Russian push-ups: 25
-- supersetted with (SSW)
Bodyweight rows: 25
Ring push-ups: 20
-- SSW
Assisted pull-ups: 20
Feet elevated close grip push-ups: 15
--SSW
(Less) Assisted pull-ups: 15
Ring dips: 10
-- SSW
Pull-ups: 10
"One Arm" (the other hand touching the floor outstretched) push-ups: 5
-- SSW
"One Arm" (the other arm gripping the ring but not pulling) ring pull-ups: 5
Ring flyes: 9
-- SSW
Assisted pull-ups: 9
Russian push-ups: 25
-- SSW
Bodyweight rows: 25
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Leg Day
Each day is its own. In an attempt to avoid yet another regrettable trip down the rabbit hole (toward body-part split) and then the inevitable self correction (back to full body) I give myself a break. I realize I do this because I want to do more and get stronger and this is the only way. There is no set-it-and-forget-it. Each day is a new day; do something new!
With plenty of upper body light sets included, today I tried to do a "leg" day as close to that of the Old School (Golden Age) 70s Bodybuilders as I could get using body-weight only.
Squats: 25
Squats with 30 second pause on first rep: 20
Squats with 1 minute pause on first rep: 15
Split squat (back foot resting on floor): 12
Split squat (back foot off floor): 10
Assisted pistol squat: 8 x 2
Sissy squat: 10 x 2
One leg straight leg dead-lift: 10 x 2
Deep half squats: 30
Calf raises: 40 x 2
With plenty of upper body light sets included, today I tried to do a "leg" day as close to that of the Old School (Golden Age) 70s Bodybuilders as I could get using body-weight only.
Squats: 25
Squats with 30 second pause on first rep: 20
Squats with 1 minute pause on first rep: 15
Split squat (back foot resting on floor): 12
Split squat (back foot off floor): 10
Assisted pistol squat: 8 x 2
Sissy squat: 10 x 2
One leg straight leg dead-lift: 10 x 2
Deep half squats: 30
Calf raises: 40 x 2
Monday, December 19, 2016
The (Frothy) Elephant in the Room
On calories, alcohol and health and exercise efforts...
I tried beer a couple of times in high school and was unimpressed. In college I grew to love it and have maintained that sentiment ever since. I drink beer almost every day, sometimes in large quantities. In college I grew to love imports, now it's craft beer, mostly IPA.
Over the years my nightly totals have gradually increased, from 1-3 in the early days to 4-7 and even more now. I don't drink much else except for the occasional Irish whiskey. Whatever health or fitness program I've embarked upon over the years, I've always kept beer drinking more or less separate and tried to adjust other things in order to preserve this habit.
I was about 31 when I first noticed myself getting out of shape and middle aged looking. I've always been slim and never had a "weight problem". That is to say, I've always cut a narrow profile and don't seem to put on fat easily. But when I do it's all belly and seems to be almost all visceral as opposed to cutaneous. So I guess I put IN fat rather than put ON fat. I buy 33" waist pants and have for years and years, which is enviably small for a 51 year old man. And I have to wear a belt. However, if I wore my pants like my grandpa did (several inches above the belly button) I'd have to pick a much larger size.
At any rate, it's not a good look (although quite common) and not a good health attribute.
Selective Attention
When I was 31 and noticed the paunch for the first time, I decided to do two things about it:
1) I would adjust my diet so that I would eat all the same things I was currently eating, but less of it. Knowing I didn't want to count calories, I would "always leave the table a little bit hungry", as I always recalled my dad quoting that phrase with regard to his grandfather, who apparently said this a lot and was always thin and athletic and lived to be in his mid 90s. The main purpose of this approach is that you reduce your calories but don't have to change what you eat. Seems simple.
2) I would become "a runner". That is to say "a jogger". And I would do it every day. When I was young I was a runner, but only in the sense of trying to get to the finish line as fast as possible in a full sprint. I was pretty fast. I won a few 100 yard dashes in junior high and was also on the record-setting 400 m relay team. I never tried distance "running" then or any other time. For good reason.
The implied but not stated (but certainly thought) #3 in this strategy is "beer drinking gets to stay as it is".
At any rate, I suspect every person who ever decided they needed to lose weight and without much experience and without doing much soul searching or research on the subject and who is not obviously "fat" or obese and never has been, has tried some version of both of those two things. It's natural to think "oh, if I just eat less and run every day I'll be skinny." Runners are skinny, right?
Generally yes, runners are skinny, but it's largely NOT because running makes you skinny, but rather that skinny people run.
Even though it was 20 years ago, I recall quite clearly how both of these efforts went and how it felt to try them. If I went to Taco Bell for lunch (which I used to do) and would have ordered 3 hard tacos and 3 soft tacos (which I would have done), I would instead order 3/5 to half this, so maybe 2 of one and 1 of the other. I also cut out between meal snacking (except beer). Breakfast was usually two pieces of fruit and maybe a packet of Toastchee cheese crackers. I never ate until full. I was also vegetarian (which is not necessarily either here or there.)
I started jogging, limping really, in the neighborhood. I did it every day (that was my rule then as it is now) and in not too much time was up to somewhere around 4 or 5 slow miles a day. It was horrible.
On Calories
The days of thinking "all calories are created equal" are gone, thankfully. There may be some holdouts but most people now understand that "metabolically deranging" calories from sugar and fructose are worse than the same number of calories from protein or a good fat. So while the adage that you should take in fewer calories than you spend in order to lose weight is technically true, it's really not that simple. It works in theory but is difficult in practice. Nonetheless, my efforts 20 years ago I suppose were the most straightforward way I could think of to follow this dubious advice.
It worked. I lost at least fifteen pounds and looked better and started to notice abdominal muscles. I also met the woman who would become my wife. However, I was hungry all the time, and in short order (as luck would have it), I developed a nasty sciatica problem from all the running and no resting. I had to quit running and frankly I don't recall what happened after that aside from drifting back. But the sciatica went away and never came back. The gut, however, came back. And the beer drinking never went away so it didn't have to come back.
Nowadays I know that a simple focus on calories in and calories out is not sufficient. HOWEVER, I also understand that some knowledge of daily caloric requirements and intake is necessary in order to successfully lose fat. And it's extremely easy to under-estimate your daily calorie intake.
A good example of this problem is seen in my experience tracking calories using My Fitness Pal. I am told I need to stay in the low 2000s to achieve my goals given my exercise habits. This seems correct. And My Fitness Pal does a very good job of helping me estimate how many calories I've consumed every day. This, I believe, is its real value. Helping me estimate calories in. And for this reason it's worth using. I would like to get to the point, with enough practice, to be able to look at a meal and understand that it's 700 calories give or take, for example.
However, as far as exercise is concerned I believe that My Fitness Pal leads one astray. First, it doesn't seem to care about my body-weight calisthenics. It seems to want me to put in a "weight" before it does any calorie calculation at all. That's fine. It seems to be far more interested in "aerobic" or "cardio" type of exercise, leading me to believe that it's still in the old school in terms of burning calories and the benefit to weight loss. So, on days when I ride to work, which is 14.7 rather hilly miles each way (done a few days a week, up to four), for a total of almost 30 miles a day (and a total of 2.5 to 2.75 hours), it gives me roughly double the number of calories to maintain goal. And I'm not a be-spandexed carbon hero either. I'm as slow as they come out there, and proud of it. So I call it "slow biking" in My Fitness Pal. It seems to think that this gives me another 1800 or so calories per day. I just don't think that's accurate, yet it's tempting to look at and think "WOW, that means I can drink my body-weight in beer tonight and it's not going to make me fat(ter)!"
I've been recording my calories and exercise fairly consistently in My Fitness Pal over the last couple of weeks (and not lying about the beer), and I have consistently met the goals it tells me I need to meet in order to lose one pound a week. And although my exercise performance remains strong and consistent and my arm veins are visible and my push-up totals are increasing, my pants are uncomfortable, my gut is bloated and embarrassing when viewed from the side, and my body weight has not budged one iota. For a year, really.
Why? A number of reasons I suppose. Beer is more like sugar than whole wheat pasta? Beer drinking and weight loss goals do not get along and never will? I'm in a beer-fueled haze of self-deceit? Yes, yes, yes and yes. And I know this is one of those things that you could have guessed or said "I could have told you that 30 years ago and saved you all the trouble!" (but that just means that you're not a beer drinker!) and everyone's grandma always knew. I know, I know.
But this post, this BLOG, is about figuring things out for yourself and deconstructing the dogma.
So I've known for a long time without saying as much, and now I know for sure, WHILE saying as much, that consistent beer drinking and weight loss cannot coexist despite exercise volume and consistent calorie goals met. Just another example of the cruel world in which we live.
Next post: what to do about it.
I tried beer a couple of times in high school and was unimpressed. In college I grew to love it and have maintained that sentiment ever since. I drink beer almost every day, sometimes in large quantities. In college I grew to love imports, now it's craft beer, mostly IPA.
Over the years my nightly totals have gradually increased, from 1-3 in the early days to 4-7 and even more now. I don't drink much else except for the occasional Irish whiskey. Whatever health or fitness program I've embarked upon over the years, I've always kept beer drinking more or less separate and tried to adjust other things in order to preserve this habit.
