Adarq.org

lunge day! high rep nation making a come back.

03/04/2019

2019 spinach salads: 6

diet:
- ate light/good

soreness:
- glutes/hamstrings: slightly

aches/injuries:
- left patella tendon insertion slightly

08:45 AM: walking lunges: 27 min (~800)
- https://www.strava.com/activities/2190627770
- duration PR: 27 min
- total reps PR: ~800
- those 3:XX min lunges x 100 splits look like hard equivalent 3:XX kilometer splits, lmao.





almost at 30 minutes!

stopped at 27 min, knees were achy the last few minutes. in the last 3 sessions i've stopped because of that, but it happened later each session. so that's a good sign.

also!

got my spikes & endorphin racer v2's!

6-10" to your vertical jump instantly if you do it right...lol.

i closed the video once he said that. don't care how good the info is, if it follows a statement like that, it isn't worth a second of someone's time.

kejelcha smashes indoor mile WR, 3:47 !!

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a26612540/yomif-kejelcha-breaks-indoor-mile-world-record/

Wasnt there a study or paper claiming injury rates go up with temperature? So training this way may be harmful

dno, don't remember that.

training light in the heat doesn't sound to risky to me. using the heat to make the effort harder, while actually going at lower intensities, seems safe for the body. definitely seems less safe when it comes to the heart, could get very stressful. but using good judgement is important. lots of dangerous symptoms will manifest themselves early (sensitivity to bright light/sunlight, feeling cold, etc).

pc!

to put it into proper perspective.. hardly anyone could even lift this stone once.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2C608ytjxo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2C608ytjxo</a>

Quote from: adarqui on March 02, 2019, 07:26:23 am

Quote

Andrew do you think if i was fresher i'd jump higher? Hopefully you're right.

yes. if serious, questions like this from training veterans surprise me.

but .. you do realise if i was fresher and jumped 32" say, i would feel pretty disappointed still even though it would be a pretty huge improvement. My point is, if i was resting and getting 40" that would be one thing. To get levels i previously could get any day just thru training normally after peaking ...... is not ideal

you're not going to get to 40" by rarely ever jumping.

the problem right now is i can't do a proper jump session because im either too fatigued from squatting or i've got to stay fresh for an upcoming squat workout. it's a bad place to be for jumping. i just need to keep making progress tho. something is better than nothing.

proper jump session.. just jump before your squat workouts. that's what you should have been doing for months. that's what any vert-obsessed person does.

i can't even begin to comprehend the idea of wanting to improve X and never performing X. you claim you have vert goals but you aren't jumping. and when you do jump, you set yourself up for failure? if you cared about vert you'd jump often.

The other issue is by the time i get to the court, im too hungry .. jumping needs carbs like crazy .. and for whatever reason, body doesn't tap into glycogen for dunking workouts .. weird thing. i'l have no energy to jump. yea i could eat but im fat

jumping doesn't need carbs like crazy. that's ridiculous. it's one small anaerobic effort. it probably uses 1 calorie.

you can't be hungry though, that's a rule for anything athletic.

it's hard to cool down after a heavy workout then try and jump. it's also hard to jump when you just PR'd a 1RM.



you just aren't doing what you need to.

jump or sprint before nearly every squat session, and eat good. it's so simple. but no you want to do one thing without the other, then see if it works like magic, then make some serious gains in the one thing you're focusing on, then sabotage yourself through fatigued jumps and dieting.



i mean just stop trying to "know so much" or have all of these answers, and just do what any obsessed athletic noob would do: jump often, lift often, and eat good.

i guess it's frustrating from an outside perspective, because it's hard to watch you continue to mention vert numbers, but rarely ever jump, then make all kinds of progress in squat, then get frustrated with the scale and start dieting etc. you're in a wicked cycle. break out of it.

/2cents

pc

nice study on slowing in a marathon based on sex differences

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289124/

Men are More Likely than Women to Slow in the Marathon

women's equivalent to 2 hour marathon .. apparently already exists. Paula Radcliff's 2:15 is already there.

https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00852.2014

The simplest approach to determine the equivalent 2-h marathon time for women is to calculate the time difference (from 2 h) based on the relative sex difference in the WR (∼10%). The current WR performances are 2:02:57 (h:min:s) for men (Dennis Kimetto, 2014) and 2:15:25 for women (Paula Radcliffe, 2003), so that a synonymous time for women is 2:12:00. Several indicators, however, suggest a 12–13% sex difference is more appropriate and that the WR by Radcliffe is essentially the equivalent of a 2-h marathon for women.

this is crazy:

Radcliffe's performances were exceptional. Between 2002 and 2005, she ran the three fastest marathon times ever recorded by a woman, and her WR performance (2003) still stands 12 years on.

great section:

Sex Differences in Physiology: What is Unique about Paula Radcliffe?
Human performance in distance running is strongly related to the maximal oxygen consumption (V̇o2max). However, among elite runners, the better athletes are distinguished by the highest sustainable oxidative metabolic rate (related to the “critical velocity” and the “lactate threshold”) and running economy (18, 19). Critical velocity represents the highest intensity that V̇o2, blood lactate, and intramuscular metabolites such as H+, PCr, and Pi can be stabilized (16). The difference between “critical velocity” and the “lactate threshold” is compressed in elite runners compared with recreational runners (16). There is limited difference, however, between elite men and women runners in the relative V̇o2 they are able to sustain for several hours (∼85–90% V̇o2max) (4, 9, 10, 17). In highly trained men and women, running economy is similar and does not appear to explain sex differences in performance either (2, 4, 9, 21). In general, in equally trained men and women, the sex difference in performance is mostly dictated by men's larger V̇o2max because men have a larger heart size, larger muscle mass, less body fat, greater hemoglobin concentration, and consequently a higher V̇o2max than women (17, 28). Elite male runners usually have a V̇o2max of ∼70–85 ml·kg−1·min−1 and elite females ∼60–75 ml·kg−1·min−1 so the sex difference is 10–14% (2, 7, 15, 18, 25–27). Other factors that potentially affect the sex difference in performance among recreational runners such as substrate utilization (14, 30), muscle fatigability (11), pacing (6), and competitiveness (5), likely have minimal influence among elite distance runners. Whether there are sex differences in the influence of genetic factors that affect elite runners is not known.

There are several aspects of Radcliffe's physiology that explain her extraordinary marathon performances. First, Radcliffe has a superior V̇o2max relative to many of her elite counterparts of ∼70 ml·kg−1·min−1 (15). Second, her lactate threshold occurred at a high fraction of her V̇o2max and at a high absolute running speed (18.5 km/h) and it can be estimated that her critical velocity was very high (19.4 km/h−1) (15). Finally, Radcliffe had exceptional running economy (∼175 ml·kg−1·km−1 compared with the “typical” value of ∼200 ml·kg−1·km−1) that improved ∼15% over many years of training (15). Radcliffe's superior economy and critical velocity allowed her to run at high absolute speeds for extended periods.