got a visual goal — something tangible to focus on — and so I’m not forced to rely on the prompt of the “phantom timer” in my mind.
Let me back up just a minute. I initially stationed my marker at 85 yards away — but I knew this to be a pretty good estimate of my ability because I’ve done this before, and I looked back over my records to get a ball park feel for about where I should be. I could have just as easily set my stopwatch, sprinted (after a decent warm-up, of course) for the applicable time, and dropped a marker at the sound of the chime. Either method works just fine. The first method just allows you the aid of the “visual goal” at the onset of the session.
Now, in this workout I performed a total of 10, full-out, 10-second sprints, with a full recovery between each sprint. The distances covered, relative to my initial marker, were as follows:
- beat the original mark (reset mark to new distance)
- beat mark (reset mark)
- beat mark (reset mark — this wound-up being the best distance — or PR — of the day)*
- missed mark by a shade
- missed mark by a shade
- equaled mark
- equaled mark
- equaled mark
- missed mark
- missed mark by a greater distance than in sprint #9 (drop-off reached).
*every time I “beat the mark”, I reset the mark to the new, “better”distance. This then became my new goal to beat. In other words, the #3 mark was about a yard greater in distance than the #1 mark.
A couple of things here: obviously, the use of a hand timer at the start throws an element of imprecision into the mix. This is one reason I prefer to use the “sprint for time” method, as it requires only one interaction with the watch. For an athlete in training, I’d use a FAT (fully automatic timing) system. This would also allow for much more precise drop-off measurement. I’d also take precise distance measurements so as to more adequately figure drop-off percentages.
All fine and well you say, but I still haven’t defined “drop-off”, much less explained how it can be used in the day-to-day doings of us slave-to-he-grind folks. Very well then, try this on for size:
Drop-off: a reduction in performance in a particular exercise, as measured against that day’s personal best performance in the exercise,and expressed as a percentage of the exercise’s identified, limiting parameter (i.e., time, repetitions, speed, distance, height, etc.). Used as a way of accurately measuring induced stress.
Armed with this information, then, I can better gauge my performance. I could have said, “well, I’ll go out and rip off 10, 85 yard sprints” and be done with it. The thing is, though, how do I know that I did enough work — or worse yet — how do I know if I’m not falling into an overtraining zone by pushing myself too hard (the all-too common, over-exuberance factor)? As an example, after sprint #7 here, without having measured drop-off, I probably would have called the session due to perceived fatigue. As it was, though, I could actually see that my performance hadn’t slipped, so I did another sprint and hit the mark again. Hmm. In sprint #9 (and feeling pretty damn taxed by this point), I missed the mark, but only by about half a step. I was a good step and half off in sprint #10, and this is where I eventually pulled the plug. I was officially, at this point, “sprint toast”.
Now, one can really drop off (pardon the pun) the edge of the earth and totally geek-out with this stuff, because drop-off percentages are highly individualized, and are correlated to an individual’s unique work capacity (also highly individualized), and the resultant, appropriate workout frequency, and to whether (as in my case here) the workout was based on tapping a max effort performance or a repeated effort performance (i.e., how many times can I repeat, say a 90% effort at 50 yards — an effective conditioning tool). These are two totally different animals, with the induced drop-offs for each, and the resultant workout frequency, being a bit different.
So now that you’ve got a feel for what a drop-off is, what can you do with it?
Well, truth be told, your everyday fitness/health seeking individual will be miles ahead of the pack by simply realizing that going into a workout with a preset notion of how to structure an exercise (as far as weight, sets, time under tension, and total reps are concerned) is a subpar way of going about business. In the simplest of terms, you need to test the waters of what you’re capable of in that particular exercise, situated as it is in that particular location within your workout, and on that particular day. Use your notes of of an exercise’s past weights, reps, times, distance, etc. as a guide to the current workout, no more than that. This is similar to what I did by placing my sprint marker where I did at the beginning of my sprint sequence. By my third sprint I had readjusted to the day’s new “max”, as this was then used as a gauge for all the following “reps”. What might have affected the day’s new max? Anything in the world. Hucking a 45lb medicine ball to the track? Yup, that’ll affect things. Heavy deadlifts two days prior? I’d say so. But I did have two days worth of extended sleep, and no job/commuting stress to speak of; so did that fact offset the other circumstances? See what I mean? Only your performance can dictate what you are really capable of on a particular day.