I was about 31 when I first noticed myself getting out of shape and middle aged looking. I've always been slim and never had a "weight problem". That is to say, I've always cut a narrow profile and don't seem to put on fat easily. But when I do it's all belly and seems to be almost all visceral as opposed to cutaneous. So I guess I put IN fat rather than put ON fat. I buy 33" waist pants and have for years and years, which is enviably small for a 51 year old man. And I have to wear a belt. However, if I wore my pants like my grandpa did (several inches above the belly button) I'd have to pick a much larger size.
At any rate, it's not a good look (although quite common) and not a good health attribute.
Selective Attention
When I was 31 and noticed the paunch for the first time, I decided to do two things about it:
1) I would adjust my diet so that I would eat all the same things I was currently eating, but less of it. Knowing I didn't want to count calories, I would "always leave the table a little bit hungry", as I always recalled my dad quoting that phrase with regard to his grandfather, who apparently said this a lot and was always thin and athletic and lived to be in his mid 90s. The main purpose of this approach is that you reduce your calories but don't have to change what you eat. Seems simple.
2) I would become "a runner". That is to say "a jogger". And I would do it every day. When I was young I was a runner, but only in the sense of trying to get to the finish line as fast as possible in a full sprint. I was pretty fast. I won a few 100 yard dashes in junior high and was also on the record-setting 400 m relay team. I never tried distance "running" then or any other time. For good reason.
The implied but not stated (but certainly thought) #3 in this strategy is "beer drinking gets to stay as it is".
At any rate, I suspect every person who ever decided they needed to lose weight and without much experience and without doing much soul searching or research on the subject and who is not obviously "fat" or obese and never has been, has tried some version of both of those two things. It's natural to think "oh, if I just eat less and run every day I'll be skinny." Runners are skinny, right?
Generally yes, runners are skinny, but it's largely NOT because running makes you skinny, but rather that skinny people run.
Even though it was 20 years ago, I recall quite clearly how both of these efforts went and how it felt to try them. If I went to Taco Bell for lunch (which I used to do) and would have ordered 3 hard tacos and 3 soft tacos (which I would have done), I would instead order 3/5 to half this, so maybe 2 of one and 1 of the other. I also cut out between meal snacking (except beer). Breakfast was usually two pieces of fruit and maybe a packet of Toastchee cheese crackers. I never ate until full. I was also vegetarian (which is not necessarily either here or there.)
I started jogging, limping really, in the neighborhood. I did it every day (that was my rule then as it is now) and in not too much time was up to somewhere around 4 or 5 slow miles a day. It was horrible.
On Calories
The days of thinking "all calories are created equal" are gone, thankfully. There may be some holdouts but most people now understand that "metabolically deranging" calories from sugar and fructose are worse than the same number of calories from protein or a good fat. So while the adage that you should take in fewer calories than you spend in order to lose weight is technically true, it's really not that simple. It works in theory but is difficult in practice. Nonetheless, my efforts 20 years ago I suppose were the most straightforward way I could think of to follow this dubious advice.
It worked. I lost at least fifteen pounds and looked better and started to notice abdominal muscles. I also met the woman who would become my wife. However, I was hungry all the time, and in short order (as luck would have it), I developed a nasty sciatica problem from all the running and no resting. I had to quit running and frankly I don't recall what happened after that aside from drifting back. But the sciatica went away and never came back. The gut, however, came back. And the beer drinking never went away so it didn't have to come back.
Nowadays I know that a simple focus on calories in and calories out is not sufficient. HOWEVER, I also understand that some knowledge of daily caloric requirements and intake is necessary in order to successfully lose fat. And it's extremely easy to under-estimate your daily calorie intake.
A good example of this problem is seen in my experience tracking calories using My Fitness Pal. I am told I need to stay in the low 2000s to achieve my goals given my exercise habits. This seems correct. And My Fitness Pal does a very good job of helping me estimate how many calories I've consumed every day. This, I believe, is its real value. Helping me estimate calories in. And for this reason it's worth using. I would like to get to the point, with enough practice, to be able to look at a meal and understand that it's 700 calories give or take, for example.
However, as far as exercise is concerned I believe that My Fitness Pal leads one astray. First, it doesn't seem to care about my body-weight calisthenics. It seems to want me to put in a "weight" before it does any calorie calculation at all. That's fine. It seems to be far more interested in "aerobic" or "cardio" type of exercise, leading me to believe that it's still in the old school in terms of burning calories and the benefit to weight loss. So, on days when I ride to work, which is 14.7 rather hilly miles each way (done a few days a week, up to four), for a total of almost 30 miles a day (and a total of 2.5 to 2.75 hours), it gives me roughly double the number of calories to maintain goal. And I'm not a be-spandexed carbon hero either. I'm as slow as they come out there, and proud of it. So I call it "slow biking" in My Fitness Pal. It seems to think that this gives me another 1800 or so calories per day. I just don't think that's accurate, yet it's tempting to look at and think "WOW, that means I can drink my body-weight in beer tonight and it's not going to make me fat(ter)!"
I've been recording my calories and exercise fairly consistently in My Fitness Pal over the last couple of weeks (and not lying about the beer), and I have consistently met the goals it tells me I need to meet in order to lose one pound a week. And although my exercise performance remains strong and consistent and my arm veins are visible and my push-up totals are increasing, my pants are uncomfortable, my gut is bloated and embarrassing when viewed from the side, and my body weight has not budged one iota. For a year, really.
Why? A number of reasons I suppose. Beer is more like sugar than whole wheat pasta? Beer drinking and weight loss goals do not get along and never will? I'm in a beer-fueled haze of self-deceit? Yes, yes, yes and yes. And I know this is one of those things that you could have guessed or said "I could have told you that 30 years ago and saved you all the trouble!" (but that just means that you're not a beer drinker!) and everyone's grandma always knew. I know, I know.
But this post, this BLOG, is about figuring things out for yourself and deconstructing the dogma.
So I've known for a long time without saying as much, and now I know for sure, WHILE saying as much, that consistent beer drinking and weight loss cannot coexist despite exercise volume and consistent calorie goals met. Just another example of the cruel world in which we live.
Next post: what to do about it.
Friday, December 16, 2016
Trends and Trendiness, Paleo, and Minimalist/Barefoot Shoes, With Recommendations
Trends can be fine, as long is there is something valid or important behind them. Dietary trends ostensibly at least are important as long as health and well-being are mostly behind them. And although I recall as a kid in the 70s feeling almost nauseated at the thought of a straight legged pant, and as a young adult in the 80s the thought of a wide tie, mostly I would say that the widths of pant legs and ties are not important. Well, important, but in a different way that I'm not entirely able to comment on.
Trendiness? Now *that's* horrible. Because when something becomes trendy it loses its original meaning and becomes important just because it's popular. When marketers get hold of it rationality and objective validity get ignored. There's something very very very powerful behind markets and trends. I just finished typing that pant leg width is not important, yet I'd probably take bullet before wearing bell bottoms right now. But skinny jeans are also horrible, and yet I've worn them and liked them. Now I hate them. Not to the point of wearing bell bottoms, but rather to a degree that says the extreme for its own sake is what's wrong here but it makes sense to have a smaller legged pant. This stuff is complicated.
Paleo Cornfusion
I hate the paleo diet. I hate the word "paleo". Makes my skin crawl. Yet I basically follow this diet. Why? NOT because I think I'm mimicking what the caveman did. I've railed on this before so I'll save it here except to say I hate it because of the trendiness and how people can't or won't think clearly and rationally about why it might be good, or not, to do. Trendiness takes over. The word "paleo" needs to go away because we couldn't possibly eat as the caveman did. The muffin made from almond flour is not paleo. Neither is the steak from Costco. A large chunk of Mammoth meat that's half rotten? Now THAT'S paleo. Can't eat it, though. See my point? People get confused about something that's not at all confusing or complicated. They don't think. They (and by they I don't just mean laymen, but even "experts") routinely equate paleo with low carb. They're not the same, at all. Just the other day I saw a very maddening headline. From The Smithsonian to boot. It said the paleo diet may need a rewrite. The gist was the paleo diet is wrong because Neanderthals actually ate a wide variety of plants. Ugh! If there's any diet besides vegan or vegetarianism that advocates eating lots of plants, it's the paleo diet! We know the caveman ate lots of plants, but even the experts can't seem to get around the over-simplified and over-emphasized meat focus. To the point that actual "experts" think the paleo diet is all meat. Ugh.
Anyway, I do generally follow the paleo diet and have benefited greatly, and I don't do it because I have caveman fantasies or even have the slightest idea what the caveman ate. But I've thought about what's at the core when you strip away the fad and trend, and it's eating whole foods close to their source with as little screwing with (processing) as possible, and with a wariness of sugar and sweetness and "recent" foods that may cause problems (grains, dairy), because they're "recent" or because the way they're grown and brought to market makes them unhealthy, or both, and a with critical eye to the likely overstated and incorrect "importance" of such things as whole grains. So I don't necessarily think that whole grains are bad for most people but they probably aren't good, certainly aren't great, and should probably be avoided, or viewed critically (and rationally). And I'm not dragging my knuckles on purpose when I say this.
