Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Purchased the WALKMAN W273S head set to belt out aggressive tunes to myself whilst training and swimming.

Excellent for only $70, really light and secure even doing wild out of control last sets of sleds.

Haven't swam in them yet but I did shower in them which was interesting.

  • Like 1

New squat PB of 80kg x 20 reps, all ass to ground and high bar. Up 5 reps from 15 last session.

WOW, simply one of the most intense pieces of exercise I have ever done. It is 99% a mental battle, standing there with the bar across your traps, the weight feeling heavier and heavier as time goes by, struggling to catch your breath and wanting to throw in the towel after every rep - I wanted to stop at 10 but had this insane drive to keep going and going. Racking it after 20 I promptly collapsed to the ground because my legs couldn't hold me up anymore lol. Took longer to catch my breath after that than my old 3km HIIT sprints used to.

So yes, painful and energy sapping as all hell, but so damn rewarding. Not looking forward to stairs and toilet seats tomorrow.

  • Like 2

I'm a bit sleight at the moment, weighing in at 81.5kg lastnight, so they were 98% bodyweight :)

Surprisingly my 1RM isn't going up, despite consistently adding a rep or two to the 80kg volume each session. Usually I can bounce one off the other (1RM vs volume) and vice versa.

With certainty in bench, I know that if I can get out 7-8 reps of 100 then I can do a single of 120 etc. Squats seems to be a different ball game!

A bit of empirical theory; I suspect that in the high volume squats I have more time during the set to gradually recruit each muscle in the chain, which could explain my second wind after 10 reps. Comparatively, a 1RM being a single rep, if you don't have everything doing it's part straight up, you won't be lifting to your potential. That and the lower weight squats are probably more controlled? Combination of lots of factors probably.

I'm a bit sleight at the moment, weighing in at 81.5kg lastnight, so they were 98% bodyweight :)

Surprisingly my 1RM isn't going up, despite consistently adding a rep or two to the 80kg volume each session. Usually I can bounce one off the other (1RM vs volume) and vice versa.

With certainty in bench, I know that if I can get out 7-8 reps of 100 then I can do a single of 120 etc. Squats seems to be a different ball game!

A bit of empirical theory; I suspect that in the high volume squats I have more time during the set to gradually recruit each muscle in the chain, which could explain my second wind after 10 reps. Comparatively, a 1RM being a single rep, if you don't have everything doing it's part straight up, you won't be lifting to your potential. That and the lower weight squats are probably more controlled? Combination of lots of factors probably.

I was under the impression that anything around 8rm+ doesn't have the carry over to 1rm.

That could certainly explain my observations, and also why 1RM calculators are limited to a 10 rep input...though I always thought that was because the algebraic equations would blow out reliability with any number higher than 10.

Probably also explains why my <10 rep sets are affected by my intensity during a prior 1RM, yet I always have room in the tank for the high volume weights.

Would like to know the physiology behind it. Slow vs fast twitch fibers being used for one and not the other?

Can we therefore assume that if these different "strengths" operate independantly of one another, I could train both rep ranges in the one session (as I'm doing now) without them negatively impacting each other? Creating a rounded combination of strength and endurance?

As an aside to this, when I was training low weight bench for a couple weeks I got my 60kg reps up to about 27-28 and my 1RM was probably around 115, however during my strongest 1RM period (122.5kg), when I had mostly been focusing on low rep sets, I gave the 60kg challenge a shot and only completed around 23 reps.

That could certainly explain my observations, and also why 1RM calculators are limited to a 10 rep input...though I always thought that was because the algebraic equations would blow out reliability with any number higher than 10.

Probably also explains why my <10 rep sets are affected by my intensity during a prior 1RM, yet I always have room in the tank for the high volume weights.

Would like to know the physiology behind it. Slow vs fast twitch fibers being used for one and not the other?

Can we therefore assume that if these different "strengths" operate independantly of one another, I could train both rep ranges in the one session (as I'm doing now) without them negatively impacting each other? Creating a rounded combination of strength and endurance?

Depends I guess, your training methods have proved to be slow progressing in the max/1rm scale (not starting an argument).. So they must affect each other.

If you focused on one or the other in cycles I'd assume you'd have greater (quicker) results in both areas.

Most training cycles start with higher volume/intensity in the earlier weeks and taper down to peaking. But, they are generally always reps for more weight, not weight for more reps.

  • 2 weeks later...

Morning all.

I'm still here, doing little more than maintenance these days due to work, not great sleep, long winter season of illness etc. Lost 5-6kgs (not intentionally and it sucks, but hey, more abs) and am only getting 3x 30-40min sessions a week these days so unsurprisingly my strength/size has/is also going backwards.

Because I cannot easily control the factors affecting it, what's the best approach to try and minimise the losses? Drop the weight so I can get out the full rep/set scheme (3x8 in most cases, 2x15 on squats bu they are only light and are a special case due to my back) or continue doing what I've been doing which is struggle but keep adding sets to get the full volume out. as in 8, 8, 5, 3 or 8, 7, 6, 3 etc.

Good to see you guys (and Leesh) still cranking out your sessions :D

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...