Let’s look at a second example from the same day; the overhead medicine ball throw for distance — otherwise known as a caber toss. A fantastic exercise for working explosiveness in the posterior chain. But wait, sprinting is also pretty taxing on the posterior chain. Ah, but I am equiped with two pieces of knowledge here: (1) my past performance in this particular exercise, under more “ideal” conditions (i.e., not pre-fatigued) and, (2) I’ve got a drop-off goal in mind (how I establish this goal is the subject of another post).
I wound-up performing 8 all-out throws here, with the second throw being my day’s PR. By throw #8, I was off my PR by about a foot — time to pull the plug. Any more work here would’ve been an act of futility akin to beating a rented mule; any less work would not have taxed my posterior chain enough. Armed with a drop-off measurement, though, I was able to more accurately approximate the Goldie Locks zone of “just right”.
I’ll include another video clip here of Dan Pfaff considering the “Macro view” on how an over-emphasis in one particular part of an overall training regimen can negatively affect overall performance. Don’t let the title of the clip scare you away, as this is applicable to all traing groups, not just throwers. I use the vertical jump as my personal, overall performance measurement (as I explained in this post), and so I look at training through the prism of increasing my performance in that (the peak anaerobic power) realm.
I should mention as well, that I am a big proponent of sprinting for distance under a fixed time, for another reason: it is particularly well-suited as a training method — aside from the ease in which drop-offs can be measured. It is, simply speaking, a great psychological twist that can help in maximizing physical performance output. Mike Young, over at Elite Track, touches on this notion a bit in this post.
And oh, yeah — how did you lug that damn medicine ball to the track?
Very carefully 
Pack,
heave…
and haul…
In Health,
Keith
This is One Reason I Fear Government Intervention in the Food System
The frightening thing here, from my prospective, is the fact that there is so much of this that Kristof gets right — only to then tumble down the “fat is evil” rabbit hole. I can easily see a “fat tax” imposed, in the very near future, on suspect foodstuffs that the “informed government” will use as a carrot/stick (depending upon your point of view, I suppose) to wean us from the plethora of “unhealthy” foods. This tax would then be used, I’m guessing, to help support/promote the more “healthy” grain-based alternatives.
I am a realist, and I understand the necessity of providing subsidies to farmers and ranchers in an attempt to promote a more stable food supply and consistent pricing of that food supply. I think, though, that the program should be limited in reach, and restructured in such a way as to promote the locally-grown, food co-op idea, such as my own food co-op, here in Greenville, NC. In this way, consumers will be able to “promote with their dollars” that type of foodstuff they desire, and are willing to pay for instead of the government making that choice for the masses.
No matter how in-vogue (and fun, I’ll have to admit) it may be, however, to bash on the government, it is really the actions of the collective citizenry that will turn the tides here. Unfortunately, I don’t have much confidence in the “collective citizenry” on this issue. For the vast majority at least, it seems as if health, fitness and diet (and independent research in these areas of concern) is just not worth their time. We are living collectively (and “paying” via ever-increasing health care premiums) with the ramifications of such apathy now. One thing I’ve never suffered well is willful ignorance; being forced to financially support the ramifications of another’s willful ignorance is enough to push me over the edge.
In Health,
Keith
Leg of Lamb
The crown jewel of our Christmas dinner, cooked to perfection by Meesus TTP. As far as I’m concerned, though, anytime is a good time for leg of lamb. One of my favorites!
We began with a 7 lb. leg of lamb, tenderized with a device very similar to this. We then rubbed the cut liberally with Dijon mustard, then drizzled it with lemon juice (fresh is preferred, but concentrate will work in a pinch) and lite soy sauce. Next we sprinkled on (again, liberally) dry/ground basil, thyme and rosemary. We pressed this into the meat using a dry-rub brush, then topped it with sprigs of fresh rosemary.