Oh, and don't forget that your mileage may vary.
It's Minimalist to Take Off Your Shoes, It's Trendy to Pretend You're Barefoot
"Minimalist" or "Barefoot" shoes are another yet quite similar topic that I think is headed in the same direction as the paleo diet. They often accompany each other. It's another idea rooted in the caveman fantasy. It's ridiculously annoying and I hate the word "minimalist" with regard to footwear as much as I hate the word "paleo" with regard to diet. First of all, why is it called "minimalist" and not "minimal"? Do I need to sell all of my worldly possessions if I decide to wear these shoes? "Barefoot" is a more tolerable term, albeit contradictory, as you cannot possibly be barefoot while wearing shoes. Feel a headache coming on?
Anyway, the point of this podiatric "diet", or its contention, is that the more support and artificial posturing a shoe provides, the less your foot is able to do its natural thing to support your body and your movements, and therefore the less healthy our foot becomes over time. And of course modern shoes tout support and protection and all have heals and most have narrow fronts. Things like being able to feel the terrain in your feet, allowing your toes to flare out to support you, allowing free ankle movement and foot movement, and a natural foot posture are all things "normal" shoes don't allow and "barefoot" shoes do. Barefoot shoes don't elevate your heal ("zero drop"), they allow you to feel the ground (single digit millimeters thick very pliable sole), and allow your toes room to spread (wide "toe box").
Like the paleo diet I do mostly wear barefoot shoes, I have noticed positive changes in my feet, and do feel like the core idea behind the value of barefootedness and the danger of modern shoes is a valid one and I do believe keeping my feet and their job natural and strong will benefit me as I age. But the trends are as annoying here as they are in the diet realm. Plus, there's one step that I think the paleo diet has taken that the barefoot shoe world needs to mimic in order to gain any kind of foothold, so to speak, in the modern world and the market. In a word, style! Or maybe familiarity. Er... something!
Many people would never consider the paleo diet. "GIVE UP BREAD? NO WAY!" So paleo "marketers" and other shrewd business people have figured out a way to make something bread-like, at least enough bread-like that skeptics might try it. Yes, this is what I'm railing on here, but it's also the thing I see as the necessary step to help the movement gain acceptance. Paleo will never exist without almond-flour-based muffins, the very thing that makes the diet NOT paleo. The best way to follow the paleo diet would be to only eat meat, fish, fowl, eggs, seeds, nuts, vegetables and fruit (a recipe for extreme health!), with not much more "fixing" than cooking and seasoning. Yet most people can't do this and won't do this and have to have their pizza or pasta or cake or sandwich, etc. Yes, this is confusing. The main point for me is that almond flour based muffins are way better for me than wheat flour based muffins, and they're muffin-like enough for me to feel like this is not too weird and I can stick with it, provided that no-muffins are a deal-breaker for me (they're not). And as long as I ignore the word "paleo", I can handle it.
Most barefoot shoes are weird, and that's their problem. They look weird, dorkie, silly, and nothing like the shoes I'm used to. Sometimes I think barefoot shoe makers do this on purpose because they consider themselves just that radical, but I'm here to tell you unless you make a shoe that looks like something I have been wearing all my life, and LOVE, you ain't gonna get much market. I'll leave it to you to do your own research if you're interested, but the problem is most pronounced in the "sneaker-like" realm. Barefoot shoes designed to replace sneakers or sports shoes are all function and no form and don't remotely resemble a sneaker that I would wear for something other than sports or performance. And of course you realize I am wearing a sneaker for something other than sports or athletic performance MOST of the time.
Some examples
and let's not forget the weirdest of the weird:
Ick, yuck, ish, ugh, yack...
The Vivobarefoot Bannister is about the best I've found:
So I need a barefoot equivalent of the almond-flour muffin. I need a barefoot Chuck Taylor or Vans Old Skool. Then I might make the switch all the way.
Trendiness? Now *that's* horrible. Because when something becomes trendy it loses its original meaning and becomes important just because it's popular. When marketers get hold of it rationality and objective validity get ignored. There's something very very very powerful behind markets and trends. I just finished typing that pant leg width is not important, yet I'd probably take bullet before wearing bell bottoms right now. But skinny jeans are also horrible, and yet I've worn them and liked them. Now I hate them. Not to the point of wearing bell bottoms, but rather to a degree that says the extreme for its own sake is what's wrong here but it makes sense to have a smaller legged pant. This stuff is complicated.
Paleo Cornfusion
I hate the paleo diet. I hate the word "paleo". Makes my skin crawl. Yet I basically follow this diet. Why? NOT because I think I'm mimicking what the caveman did. I've railed on this before so I'll save it here except to say I hate it because of the trendiness and how people can't or won't think clearly and rationally about why it might be good, or not, to do. Trendiness takes over. The word "paleo" needs to go away because we couldn't possibly eat as the caveman did. The muffin made from almond flour is not paleo. Neither is the steak from Costco. A large chunk of Mammoth meat that's half rotten? Now THAT'S paleo. Can't eat it, though. See my point? People get confused about something that's not at all confusing or complicated. They don't think. They (and by they I don't just mean laymen, but even "experts") routinely equate paleo with low carb. They're not the same, at all. Just the other day I saw a very maddening headline. From The Smithsonian to boot. It said the paleo diet may need a rewrite. The gist was the paleo diet is wrong because Neanderthals actually ate a wide variety of plants. Ugh! If there's any diet besides vegan or vegetarianism that advocates eating lots of plants, it's the paleo diet! We know the caveman ate lots of plants, but even the experts can't seem to get around the over-simplified and over-emphasized meat focus. To the point that actual "experts" think the paleo diet is all meat. Ugh.
Anyway, I do generally follow the paleo diet and have benefited greatly, and I don't do it because I have caveman fantasies or even have the slightest idea what the caveman ate. But I've thought about what's at the core when you strip away the fad and trend, and it's eating whole foods close to their source with as little screwing with (processing) as possible, and with a wariness of sugar and sweetness and "recent" foods that may cause problems (grains, dairy), because they're "recent" or because the way they're grown and brought to market makes them unhealthy, or both, and a with critical eye to the likely overstated and incorrect "importance" of such things as whole grains. So I don't necessarily think that whole grains are bad for most people but they probably aren't good, certainly aren't great, and should probably be avoided, or viewed critically (and rationally). And I'm not dragging my knuckles on purpose when I say this.
Oh, and don't forget that your mileage may vary.
It's Minimalist to Take Off Your Shoes, It's Trendy to Pretend You're Barefoot
"Minimalist" or "Barefoot" shoes are another yet quite similar topic that I think is headed in the same direction as the paleo diet. They often accompany each other. It's another idea rooted in the caveman fantasy. It's ridiculously annoying and I hate the word "minimalist" with regard to footwear as much as I hate the word "paleo" with regard to diet. First of all, why is it called "minimalist" and not "minimal"? Do I need to sell all of my worldly possessions if I decide to wear these shoes? "Barefoot" is a more tolerable term, albeit contradictory, as you cannot possibly be barefoot while wearing shoes. Feel a headache coming on?
Anyway, the point of this podiatric "diet", or its contention, is that the more support and artificial posturing a shoe provides, the less your foot is able to do its natural thing to support your body and your movements, and therefore the less healthy our foot becomes over time. And of course modern shoes tout support and protection and all have heals and most have narrow fronts. Things like being able to feel the terrain in your feet, allowing your toes to flare out to support you, allowing free ankle movement and foot movement, and a natural foot posture are all things "normal" shoes don't allow and "barefoot" shoes do. Barefoot shoes don't elevate your heal ("zero drop"), they allow you to feel the ground (single digit millimeters thick very pliable sole), and allow your toes room to spread (wide "toe box").
Like the paleo diet I do mostly wear barefoot shoes, I have noticed positive changes in my feet, and do feel like the core idea behind the value of barefootedness and the danger of modern shoes is a valid one and I do believe keeping my feet and their job natural and strong will benefit me as I age. But the trends are as annoying here as they are in the diet realm. Plus, there's one step that I think the paleo diet has taken that the barefoot shoe world needs to mimic in order to gain any kind of foothold, so to speak, in the modern world and the market. In a word, style! Or maybe familiarity. Er... something!
Many people would never consider the paleo diet. "GIVE UP BREAD? NO WAY!" So paleo "marketers" and other shrewd business people have figured out a way to make something bread-like, at least enough bread-like that skeptics might try it. Yes, this is what I'm railing on here, but it's also the thing I see as the necessary step to help the movement gain acceptance. Paleo will never exist without almond-flour-based muffins, the very thing that makes the diet NOT paleo. The best way to follow the paleo diet would be to only eat meat, fish, fowl, eggs, seeds, nuts, vegetables and fruit (a recipe for extreme health!), with not much more "fixing" than cooking and seasoning. Yet most people can't do this and won't do this and have to have their pizza or pasta or cake or sandwich, etc. Yes, this is confusing. The main point for me is that almond flour based muffins are way better for me than wheat flour based muffins, and they're muffin-like enough for me to feel like this is not too weird and I can stick with it, provided that no-muffins are a deal-breaker for me (they're not). And as long as I ignore the word "paleo", I can handle it.
