Adarq.org

no work today so went before lunch, but workout cut off by FRANKENSTORM. 

WEIGHT: ???
SORENESS: none
ACHES/INJURIES: elbows during squatting again, but not as bad, but still weird
FATIGUE: low

- warm up

- depth jump 2 x 5

- ME MR half tuck 3 x 5

- ME pogo 1 x 5

- squat 310 x 3,3,3
easy-peasy

- that's it

this storm is getting crazier but still not at WTF levels. we'll see what happens. fingers crossed and wood knocked against the power going out. come on, neighborhood trees. hold your shit together.

nice job on the 30's.

also, gaining weight = gaining some fat. if the mirror test is still okay and you can still fit in your pants then don't worry about it. you haven't gained THAT much weight, anyway.

LBSS, how do you like the squats being alternated with the jump squats?  I have never tried them together that way and was wondering how your experience is with them so far.

meh, i'm kind of ambivalent about them. haven't done them long enough yet to see about any kind of adaptations from them. it occurred to me that i should mix in unloaded standing jumps but this is the way adarq wrote it up, so i'm going to stick with it for a while.

WEIGHT: ???
SORENESS: none
ACHES/INJURIES: toes a little
FATIGUE: low

- warm up

- depth jump x 5,5 @ 18"
the church had used the court for something and the hoops were still up. que se a vaya a la chucha nuestra senora de las americas.

- DL bound 5 x 5
just about half court each time, which is pretty terrible. unsure why.

- ME MR half tuck 5 x 5

- ME pogo 3 x 5

- walk home

- stretch

were they running double-leg jumps? when i first started practicing them a lot i got asymmetrical soreness/aches because i always plant LR. left hip ended up feeling wonky. but it went away with time and i do enough bilateral stuff that i'm not worried about it.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E3Zniy-DKk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E3Zniy-DKk</a>

1:40 and 4:33 -- 

http://journals.humankinetics.com/ijspp-current-issue/ijspp-volume-7-issue-3-september/periodization-paradigms-in-the-21st-century-evidence-led-or-tradition-driven

Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven?

2012, 7, 242 – 250

The planning and organization of athletic training have historically been much discussed and debated in the coaching and sports science literature. Various influential periodization theorists have devised, promoted, and substantiated particular training-planning models based on interpretation of the scientific evidence and individual beliefs and experiences. Superficially, these proposed planning models appear to differ substantially. However, at a deeper level, it can be suggested that such models share a deep-rooted cultural heritage underpinned by a common set of historically pervasive planning beliefs and assumptions. A concern with certain of these formative assumptions is that, although no longer scientifically justifiable, their shaping influence remains deeply embedded. In recent years substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that training responses vary extensively, depending upon multiple underlying factors. Such findings challenge the appropriateness of applying generic methodologies, founded in overly simplistic rule-based decision making, to the planning problems posed by inherently complex biological systems. The purpose of this review is not to suggest a whole-scale rejection of periodization theories but to promote a refined awareness of their various strengths and weaknesses. Eminent periodization theorists—and their variously proposed periodization models—have contributed substantially to the evolution of training-planning practice. However, there is a logical line of reasoning suggesting an urgent need for periodization theories to be realigned with contemporary elite practice and modern scientific conceptual models. In concluding, it is recommended that increased emphasis be placed on the design and implementation of sensitive and responsive training systems that facilitate the guided emergence of customized context-specific training-planning solutions.

Keywords: emergent, biological complexity, athletic training, planning solutions

Authors: John Kiely

if you has access, PM me and i'll send you my email address.

please and thank you.

 

WEIGHT: ???
SORENESS: hams, glutes, hams
ACHES/INJURIES: none
FATIGUE: moderate

- warm up

- sprint 10y x 5

- DLRVJ 5-7 x 2
did a couple, wasn't feeling it. hamstrings and glutes sore enough to limit me on these and the sprints. reverse hyper are to blame. decided to play ball instead. plenty of submax jumps there and some movement efficiency work, right?

- basketball 2v2, 2's and 3's to 16
scored 11 of my team's 16, including a nice lefty layup through contact and the winning 3. also lost a couple of dribbles out of bounds and had one spectacular airball. also, i'm very out of shape. only reason i took that last three is because i was too tired to drive. basketball is fun.


- C1: MSEM squat: 4 x 320
- C1: JUMP SQUAT: 2 x 3 x 100
- C1-info: two rounds, squats stronger than last time at this weight.

- S1: dip x 20,12,12,6
- S1: inverted row x 15,15,15,5
- S1 info: ~30s rest between exercises. getting closer to 3 rounds.

- core

- stretch

don't know why i didn't stretch. i just didn't feel like it. shot around a bit more instead.

that would be like me scoring 115 points in a game in the basketball league at my gym and then someone saying it's the new NBA record.