And directly into a 375 degree oven she went. Cooking time is about 2 1/2 hours (covered, or foil tented) to reach an internal temperature of about 160 degrees.
Out of the oven and plated…
…and midway through carving. If done correctly (and this one was), the meat just pulls very easily from around the bone.
Sweet potato, avocado and butter & garlic-sauteed kale rounded out this meal. Absolutely wonderful.
In Health,
Keith
Athleticism vs Skill, and the Correlation Between Athleticism and Health/Fitness
TTP reader Patrik brought up a very good point in a comment to my vertical jump post of a few days back. For those who may not have seen the comment, I’ll include it below, along with my reply to Patrik’s comments (in red). But first, you might be wondering why the differentiation between skill and athleticism is is at all important for your everyday TTP’er. Isn’t this a concern for only the competitive athlete, coach and/or recruiter? Well, the short answer is no; however, a little more explanation is required (which was pointed out to me by Patrik) to justify this answer. Here was Patrik’s comment, separated by my replies:
Thirty-Five Hours and Three Workouts
After cramming in three tough workouts within a 35-hour span, well — let’s just say that I know exactly how this guy feels:
One Spent Cat
Thanks to my friend and coworker, Cristina, for sending this picture she took of her cat, Motan, taken just moments after the poor fella missed a new Clean & Jerk PR by a mere fraction. Better luck next time, big guy. Motan, by the way, is Romanian for “Tom Cat”. You learn something new every day, here at TTP, huh?
So three workouts compressed within a two-day timeframe is not my usual modus operandi. However, with the holidays here — and gym and work schedules being as they are, and with the weather being a bit wiggy (rain, snow, cold, warm — you can never tell) here in eastern North Carolina in the winter months, I thought I might try to shock the system sufficiently to carry me through the Christmas (I’ll cross the “New Years” holiday bridge when I get there). But in compressing a number of workouts within a short period of time, one must favor careful planning at the expense of the more loosey-goosey randomness. Look not only at the contrast between these workouts, but also notice the modality consistency within each workout. We want to try to avoid cross-contaminating widely divergent modalities within each workout, usually. There is a time and a place for this when dealing with certain competative athletes, but it is not the norm.
A thumbnail sketch of the workout timing over Monday and Tuesday looked like this:
Monday: AM workout, normal workday
Tuesday: AM workout, normal workday, PM workout
The Details
Monday AM, prior to the workday, empty stomach. This was a speed/strength (ballistic) and strength/speed(power) dominant workout:
- Kneeling chest press/launch with a 5 kg medicine ball x 5 reps
- Gymnastic ring kipping pull-ups to just shy of the “muscle-up” position x 8 reps (since I was concerned more with the pull-up portion here, I started from a full hang and pulled to the position just prior to the internal rotation, whereas the clip shows beginning at the half hang, with an emphasis on the internal rotation, muscle-up and dip)
Three rounds of that, followed by:
Weighted Jump Squats (from the full, top-of-thigh parallel to the ground position), 5 sets of 6 reps
This workout took about 45 minutes to complete. I followed with a steam bath/cold shower contrast to help aid in my recovery. One down, two to go.
Tuesday AM, prior to the workday, empty stomach. Strength/speed (power) dominant:
Power Snatch. Worked up to a weight sufficient for 7 singles. This clip is of a full snatch. I started each rep with the bar just above my knee.
Power Curl. Same thing here, worked up to 7 singles. Performed an approximate 3-count negative biceps curl (or as slow as I could manage) on the return.
Another 45-minute workout followed by a steam/cold contrast recovery.
Tuesday PM, 10 hours after the completion of the AM workout, I did this little beauty. And damn was it taxing. Again, I followed this with a steam/cold shower contrast. Strength dominant.