Most barefoot shoes are weird, and that's their problem. They look weird, dorkie, silly, and nothing like the shoes I'm used to. Sometimes I think barefoot shoe makers do this on purpose because they consider themselves just that radical, but I'm here to tell you unless you make a shoe that looks like something I have been wearing all my life, and LOVE, you ain't gonna get much market. I'll leave it to you to do your own research if you're interested, but the problem is most pronounced in the "sneaker-like" realm. Barefoot shoes designed to replace sneakers or sports shoes are all function and no form and don't remotely resemble a sneaker that I would wear for something other than sports or performance. And of course you realize I am wearing a sneaker for something other than sports or athletic performance MOST of the time.
Some examples
and let's not forget the weirdest of the weird:
Ick, yuck, ish, ugh, yack...
The Vivobarefoot Bannister is about the best I've found:
So I need a barefoot equivalent of the almond-flour muffin. I need a barefoot Chuck Taylor or Vans Old Skool. Then I might make the switch all the way.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Strength Gains, Some Wandering. Engagement.
My last two posts were about the "reverse pyramid" or "right triangle" (because I got tired of hitting the space bar) approach to push-ups, pull (chin) - ups and squats. This is a scheme where you start with one rep and then add a rep each set until you can't do it any more. You record the rep count for the last completed set and that's your max. In my last post I beat my max on all three exercise, and beat it significantly. So my strength increased and I think I know why. And it's NOT because I've been doing the reverse pyramid a lot lately. In fact, if you just consider the last few posts you'd think I've concentrated on the reverse pyramid almost exclusively, but actually I haven't at all. Two months separated the last two posts and I hadn't tried the reverse pyramid during that period at all, so there were two months between efforts. Why the significant strength gains? Was it rest? Body-part splits? Training to failure? No!
Instead, during that two months I did a bit of misguided wandering down old, familiar, and dubious (at least for me) paths. It's no fun to post about such things, but I'll explain it here. Basically I can't quit thinking that I should maybe do body-part split workouts to failure with days off. I guess if you start out as a weightlifter, you just can't completely get this mentality out of your head, even though you spend so much time touting (and practicing!) whole body every day routines as I have done here. So I tried push/pull/legs splits and going to failure (briefly, like twice), again, and AGAIN, I don't like them.
Then I thought of a different and much newer and better idea. I wondered how I could make the exercises more effective and difficult without slowing them down (intentionally for its own sake), pausing, changing the angles, changing the rest, or doing things with one side of my body at a time. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, and I still do these things. But I wanted to make the move harder within itself.
That got me to the idea of engagement. One thing I've often heard bodybuilders talk about is squeeze. Squeezing the muscle as you are performing the movement. It's engagement, really. Rather than throwing the weight up, or half-assing it like the people curling 5 lbs while talking on the phone, they really squeeze. Engage all the muscles, and especially the ones performing the movement. They also point out that if you do this, you'll have to decrease the weight. Most people don't want to do this. They'd really rather press 225 crappily and half-way than get a good set with 185. And then drop on the ground loudly the weight and hoot and grunt like a primitive.
The other thing you may notice if you pay attention is that there are lot of big guys lifting small weights, and lot of small guys trying to lift big ones. I've also started to notice that there are a lot of big guys who lifted big weights in the past and who are now in surgery for hip replacement or who can't touch the tops of their heads because of permanent shoulder problems or can't do any squats at all because of knee and/or back problems.
All of this led me to ask how I could translate this idea of making a set of bench press with 185 or even 135 more difficult AND more effective than a set of bench press with 225 without slowing it down or pausing or changing the angle, to body weight calisthenics. Squeeze. Engage.
In a set of regular push-ups: try to imagine and flex each muscle in the upper body on each rep, try to push yourself all the way up until you are almost arching your back, with the heels of your hands imagine that you are pushing the entire planet away from you, don't stop pushing when you get near the top or bottom of the movement... pause at the top or bottom if you want to but that's not necessary. Squeeze, try to get every fiber of ever muscle involved.
In a set of regular squats: push yourself up in such a way that it feels like you might launch yourself into the air (but make sure your feet don't leave the ground), feel it in every muscle of the lower body, including the muscles right above your knees, which you may have previously thought you can only work by doing leg raises or sissy squats, dig your heels in and try to imagine that you are attempting to push the entire planet away from you....
Pulling exercises: this one is fun. Why? For one, pull-ups and related moves where the entire body is lifted are difficult on their own and don't necessarily need to be made more difficult. But they can be, and it's certainly worth trying this approach for a set of five if you can normally get 14. Engaging every muscle in the upper body and making sure the full range of motion in the back is achieved (around the scapula) are important. But what I also like about this approach is that it makes body-weight rows a new and exciting option. I've always sort of found them to be too easy and not really worth doing for anything other than warm up. But they ARE a different movement and deserve this treatment. Imagine you are pulling the entire world toward you. Engage every muscle. Really stretch when you go down so that it looks like you are really reaching for the bar or the tree limb.
If nothing else this approach gives you a renewed focus on what you're actually trying to do here. It gets you away from being caught up in high set and rep count goals. If you do this, you'll be hanging out around 10-12 reps per set, if not even fewer, which for me is low. Good stuff.
Instead, during that two months I did a bit of misguided wandering down old, familiar, and dubious (at least for me) paths. It's no fun to post about such things, but I'll explain it here. Basically I can't quit thinking that I should maybe do body-part split workouts to failure with days off. I guess if you start out as a weightlifter, you just can't completely get this mentality out of your head, even though you spend so much time touting (and practicing!) whole body every day routines as I have done here. So I tried push/pull/legs splits and going to failure (briefly, like twice), again, and AGAIN, I don't like them.
Then I thought of a different and much newer and better idea. I wondered how I could make the exercises more effective and difficult without slowing them down (intentionally for its own sake), pausing, changing the angles, changing the rest, or doing things with one side of my body at a time. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, and I still do these things. But I wanted to make the move harder within itself.
That got me to the idea of engagement. One thing I've often heard bodybuilders talk about is squeeze. Squeezing the muscle as you are performing the movement. It's engagement, really. Rather than throwing the weight up, or half-assing it like the people curling 5 lbs while talking on the phone, they really squeeze. Engage all the muscles, and especially the ones performing the movement. They also point out that if you do this, you'll have to decrease the weight. Most people don't want to do this. They'd really rather press 225 crappily and half-way than get a good set with 185. And then drop on the ground loudly the weight and hoot and grunt like a primitive.
The other thing you may notice if you pay attention is that there are lot of big guys lifting small weights, and lot of small guys trying to lift big ones. I've also started to notice that there are a lot of big guys who lifted big weights in the past and who are now in surgery for hip replacement or who can't touch the tops of their heads because of permanent shoulder problems or can't do any squats at all because of knee and/or back problems.
All of this led me to ask how I could translate this idea of making a set of bench press with 185 or even 135 more difficult AND more effective than a set of bench press with 225 without slowing it down or pausing or changing the angle, to body weight calisthenics. Squeeze. Engage.
In a set of regular push-ups: try to imagine and flex each muscle in the upper body on each rep, try to push yourself all the way up until you are almost arching your back, with the heels of your hands imagine that you are pushing the entire planet away from you, don't stop pushing when you get near the top or bottom of the movement... pause at the top or bottom if you want to but that's not necessary. Squeeze, try to get every fiber of ever muscle involved.
In a set of regular squats: push yourself up in such a way that it feels like you might launch yourself into the air (but make sure your feet don't leave the ground), feel it in every muscle of the lower body, including the muscles right above your knees, which you may have previously thought you can only work by doing leg raises or sissy squats, dig your heels in and try to imagine that you are attempting to push the entire planet away from you....
Pulling exercises: this one is fun. Why? For one, pull-ups and related moves where the entire body is lifted are difficult on their own and don't necessarily need to be made more difficult. But they can be, and it's certainly worth trying this approach for a set of five if you can normally get 14. Engaging every muscle in the upper body and making sure the full range of motion in the back is achieved (around the scapula) are important. But what I also like about this approach is that it makes body-weight rows a new and exciting option. I've always sort of found them to be too easy and not really worth doing for anything other than warm up. But they ARE a different movement and deserve this treatment. Imagine you are pulling the entire world toward you. Engage every muscle. Really stretch when you go down so that it looks like you are really reaching for the bar or the tree limb.
If nothing else this approach gives you a renewed focus on what you're actually trying to do here. It gets you away from being caught up in high set and rep count goals. If you do this, you'll be hanging out around 10-12 reps per set, if not even fewer, which for me is low. Good stuff.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Today Is About Making Right Triangles and Breaking Records
Russian Push-Ups:
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
22. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
23. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
That's 55 more reps than my last effort
Chin-Ups
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
That's 19 more than last time.
Squats
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
That's 21 more than last attempt. Nice.
I got a lot stronger in the last two months and I think I know why. That's the subject for the next post.
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
22. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
23. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
That's 55 more reps than my last effort
Chin-Ups
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
That's 19 more than last time.
Squats
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
That's 21 more than last attempt. Nice.
I got a lot stronger in the last two months and I think I know why. That's the subject for the next post.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
New Push-Up Actual Diamond Max Set, This Time More of a Right Triangle
My new favorite workout for intensity and volume is the "actual pyramid" which is more of a triangle, and "actual" because the point is at the top. Start with one rep and add a rep each set until failure. Try to do another set. This is intense because of course each set is more difficult than the last.
For Russian Push-Ups:
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
See, more of a right triangle.
For Russian Push-Ups:
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
See, more of a right triangle.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
High Intensity (Bodyweight) Training the Mike Mentzer Way (sort of)
I continue to struggle with the desire to train the entire body every day and to increase the intensity of my work at the same time. I realize that up to a point they cannot coexist. If you've read this blog you know that I sing the praises of whole body every day, all the time. But over the last few months I've become a combination of bored and daunted by the same reps and exercises every day. Five hundred push ups a day would make you very strong. But who has time and patience? Especially if you can become strong with twelve every five days.
I've also realized, so very slowly, that my 4x/wk bike commuting combined with daily calisthenics of increasing intensity are unsustainable. So, again reluctantly, I'm forcing myself into splits and days off. We must progress, no? And I see that we must rest to progress.
I generally ride (15 relatively hilly miles each way) on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. My legs are spent those days, as is the rest of me. So I switched to calisthenics only on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday rather than every day. Wednesday is something like a high intensity whole body day and Saturday is upper body and Sunday is legs. Those days I am focusing on volume.
I have a few workout "schemes" to play with and keep it interesting: volume, reverse pyramid, "body builder", 5x5, and my latest, the "Mike Mentzer High Intensity (sort of)".
Mentzer was a bodybuilder from the golden era and was a very interesting guy. He broke from the Schwarzenegger high volume dogma with his notion that intensity and brevity could get the job done better and with much less time. There's a whole back story here that is interesting to research. In a nutshell it's one set to failure and beyond followed by lots of rest.
His workouts became simplified through his books as well. They started with a fairly typical but greatly abbreviated body builder type of workout and ended with one set of weighted dips, one set of pull-ups, one set of squats, and one set of dead-lift in various combinations and with lots of rest. It's the workout scheme between these two that I find most interesting for present purposes.
The idea is that for a given muscle group, you "pre exhaust" the muscle with something like an isolation movement in a low rep range (6-8) and then you super-set that with a compound movement for the same muscle group, thereby pushing the muscle beyond failure. One set. So, for chest for example, you would do a set of heavy Pec Deck (isolating the chest) and then when you reach failure you immediately get as many reps as you can of a pressing exercise like bench press or dumbbell press.
Yesterday I tried this for whole body with calisthenics. I did one set of "ring flys" followed immediately by pushups. I think I got about 10 flys and about 8 to 10 pushups. And I was SPENT.
Pulling is tougher. It's difficult to isolate the back or lats without machines. In the free weight world Mentzer recommended stiff arm pullovers to isolate the lats. I never liked any kind of pullover but it's all I really had to work with, so I attempted to mimic this on the rings. It was a very difficult move and I think it got the job done. I followed this immediately by rows.
This was killer. I meant to do legs yesterday but I was too tired. (And it's raining torrents today, so I drove to work and will do legs today.)
I've also realized, so very slowly, that my 4x/wk bike commuting combined with daily calisthenics of increasing intensity are unsustainable. So, again reluctantly, I'm forcing myself into splits and days off. We must progress, no? And I see that we must rest to progress.
I generally ride (15 relatively hilly miles each way) on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. My legs are spent those days, as is the rest of me. So I switched to calisthenics only on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday rather than every day. Wednesday is something like a high intensity whole body day and Saturday is upper body and Sunday is legs. Those days I am focusing on volume.
I have a few workout "schemes" to play with and keep it interesting: volume, reverse pyramid, "body builder", 5x5, and my latest, the "Mike Mentzer High Intensity (sort of)".
Mentzer was a bodybuilder from the golden era and was a very interesting guy. He broke from the Schwarzenegger high volume dogma with his notion that intensity and brevity could get the job done better and with much less time. There's a whole back story here that is interesting to research. In a nutshell it's one set to failure and beyond followed by lots of rest.
His workouts became simplified through his books as well. They started with a fairly typical but greatly abbreviated body builder type of workout and ended with one set of weighted dips, one set of pull-ups, one set of squats, and one set of dead-lift in various combinations and with lots of rest. It's the workout scheme between these two that I find most interesting for present purposes.
The idea is that for a given muscle group, you "pre exhaust" the muscle with something like an isolation movement in a low rep range (6-8) and then you super-set that with a compound movement for the same muscle group, thereby pushing the muscle beyond failure. One set. So, for chest for example, you would do a set of heavy Pec Deck (isolating the chest) and then when you reach failure you immediately get as many reps as you can of a pressing exercise like bench press or dumbbell press.
Yesterday I tried this for whole body with calisthenics. I did one set of "ring flys" followed immediately by pushups. I think I got about 10 flys and about 8 to 10 pushups. And I was SPENT.
Pulling is tougher. It's difficult to isolate the back or lats without machines. In the free weight world Mentzer recommended stiff arm pullovers to isolate the lats. I never liked any kind of pullover but it's all I really had to work with, so I attempted to mimic this on the rings. It was a very difficult move and I think it got the job done. I followed this immediately by rows.
This was killer. I meant to do legs yesterday but I was too tired. (And it's raining torrents today, so I drove to work and will do legs today.)
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Diamonds, Pyramids and Triangles (Oh My!)
Today's effort for diamond push-ups gave me the following idea: Why not do diamond push-ups in a diamond rather than reverse pyramid (or triangle)? That is, once I reach failure, continue doing sets with one less rep each. Hm....
Anyway, today's effort:
Set Reps
---- -----
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
On the last set (attempting to get 17) I failed at 14.
Anyway, today's effort:
Set Reps
---- -----
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
On the last set (attempting to get 17) I failed at 14.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Finally Completed the Squats True Pyramid
It took me 3 tries and almost two weeks, but I finally did it. Probably because I forced myself to drive to work today rather than ride. The other two times I tried it I was using legs that were already tired. Still, this is tough!
Once more, for effect.
Set Reps
---- -----
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Once more, for effect.
Set Reps
---- -----
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Reverse Pyramid Chinups
This is a picture of one of my home gyms.
Last time I tried the reverse pyramid for pulling I made it to 9. Today I tried it for chin-ups (palms toward your face) and made it to 13. Fast reps, all the way up, all the way down. I was pretty darn happy about this.
It looks like this:
Set Reps
---- -----
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Continued Explorations of Intensity: Actual Pyramids (Triangles?)
Along with taking sets to failure I'm continuing to explore intensity. I came across this idea on Youtube and at first thought it a little strange and couldn't really see the point. Then I pondered it. And then I tried it. The standard bodybuilding approach to sets and reps is usually called a "pyramid" but is actually a reverse pyramid, with lighter weights and higher reps done at the beginning and ending with higher weights and lower reps. As I've mentioned before, often the first few sets are not difficult and therefore really warmup. The lifter likely wants to save strength for the money set with the clanging plates and grunting and "come on, man! You can DO it! All YOU!" That kind of stuff.
I'm not sure why these were ever called pyramids. Besides the fact that the point is at the bottom, they are not three dimensional. More like upside-down triangles.
At any rate, the idea I stumbled across was to pick an exercise and do one rep. Then do two. Then do three... etc. The example used push-ups and went up to 20. Twenty push-ups are easy for me. This scheme, not so much.
I tried if for (Russian) push-ups (elbows tight to the body).
For effect, it looks like this:
Set Reps
---- -----
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
It was tough. Very tough. I like that it increases intensity without changing the exercise, the angle, or the number of limbs involved. This was all I did last Sunday and I was sore for days.
I did the same thing the following day but for body-weight rows.
Then I got the idea to try this scheme for harder exercises where I know I can't get 20 even as a first set, but to try and see how far up the ladder, or down the triangle (so to speak) I can go.
So I tried it for ring dips. That's dips on Olympic rings. I can probably get close to 20 on a good day in one set. I made it to 11.
Today I tried it for pull-ups (neutral grip) and made it to 9.
So now I have another approach and new goals: See how high up the ladder, or down the triangle, I can go for each exercise.
I'm not sure why these were ever called pyramids. Besides the fact that the point is at the bottom, they are not three dimensional. More like upside-down triangles.
At any rate, the idea I stumbled across was to pick an exercise and do one rep. Then do two. Then do three... etc. The example used push-ups and went up to 20. Twenty push-ups are easy for me. This scheme, not so much.
I tried if for (Russian) push-ups (elbows tight to the body).
For effect, it looks like this:
Set Reps
---- -----
1. 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1
5. 1 1 1 1 1
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
16. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
It was tough. Very tough. I like that it increases intensity without changing the exercise, the angle, or the number of limbs involved. This was all I did last Sunday and I was sore for days.
I did the same thing the following day but for body-weight rows.