- Regular (over/under) grip Deadlifts x 1’s (7 lifts total for the entire workout. 4 lifts at >90% of max, 3 lifts at >95% of max)
- Weighted Dips x 2’s
7 rounds of that superset with lots of rest between each set (i.e., not intended to be a metcon workout). It doesn’t look like much on paper, but it’s a killer.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
In Health,
Keith
Standing Rib Roast
This is a holiday favorite around the TTP household, and what we had for dinner this past Sunday night. The sweet potatoes are obviously unnecessary, but it is convenient to throw them in along with the meat. I always search out the smallest sweet potato I can find. Steamed and buttered broccoli rounded out this particular meal.
We started off with a beautiful, 7 lb standing rib roast. What Meesus TTP is doing here is inserting garlic wedges within deep slits she has cut into the roast. I guess she placed 10 or 12 wedges throughout the entire piece.
Then we slathered the roast in olive oil, peppered it heavily (I like a lot of pepper), and added fresh-cut rosemary from the herb garden. We put lots of it between the ribs and the roast.
And now we have Chia roast. She went into a 350 degree oven for about 2 1/2 hours (until the internal temperature reached about 130 degrees).
Out of the oven; finally. 2 1/2 hours seems like a long wait when the smell of this baby is circulating throughout the house.
The final product. The ribs are at the 4 O’clock position.
In Health. And happy holidays –
Keith
Insulin and Insulin Resistance
I listened to an informative Super Human Radio podcast this morning during my gym/work commute. Host Carl Lanore interviewed Dr. Scott Connelly for this segment, and what an interesting segment it was. This show is part I of a four-part series covering insulin, insulin resistance and the diet/exercise insulin connection. Dr. Connelly drills down pretty deep in his explanations — much deeper than any lay person needs to go — but it is, nonetheless, highly interesting stuff.
Dr. Connelly, for those who might not remember (or for those who might not have been around — I forget that I’m gettin’ to be an old timer in this game), the diet/fitness scene of the early ’90’s, has always been a staunch advocate of a high protein (whey isolate) consumption type diet. He is the inventor/founder of the Met Rx meal replacement supplement, one of the first really bonafide and nutritious MRS to hit the market. The good Dr. has apparently improved upon his original “recipe” and, after selling the Met Rx line, has begun a new venture by the name of Progenex. Although I don’t use protein supplements myself, Dr. Connelly does make a good argument for their use, given the sad state of the American food supply system. Tainted animal rearing practices lead to a tainted and incomplete, final product. I can’t really argue with that reasoning.
Enjoy the interview.
In Health,
Keith
True Indicators of Fitness and Athleticism
“…and his body seemed impervious to gravity’s pull, as if he were one step ahead of its grasp, or maybe composed of some ether-world thing, immune, impartial to the tug; a sea with a tide of its own biding…” — Keith Norris, from The Blood of Samuel
Have you ever listened to the NPR program, This I Believe? I really love those segments. You never know what you might hear, and many times the stories or “beliefs” hit just like powerful line of poetry, worming into the brain and having you to unexpectedly ponder the meaning of it all at odd points throughout the day. I love a story or a line or poetry that sticks to me like that. Well, anyway, here’s a little of what I believe. It may not worm into your brain like a line from Keats, but here it goes, nonetheless:
I believe that I can rank any sized group of athletes, from the most athletic to the least, having never seen them before and by only (1) watching them take 10, normal walking strides, (2) having them perform a single, simple, athletic test, and (3) measuring their height and body weight (no need to measure body fat, it’d just be an unneeded waste of time). What’s more, if I were a recruiter for any field or court sport, I could effectively and quickly narrow down which athletes I would consider granting a scholarship to — assuming the mental and character aspects — and of course, heart — were on par with their athletic ability. And what’s more again, I can observe the same data from any group (and again, knowing nothing about them and having never seen them before) and predict, with a high degree of accuracy, who is fit and well and who is a mishap or an illness waiting to happen.