Then I got the idea to try this scheme for harder exercises where I know I can't get 20 even as a first set, but to try and see how far up the ladder, or down the triangle (so to speak) I can go.
So I tried it for ring dips. That's dips on Olympic rings. I can probably get close to 20 on a good day in one set. I made it to 11.
Today I tried it for pull-ups (neutral grip) and made it to 9.
So now I have another approach and new goals: See how high up the ladder, or down the triangle, I can go for each exercise.
Monday, September 12, 2016
One Set to Failure Revisited, Plus, Balancing Push and Pull?
Sets and Failure
What is failure? How many sets are enough? Too many? Too few? I'd like to be able to work all my muscles hard every day. Bodybuilders blush at this. "Rest" days are gospel. The notion that muscles rebuild themselves during "rest" is pretty much uncontested. I wonder if it should be. I'm more interested in balanced daily effort than muscle building. In fact, I wouldn't mind not getting any bigger. Stronger, yes. Bigger? Who cares? It looks silly anyway. Ever seen a bodybuilder in regular clothes?
But then again I *am* interested in strength building and some muscle building probably has to come along with that. At any rate, I'm interested in progress, writ large.
Ok, what's the point here? The point is that there is a certain attraction to doing the minimum amount of work to get the maximum result. Even though he was pretty wacky, I love Mike Mentzer's ideas. To do minimum work and get maximum results you have to increase effort. If you can do 35 push-ups before having to stop, you can do sets of 10 all day. Is that a good thing to do? At some point you need to do more and then revisit the 35, right? 35 needs to become 50. In which case it might be better to do 35 and call it a day. And rest, I suppose (unless you feel fine the next day). At any rate, I've realized that if I'm going to use the term "failure" I'd probably better figure out what it means.
I'm playing with one set to failure. To do an exercise all day you have to stop the set when it starts to get difficult... when you slow down, shake, feel like you might not be able to do it again. Form degrades. But complete failure? That would mean that you can't do another rep. But "can't" is a word open to interpretation. If you're coming from a "Convict Conditioning" perspective then you follow Coach Wade's advice and "keep a little in the tank in case you have to defend yourself." Fortunately I don't need to ponder this in the literal, but the idea is valuable. If you push yourself to failure truly in push-ups and then sit down on the floor for some reason, you might need to rely on some other means to get yourself back up than pushing. I'm not sure that's a great idea.
For pull-ups I'm flirting with 20. 17+ usually. For dips, I'm flirting with 30. For assisted pistol squats it's around 14 to 15.
My one set to "failure" experiments have been useful because they've helped me to realize the importance of effort. Eight sets of 10 pull-ups requires a lot of effort. So does one set of 18. The former is good and if you can do it then you can probably do it again the next day. The latter is also good and makes you sore and tired and you probably can't do it the next day.
Balancing Push and Pull (and Squat)
Push and pull body-weight exercises, and the muscles that underlie these activities, are somewhat different animals. Pull-ups are just so much more difficult than just about any exercise on the push side, save for maybe hand-stand push-ups. But I'll never know about that as I don't consider them an option for me. I would choose dips as the closest push exercise to pull-ups. Dips are difficult. But after a relatively short time they are not so difficult and you can flirt with 28-30 max good form dips, where pull-ups and the like seem to hover around 12-18 no matter what you do. They're just hard. And when your pull-up set starts to degrade, you're pretty much done for the day, whereas with push-ups you can push yourself to failure more than once and come back again and do it tomorrow, or even later today. So it doesn't make sense to do too much pulling. That said, I realized that keeping your "big four" to pull-ups, push-ups, dips and squats seems to short-change the pulling side a bit as you only have one exercise, granted a difficult one, whereas with pushing you have a difficult one with full body-weight (dips) and an easier one with a lever (push-ups). I think I want to balance the pulling side with this and add a row. The row is pretty much the pulling counterpart to the push-up. That gives me a big five: Dips, Squats, Pull-ups, Push-Ups, Rows. I'm curious to see if maxing rows negatively or positively affects pull-ups. (NOTE: It's a subject for another post, but legs need a new friend too, no? I think the big five becomes a big six with a one-leg movement and a two-leg movement.)
What is failure? How many sets are enough? Too many? Too few? I'd like to be able to work all my muscles hard every day. Bodybuilders blush at this. "Rest" days are gospel. The notion that muscles rebuild themselves during "rest" is pretty much uncontested. I wonder if it should be. I'm more interested in balanced daily effort than muscle building. In fact, I wouldn't mind not getting any bigger. Stronger, yes. Bigger? Who cares? It looks silly anyway. Ever seen a bodybuilder in regular clothes?
But then again I *am* interested in strength building and some muscle building probably has to come along with that. At any rate, I'm interested in progress, writ large.
Ok, what's the point here? The point is that there is a certain attraction to doing the minimum amount of work to get the maximum result. Even though he was pretty wacky, I love Mike Mentzer's ideas. To do minimum work and get maximum results you have to increase effort. If you can do 35 push-ups before having to stop, you can do sets of 10 all day. Is that a good thing to do? At some point you need to do more and then revisit the 35, right? 35 needs to become 50. In which case it might be better to do 35 and call it a day. And rest, I suppose (unless you feel fine the next day). At any rate, I've realized that if I'm going to use the term "failure" I'd probably better figure out what it means.
I'm playing with one set to failure. To do an exercise all day you have to stop the set when it starts to get difficult... when you slow down, shake, feel like you might not be able to do it again. Form degrades. But complete failure? That would mean that you can't do another rep. But "can't" is a word open to interpretation. If you're coming from a "Convict Conditioning" perspective then you follow Coach Wade's advice and "keep a little in the tank in case you have to defend yourself." Fortunately I don't need to ponder this in the literal, but the idea is valuable. If you push yourself to failure truly in push-ups and then sit down on the floor for some reason, you might need to rely on some other means to get yourself back up than pushing. I'm not sure that's a great idea.
For pull-ups I'm flirting with 20. 17+ usually. For dips, I'm flirting with 30. For assisted pistol squats it's around 14 to 15.
My one set to "failure" experiments have been useful because they've helped me to realize the importance of effort. Eight sets of 10 pull-ups requires a lot of effort. So does one set of 18. The former is good and if you can do it then you can probably do it again the next day. The latter is also good and makes you sore and tired and you probably can't do it the next day.
Balancing Push and Pull (and Squat)
Push and pull body-weight exercises, and the muscles that underlie these activities, are somewhat different animals. Pull-ups are just so much more difficult than just about any exercise on the push side, save for maybe hand-stand push-ups. But I'll never know about that as I don't consider them an option for me. I would choose dips as the closest push exercise to pull-ups. Dips are difficult. But after a relatively short time they are not so difficult and you can flirt with 28-30 max good form dips, where pull-ups and the like seem to hover around 12-18 no matter what you do. They're just hard. And when your pull-up set starts to degrade, you're pretty much done for the day, whereas with push-ups you can push yourself to failure more than once and come back again and do it tomorrow, or even later today. So it doesn't make sense to do too much pulling. That said, I realized that keeping your "big four" to pull-ups, push-ups, dips and squats seems to short-change the pulling side a bit as you only have one exercise, granted a difficult one, whereas with pushing you have a difficult one with full body-weight (dips) and an easier one with a lever (push-ups). I think I want to balance the pulling side with this and add a row. The row is pretty much the pulling counterpart to the push-up. That gives me a big five: Dips, Squats, Pull-ups, Push-Ups, Rows. I'm curious to see if maxing rows negatively or positively affects pull-ups. (NOTE: It's a subject for another post, but legs need a new friend too, no? I think the big five becomes a big six with a one-leg movement and a two-leg movement.)
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Thresholds and Points of Comparison
Over the last few months I've been thinking A LOT about sets and reps. I realized it's really easy to get caught up in numbers to the point that you lose focus or mask your actual abilities or gains, if any. For example, if I decide I really want to get 20 strict pull-ups I will try to do that to my own detriment and will likely forsake form and technique for the dubious goal of reaching an arbitrary number. Well, it's not ARBITRARY, because being able to do 20 pull-ups means you're strong. Really strong. But it is just a number.
So while I hung out for a long time doing 8 sets of everything every day with the same rep range for each exercise, I eventually decided to quit this and instead to focus on form. It gets old and stressful and takes the fun out of it to always think I need to do this many and that many. I actually got myself to a point where I wondered if maybe sets and reps were completely irrelevant. That is to say, maybe I could get stronger and better without counting anything or always doing more reps or sets.
It's an exciting thought. Of course, it's impossible not to count. Try it. You'll fail. You might be able to distract yourself enough that you don't know the total, but you can't not count. You also can't not think about a polar bear. Try it.
So instead I decided to try to ignore set and rep total goals and instead focus on form and intensity. So instead of saying I have to get 20 dips, I would slow the dips down enough and pause at the top and bottom so that I could only do six. Or four. Or ten. Or whatever. But the focus wasn't the number but the amount of slowing and pausing and form focus that it took to limit me to six or four or ten. And then I decided a useful goal would be to instead of shooting for more reps, I would instead shoot for a more intense form tweaks.
Good stuff, this. Very good. Some days I may have only done three total sets of push-ups, maybe even one. Maybe no more than 10 reps total, whereas before I was always doing over 100 and some times up to 300, yet I still felt "worked out" under the 10 total rep scheme. Then I thought this: could I get a good workout and progress on one rep a day of each exercise? It's a valuable question and a valuable exercise (so to speak) to try and answer it. I encourage you to try. One push-up so slow and so full of pausing that you can only do that one today.
However, as with all things, it also gets old and stressful and you don't want to keep doing it after a while. But you DO want to make progress. So, never say never. It's just not fun to work each day on a single five minute push-up. Useful to try and revisit, but not fun as a permanent thing.
And that's the point, right? You need to progress and therefore you need to change and therefore you never say never and the only thing that's permanent is that you change.
And you know what? Reps and sets are useful because they provide us with thresholds and points of comparison and measuring sticks. So long as you stay honest with your form, that is.
So I went back to this: my idea of an impressive, strong, solid "Round" of the big four would be 20 dips, 10 pull-ups, 25 diamond push-ups and 30 deep squats. I think this is roughly what Hannibal for King does for his "around the worlds". I decided that if I can do at least this at least 3 times a day then I would keep my baseline strength and have something to measure my progress against and have a point of comparison. So that's what I'm doing now.
The next idea would be playing around with getting my minimum daily 20, 10, 25, 30 x 3 and then add skill moves and/or intensity moves to this. I'll keep you posted....
-sr
So while I hung out for a long time doing 8 sets of everything every day with the same rep range for each exercise, I eventually decided to quit this and instead to focus on form. It gets old and stressful and takes the fun out of it to always think I need to do this many and that many. I actually got myself to a point where I wondered if maybe sets and reps were completely irrelevant. That is to say, maybe I could get stronger and better without counting anything or always doing more reps or sets.
It's an exciting thought. Of course, it's impossible not to count. Try it. You'll fail. You might be able to distract yourself enough that you don't know the total, but you can't not count. You also can't not think about a polar bear. Try it.
So instead I decided to try to ignore set and rep total goals and instead focus on form and intensity. So instead of saying I have to get 20 dips, I would slow the dips down enough and pause at the top and bottom so that I could only do six. Or four. Or ten. Or whatever. But the focus wasn't the number but the amount of slowing and pausing and form focus that it took to limit me to six or four or ten. And then I decided a useful goal would be to instead of shooting for more reps, I would instead shoot for a more intense form tweaks.
Good stuff, this. Very good. Some days I may have only done three total sets of push-ups, maybe even one. Maybe no more than 10 reps total, whereas before I was always doing over 100 and some times up to 300, yet I still felt "worked out" under the 10 total rep scheme. Then I thought this: could I get a good workout and progress on one rep a day of each exercise? It's a valuable question and a valuable exercise (so to speak) to try and answer it. I encourage you to try. One push-up so slow and so full of pausing that you can only do that one today.
However, as with all things, it also gets old and stressful and you don't want to keep doing it after a while. But you DO want to make progress. So, never say never. It's just not fun to work each day on a single five minute push-up. Useful to try and revisit, but not fun as a permanent thing.
And that's the point, right? You need to progress and therefore you need to change and therefore you never say never and the only thing that's permanent is that you change.
And you know what? Reps and sets are useful because they provide us with thresholds and points of comparison and measuring sticks. So long as you stay honest with your form, that is.
So I went back to this: my idea of an impressive, strong, solid "Round" of the big four would be 20 dips, 10 pull-ups, 25 diamond push-ups and 30 deep squats. I think this is roughly what Hannibal for King does for his "around the worlds". I decided that if I can do at least this at least 3 times a day then I would keep my baseline strength and have something to measure my progress against and have a point of comparison. So that's what I'm doing now.
The next idea would be playing around with getting my minimum daily 20, 10, 25, 30 x 3 and then add skill moves and/or intensity moves to this. I'll keep you posted....
-sr
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
The 36 Rep Challenge
Following the 100 rep challenge I wanted to try a version that was more strength oriented and less endurance oriented. Here it is:
With as little rest as possible between pieces,
6 assisted pistol squats on the left leg
6 assisted pistol squats on the right leg
6 dips with a 2 second pause at the top and bottom
6 pull-ups with a 1 second pause at the top
6 feet-elevated slow diamond push-ups
6 sissy squats
Next will be a 50 rep challenge with 5 x 10 of something....
PS, I just finished the 36 rep challenge. The dips were easy, the pull-ups were very difficult. Next time I'll do them first.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Showing up is 99.3% of the battle, 100 rep challenge
I've spent a lot of time and effort thinking about sets and reps and schemes and workouts. I always worry if I'm doing enough reps, or too many. And sets. And exercises. Often I think, hm, maybe I should just focus on x, y and z and forget about a, b and c. Who doesn't? But what I've realized is that showing up day after day, week after week, year after year, is really almost all that matters. I'm still doing calisthenics every day and have been for at least five years. And with the exception a few unimpressive, dubious forays into body-part "splits" I've pretty much worked the whole body every day. So yesterday was another success and today will be yet another. I haven't done everything correctly or incorrectly and I could surely be stronger than I am now, but where would I be if I hadn't done what I've done every day for the last five years? And you can't fake five years of work. Whatever it is, it's solid.
With that in mind, yesterday I did the 100 rep challenge from Al Kavadlo. I love Al Kavadlo. He's so well spoken and has such a great attitude. He's as good as it gets.
The 100 rep challenge:
Each piece on its own isn't too difficult, but put them together and... With as little rest as possible between exercises, which for me was 10 to 30 seconds....
40 deep squats
30 regular push-ups
20 hanging knee raises
10 pull-ups
Lots of panting.....
The hardest part for me was the knee raises because I don't normally do them and my pull-up bar isn't quite high enough to extend the legs all the way down. So I ended up keeping them bent and raising them up and then all the way down so the knees were pointing at the floor. But hanging for that long was also difficult and made the 10 pull-ups at the end VERY challenging.
I think I want to try variations of this with more difficult movements so the challenge is more strength than endurance.
With that in mind, yesterday I did the 100 rep challenge from Al Kavadlo. I love Al Kavadlo. He's so well spoken and has such a great attitude. He's as good as it gets.
The 100 rep challenge:
Each piece on its own isn't too difficult, but put them together and... With as little rest as possible between exercises, which for me was 10 to 30 seconds....
40 deep squats
30 regular push-ups
20 hanging knee raises
10 pull-ups
Lots of panting.....
The hardest part for me was the knee raises because I don't normally do them and my pull-up bar isn't quite high enough to extend the legs all the way down. So I ended up keeping them bent and raising them up and then all the way down so the knees were pointing at the floor. But hanging for that long was also difficult and made the 10 pull-ups at the end VERY challenging.
I think I want to try variations of this with more difficult movements so the challenge is more strength than endurance.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Four Main Calisthenics Workout Schemes
I find that I am rotating (un-systematically) between the following four approaches to sets and reps:
1. Super Drop Sets - described in more detail in my last post, within a category (push, pull, squat), I start with the most difficult and take that almost to failure, then move to the next most difficult, etc with no rest. I usually end up with 6-15 reps per piece and overall anywhere from 12 to 50, depending on the difficulty focus. This is good for days when you feel pressed for time or like you just can't do the volume. So, for pushing, it might be: 15 dips, 10 diamonds, 8 Russians, 8 regular pushups, 5 incline pushups, 8 tricep extensions.
2. Strength Foundation - this involves taking the main core movements (pullups, dips, pushups, squats) and doing as many sets per day of as many high quality reps I can do. Sometimes I do these all in one workout but mostly I do one round of each several times a day. If I do it all in one session I may do, for example (pullups): 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6. This one is about practicing being strong.
3. "The Workout". This one would most closely resemble a weightlifting session at the gym (and that's probably why I hardly ever do it.) This would be a "pyramid" style of workout with sets and rest between sets and starting with the easiest exercise (say, pushups) and ending with the most difficult (say, slow dips). So for pulling it might be 18 rows, 15 close grip rows, 15 assisted pullups, 10 pullups, 8 slow pullups, 5 super slow pullups, 20 curls.
4. The "Fat Burner" - I have just recently added this to the rotation. We are now understanding that the best way to burn fat is NOT the slow slog on the treadmill with the heart rate in the "fat burning zone" but rather the short, intense, whole body bomb that leaves you lying on the ground gasping and panting, and that takes about 10 minutes. People commonly do jumping jacks, burpees, etc, but I prefer the big four, so I will usually stick with those but pick a rep range that I can keep doing and don't rest any between exercises and then rest, say, 30 seconds between rounds. So this may be 10 pushups, 10 rows and 15 squats, rest 30 seconds, repeat for 10 minutes of agony.
The overall goal as I have finally worked it out is to get the most high quality reps that I can per week per exercise group (while burning fat). So spending time on "warmup" type sets like a heavy bencher would do with 135 is not of much value to me.