What am I, some kind of Edgar Cayce wannabe? Well, hardly. Although, having Edgar’s talent for prediction would be a nice plus
So,what is this “magical test” I’m speaking of? Some kind of muscle biopsy technique adopted from the old East German system? Well, no and there’s really nothing “magical” about it at all — it’s simply the basic vertical jump. In some, more scientific circles, it’s known as the CMJ (counter movement jump). And why is this test so predictive of athleticism, not to mention relative well-being? Because, pure and simple, it’s a measure of raw power production. It’s you against gravity, with very little in the way of technique to skew the outcome. Oh, the argument could be made for a handful of other “tests” — the various dashes, broad jumps, standing triple jump, various agility runs, caber toss, and hang clean, to name a few — but if I had to pick one — just one — I’d go, hands down, with the simple vertical jump, due to the ease of test administration and tight control of variables.
Now, let me tell you how I use this simple test on myself. Every few weeks or so, I’ll do a vertical jump “test”, just to see if my training has been “on cue” and if I’m firing on all cylinders, so to speak. One thing to keep in mind is that it’s not so much the outcome of the jump itself (in raw vertical inches) that matters, but the peak (or average) power generated that is of interest. For example, is a lean 175 lb athlete with a “vert” of 32 inches a better raw athlete than a 220 lb athlete with a vert of 30 inches? Hmmmm. Or, what if I’ve trained a female (who just wants to be “fit and well” ) for a solid 8 weeks. She’s lost 25 lbs of body weight, but only increased her vert by an inch. Has she lost muscle fiber in her weight loss efforts and/or suffered conversion from fast to slow twitch fiber? Do I need to do more strength or more power work with her — or both? Maybe she thinks she’s doing well on her diet, but in reality, maybe somethings amiss. These things are easily sorted by using the vertical jump as the measured effort, and then converting that result to an equivalent power using the Sayers Formula. Power is the great equalizer, and it allows us to compare the relative fitness (or athleticism) of any two dissimilar body types. And don’t let the math scare you. It’s so easy, even a Liberal Arts, PoliSci major like myself can handle it. Here we go:
The Sayers Formula
The Sayers Equation (Sayers et al. 1999) estimates peak power output (Peak Anaerobic Power output or PAPw) from the vertical jump.
PAPw (Watts) = 60.7 · jump height(cm) + 45.3 · body mass(kg) – 2055
Example
- PAPw = (60.7 x jump height(cm)) + (45.3 x body mass(kg)) – 2055
- PAPw = (60.7 x 60) + (45.3 x 75) – 2055
- PAPw = 3642 + 3397.5 – 2055
- PAPw = 4984.5 Watts
Reference: Sayers, S., et al. (1999) Cross-validation of three jump power equations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 31: 572.
My personal fitness goal is to maintain this peak anaerobic power marker as high as possible. It’s a quick and easy test to see if I’m keeping myself reasonably fit, relatively athletic, and on track. Now, obviously, I could train specifically for this test (i.e., never training chest, shoulders or back) and better my power mark here, even while neglecting other attributes. I won’t cheat myself like that, though. In fact, I’m currently trying to figure out an equivalent “push-up vert” equation (I’m leaning, though, toward a med. ball press-toss variant for this purpose). Maybe a pull-up vert, or a timed rope climb as well. But for now, and for my purposes, the standing vert works just fine. And now the hundred dollar question: do I think that eating in a hunter-gatherer fashion has helped increase my peak power production? Most definitely, yes. And I know it’s a direct result of my diet because I’ve trained the same manner for years. I’ve only lost about 10 lbs or so, but I’ve gained a couple of inches in vert height and, overall, I’ve gained about 100 watts in peak power production. And remember, this increase comes while I’m in my 40’s — and I was already a fairly well trained athlete to start with. The diet was most definitely the difference maker.
This simple test can be used by anyone. It’s just a fantastic and easy-to-perform tool to use to track progress. In a later post, I’ll discuss how to compare and interpret your previous to current PAPw outcomes. Do you need to focus your future work on power, strength, speed…or what, exactly? Again, the vert never lies; it’ll point you in the right direction — if you can properly interpret the results.
And for those who would like to delve a little deeper into the science behind athletic screening — and predicting future athletic talent is, in my opinion as much science as it is “horse knowledge” — I’ll add, here, a couple of my favorite sites:
Boyd Epley’s site. Boyd is the Godfather of strength and conditioning, and a very, very intelligent man. If you’re interested in such things, I’d get my hands on anything you can written by him. He’s forgotten more in the last year than most trainers will ever come to know.
As an added plus, I ran across this podcast that happened to have an interview with Boyd Epley himself. Strange how these things work out. There must be a vibe in the air; the serendipity of it all. Anyhow, this podcast, along with a question from reader Bryce, gave me the idea for this post. In the interview, Boyd speaks a bit toward the “index” that the University of Nebraska (a friggin’ machine back in Boyd’s day) used in selecting scholarship athletes and about his Fly Solo athletic assessment program. Guess what was (and is now) used as the primary athletic screening tool for Boyd’s index? Uh-huh, you guessed it — the vert. Check out the show, it’s well worth the listen.
Oh, and you’re probably wondering why, in my athletic/wellness screening, I wanted to see the subject walk for 10 or so paces? Quite simply, I’m looking for “spring” in the step, a certain “stiffness” and “rebound quality” in the limbs. I’m looking for a pronounced pelvic tilt. That’s where the “horse sense” comes into play. Spring and stiffness are highly genetic and there’s not a whole lot you can do to train for it. Recruiting the right athletes can make a strength and conditioning coach look like a genius. Recruit speed; train what remains.
In Health,
Keith
Shifting Gears Temporarilly — a Totally Different Workout
I changed things up completely on Friday morning and hit a modality that, neither am I well suited for, nor do I often train. This was more of a long-duration metcon cycle — longer, and in a higher rep range that what I normally do. You might be asking yourself why I would do such a workout, what’s the point? Well, to a certain extent, I agree with the CrossFit notion of being athletically competent over a broad and constantly varied set of modalities and skills. Reason number 2 is that I just like to shock the body now and again. Reason 3 is that it’s a good idea to deload the joints from time to time; doing so much strength and power work can really put some heavy-duty stress on them.
My original intent was to do 5 rounds of this complex — 300 total reps divided between 3 different exercises. I died, though, on the pull-ups. I probably needed to add some weight to the dips, and I think I hit the lunges just about right, though I may have been able to handle 40lb DBs. Anyway, here was the complex; again, not my normally preferred, high-power fare:
- BW pull-ups (any variety or combination — just get the chin over the bar) x 20 reps
- BW dips x 20 reps
- Walking lunges x 20 reps each leg (i.e., 40 steps)
I did 4 rounds of this,and then one final round of 20 each with just the dips and lunges. This resulted in, as you might expect, a pretty good, full-body, pump. It also increased the ol’ heart rate rather nicely. The whole experience lasted twenty-five minutes, get-go to finish. Also, I did whatever rep combination necessary to complete the full 20 reps of each exercise. By round 4 in the pull-ups, that became 3 here, 2 there, and so on until I racked the full 20. I finished-up with a steam bath/cold shower contrast to aid in recovery.
And I needed the added recovery help because I did a second session that evening. Look at the contrast, though, in exercise selection and in modality:
- Behind the Neck Split-Jerk x 2’s (1 left foot lead, 1 right foot lead)
7 rounds of this, at working weight. This weight wound up being about 90% of my 1RM (rep max). These were all-out, extremely ballistic reps.
I ramped-up to my final working weight in 4 steps. For the sake of logging, though, I don’t count these — they’re just a given. I do, however, judge what what my ultimate working weight will be from this ramp-up. This the first step in a method that is known as Autoregulation. Fairly advanced stuff and, for most, a method that is beyond what is needed for good, all around fitness. For the more competitive athlete though, it might be something to look into. I’m planning a post on this in the near future, for anyone interested.
I’d just like to point out the contrast in exercise selection and modality between the AM and PM workouts. The two workouts, taken as a whole, would not have been nearly as effective had the modalities been similar, or if the planes of motion would have been similar. Also note that I don’t advocate mixing dissimilar modalities within the same workout. Give your all to whatever modality you chose to work at the time. Or, as in the Buddhist saying, when you wash dishes, wash dishes.