1. Super Drop Sets - described in more detail in my last post, within a category (push, pull, squat), I start with the most difficult and take that almost to failure, then move to the next most difficult, etc with no rest. I usually end up with 6-15 reps per piece and overall anywhere from 12 to 50, depending on the difficulty focus. This is good for days when you feel pressed for time or like you just can't do the volume. So, for pushing, it might be: 15 dips, 10 diamonds, 8 Russians, 8 regular pushups, 5 incline pushups, 8 tricep extensions.
2. Strength Foundation - this involves taking the main core movements (pullups, dips, pushups, squats) and doing as many sets per day of as many high quality reps I can do. Sometimes I do these all in one workout but mostly I do one round of each several times a day. If I do it all in one session I may do, for example (pullups): 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6. This one is about practicing being strong.
3. "The Workout". This one would most closely resemble a weightlifting session at the gym (and that's probably why I hardly ever do it.) This would be a "pyramid" style of workout with sets and rest between sets and starting with the easiest exercise (say, pushups) and ending with the most difficult (say, slow dips). So for pulling it might be 18 rows, 15 close grip rows, 15 assisted pullups, 10 pullups, 8 slow pullups, 5 super slow pullups, 20 curls.
4. The "Fat Burner" - I have just recently added this to the rotation. We are now understanding that the best way to burn fat is NOT the slow slog on the treadmill with the heart rate in the "fat burning zone" but rather the short, intense, whole body bomb that leaves you lying on the ground gasping and panting, and that takes about 10 minutes. People commonly do jumping jacks, burpees, etc, but I prefer the big four, so I will usually stick with those but pick a rep range that I can keep doing and don't rest any between exercises and then rest, say, 30 seconds between rounds. So this may be 10 pushups, 10 rows and 15 squats, rest 30 seconds, repeat for 10 minutes of agony.
The overall goal as I have finally worked it out is to get the most high quality reps that I can per week per exercise group (while burning fat). So spending time on "warmup" type sets like a heavy bencher would do with 135 is not of much value to me.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Super Drop Sets
Well, I obviously didn't like the reboot because I haven't stuck with that plan. And I know why. As you will see below, I cannot divide the body. And I have the math below to prove why you shouldn't. I have, however, come up with something new that I really like. I enjoy videos by Brandon Carter. He's entertaining and informative. He showed mathematically why he thinks full body workouts are better than splits and it boils down to the total number of sets you are able to do under one approach or the other in the same amount of time. And in a full body workout you end up doing more sets per muscle group in, say, a month. I would take that one step further and instead of counting sets, count reps, or rather Quality Reps. So, under my approach, which is full body EVERY DAY (which surely makes the weightlifters wince and whimper), I am getting more Quality Reps in. Why? I'm doing 1 Super Drop Set per exercise grouping per day, to almost failure. The way I do this is: pick a rep total target, then go from hardest to easiest exercise until almost failure (this is important. If you go to complete failure you won't be able to do it every day.) with no rest between and vary the rep speed to make it harder or easier. So, for today for example, I wanted to shoot for a lower total rep range, something around 15 or 16. So for pushing I did:
6 slow dips followed immediately by
6 slow Russian pushups, followed immediately by
6 slow incline pushups
That's 18 total reps with no rest and each one is high quality (very difficult, slow, concentrated, with squeeze and no pause). Sometimes I go as high as 40 or 50.
For pulling:
6 slow pullups, close grip, followed immediately by
6 slow, wide grip rows, followed immediately by
6 slow, neutral grip rows
My rep ranges vary from, say, 14 to 44. The average would be about 30. I may have gone as low as 10 and as high as 60. So on average that's about 30 quality reps a day. I never skip, so that's 900 quality reps a month of push, pull and squat.
The average weightlifter will do the same body-part maybe once or twice a week. Let's say twice. They may do 12 sets for an average of 8 reps each set. That's 96 reps x 2 workouts per week, which is 192 x 4 weeks = 784 (I think) per month. And many of those are probably not high quality. If they can bench 275 their first set is probably with 135 and they're not pushing it hard because they want to save themselves for the heavy sets. So they are probably only really pushing it for the last few reps of the heavier sets.
And my daily workouts take about 15 minutes. And no gym.
6 slow dips followed immediately by
6 slow Russian pushups, followed immediately by
6 slow incline pushups
That's 18 total reps with no rest and each one is high quality (very difficult, slow, concentrated, with squeeze and no pause). Sometimes I go as high as 40 or 50.
For pulling:
6 slow pullups, close grip, followed immediately by
6 slow, wide grip rows, followed immediately by
6 slow, neutral grip rows
My rep ranges vary from, say, 14 to 44. The average would be about 30. I may have gone as low as 10 and as high as 60. So on average that's about 30 quality reps a day. I never skip, so that's 900 quality reps a month of push, pull and squat.
The average weightlifter will do the same body-part maybe once or twice a week. Let's say twice. They may do 12 sets for an average of 8 reps each set. That's 96 reps x 2 workouts per week, which is 192 x 4 weeks = 784 (I think) per month. And many of those are probably not high quality. If they can bench 275 their first set is probably with 135 and they're not pushing it hard because they want to save themselves for the heavy sets. So they are probably only really pushing it for the last few reps of the heavier sets.
And my daily workouts take about 15 minutes. And no gym.
Friday, January 8, 2016
First "Pull Day"
Early morning warmup of 15 pushups and 15 squats and 15 rows.
Pull Day:
Pullups: 10, 10, 9
Rows: 20, 20, 8 (one arm)
Alternative Rows: 25, 20, 25
Curl: 6 (one arm), 12, 20
Pull Day:
Pullups: 10, 10, 9
Rows: 20, 20, 8 (one arm)
Alternative Rows: 25, 20, 25
Curl: 6 (one arm), 12, 20
Time for a Reboot?
It's the new year. Time for a new start and to make some goals and to monitor progress.
Goal: get my weight down to 175, add muscle, lose fat.
Current weight: 187. 12 pounds to lose.
Exercise change: daily full body "warmup" and pyramid split focus in one workout with combination of high, medium and low reps. Each concentrated grouping will be performed twice a week. There will be a "push" day (or chest, shoulders, triceps) a "pull" day (or back, biceps) and a "leg" day (squat variations). Generally speaking I will do the "cornerstone" or hardest exercise first and work down to the easiest. So this will be dips, pullups, and pistol squats for the three days.
The seventh day of the week could be for explosive movements and/or sprints. I haven't decided yet. But NO "rest day"!
For nutrition I'm not sure what to do. For now the goal will be to try to forgo eating until the main workout has been done.
So, for today, 1/7/2016:
6:30 - black coffee, water, stretching, 15 pushups, 15 squats
7:30 - bike 15 miles (1 hour 15 minutes)
9:00 - full body "warmup" - 20 pushups, 20 rows, 20 squats, weigh-in - 187 lbs clothed with shoes
9:30 - black coffee
11:00 - workout - "pushing" or chest/shoulders/triceps (ugh)
Dips: 20, 18, 15
Archer Pushups: 8, 7
Diamonds: 20, 18
Feet elevated Russian Pushups: 15, 14
Pike Pushups: 9
Tricep Extensions: 12, 8, 18 (the last set was on a higher "bar")
12:00 to whenever
Honecrisp apple
Mixed nuts including peanuts
Olives
Taco insides (ground beef, cilantro, onion, green pepper, lettuce
4:00 - bike 15 miles (1 hour 30 minutes)
Taco insides (ground beef, cheese, black beans, peppers, cilantro)
Fruit salad (blackberry, mango, pomegranate)
Beer
Goal: get my weight down to 175, add muscle, lose fat.
Current weight: 187. 12 pounds to lose.
Exercise change: daily full body "warmup" and pyramid split focus in one workout with combination of high, medium and low reps. Each concentrated grouping will be performed twice a week. There will be a "push" day (or chest, shoulders, triceps) a "pull" day (or back, biceps) and a "leg" day (squat variations). Generally speaking I will do the "cornerstone" or hardest exercise first and work down to the easiest. So this will be dips, pullups, and pistol squats for the three days.
The seventh day of the week could be for explosive movements and/or sprints. I haven't decided yet. But NO "rest day"!
For nutrition I'm not sure what to do. For now the goal will be to try to forgo eating until the main workout has been done.
So, for today, 1/7/2016:
6:30 - black coffee, water, stretching, 15 pushups, 15 squats
7:30 - bike 15 miles (1 hour 15 minutes)
9:00 - full body "warmup" - 20 pushups, 20 rows, 20 squats, weigh-in - 187 lbs clothed with shoes
9:30 - black coffee
11:00 - workout - "pushing" or chest/shoulders/triceps (ugh)
Dips: 20, 18, 15
Archer Pushups: 8, 7
Diamonds: 20, 18
Feet elevated Russian Pushups: 15, 14
Pike Pushups: 9
Tricep Extensions: 12, 8, 18 (the last set was on a higher "bar")
12:00 to whenever
Honecrisp apple
Mixed nuts including peanuts
Olives
Taco insides (ground beef, cilantro, onion, green pepper, lettuce
4:00 - bike 15 miles (1 hour 30 minutes)
Taco insides (ground beef, cheese, black beans, peppers, cilantro)
Fruit salad (blackberry, mango, pomegranate)
Beer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)