In Health,
Keith
Interestingly (and again, that serendipity thing has come into play), I ran across this short video clip, courtesy of Elite Track of Dan Pfaff discussing the differences between strength, power, and skill, and the fact that strength and power are not necessarily correlated with particular event skills. I always advise young athletes (my own son, a high school baseball player, in particular), never to think that the weight room (in general) and/or strength and conditioning (in particular) can take the place of, or compensate fora lack of, skills training. Done properly, though, an intelligent strength and conditioning program can certainly enhance acquired skills and, given two athletes with a similar skill level, can make the difference between time on the field and watching the action from the bench — the difference between the medal podium and the loneliest place of all — dreaded 4th.
Now, let’s make sense of all of this for the deckplate level, fitness/health enthusiast that most of us are (or aspire to be). How does this in any way apply to us?
My premise — the TTP premise — has always been this: A high percentage of fast-twitch muscle fiber (in relation to slow-twitch fiber) within an individual is desirous due to the fact that it is precisely this fiber type that represents the metabolic “big engine” that will induce, under the correct dietary influence, a rapid and (more importantly), sustained fat loss. It is also my premise that an individual is at his or her healthiest and fittest when they have achieved the highest peak, anaerobic power output they are capable of. Taking this idea of the correlation between Peak Anaerobic Power (PAPw) and overall health a step further — and noting that it is precisely fast-twitch muscle fiber concentration, in conjunction with an efficient central nervous system (CNS) that is responsible for this power output — it should (and in my experience, does) follow that as an individual’s PAPw trends upward, that individual has both increased their bodily fast-to-slow muscle fiber concentration ratio and reduced their body fat concentration. To what degree each of these variables has tracked is hard to say — but really, in the short term, does it matter as long as the long term goal is achieved? What we really need, though, is a simple tool to allow us to more adequately quantify our progress. Of course, the “mirror test” or “pinch test” is probably most applicable in the early stages of one’s health/fitness quest, but what to do after that has played out? This is where the vertical jump test comes into play, with the reasoning behind that being as follows: a better vert. = an increased PAPw = either an increase in fast-twitch fiber concentration or a decrease in BF %, or both = a healthier, more fit person as compared to that same person at the time of previous testing.
I suppose if there is a leap of faith (pardon the pun) to be made here, it is that a more anaerobically powerful individual is necessarily a fitter/healthier individual. And though I cannot “prove” this assertion scientifically, I can say that the results of all of my study, and all of my to-date empirical knowledge supports this hypothesis. This powerful state, in my opinion, is the most natural, (and healthiest expression, i.e., phenotype) of the human genome.
Patrik, though, does make a salient point in his comment. He rightly points out that the skills aspect of my preferred power testing method (the vertical jump) might be preferentially influenced while the athleticism component (correlated to fast-twitch fiber concentration and CNS efficiency and, therefore, the “health/fitness factor”) might very well remain stagnant — or even decrease — and, therefore skew the outcome (or, more importantly, our interpretation of the results). He is absolutely correct, of course. However, this is another reason (actually, the over-riding reason) that the vertical jump (or, CMJ) is the preferred, non-invasive (i.e., as compared to the muscle biopsy) method of testing for relative fast-twitch fiber concentration within an individual. In a nutshell, the test is technically, rather easily mastered. Hell, there’s just not that much to it, and any betterment in the vertical jump that can be attributed solely to skill improvement is scant compared to improvements attributed to actual improvements in raw athletic ability.
As an interesting aside to the issue of muscle biopsy testing, I’d like to mention the recently-made-available ACTN3 Sports Performance Test ™. Basically, this test is a measurement of the natural propensity of an individual to preferentially maintain and/or acquire fast-twitch muscle fiber. Why is this important? Well, this takes us back to the correlation between fast-twitch muscle fiber prominence in an individual and that individual’s ability to generate a high PAPw, and the correspondence between a high PAPw output and success in power dominated sporting events. The old East German sporting machine would have certainly appreciated such a test. It would be interesting to see a study comparing the vertical jumps of people who tested high on the ACTN3 scale vs those who tested low on the scale. I’m not normally a betting man, but I’d be glad to place money on the outcome of such a study.
In Health,
Keith