I continued to progress in tonight's Snatch workout (VO2 Max, 15:15 style w/ 16kg)
30 sets of 7, (L,R) = 210 reps = 7,350 lbs.
This workout felt much harder than yesterday's, even though my poundage total was less. That's because I did more work in less time. (Duh, I know) but my feeble math brain said, "Hey, there's gotta be a way to quantify how much harder I was working, because just comparing poundage totals without factoring in the workout time doesn't show me just how hard (or intense) a given workout is."
So here's my calculation and please correct me if I'm wrong on this one - math is far from my strong point - that's why I became a Chiro and a science nerd, not an engineer - good with concepts and facts, not too good with formulas and equations. I just needed to quantify what I was feeling, cause tonight I was definitely feeling it!
doing 6 reps in 15 seconds w/a 16kg bell = 420 lbs. lifted/min. (6reps x 30sets x 35lbs/15min = 420. The same number, 420 results for 30, 40 or 50 sets)
doing 7 reps in 15 seconds w/a 16kg bell = 490 lbs/min. (7reps x 30 sets x 35 lbs/15 min = 490. I arrived at the same number, whatever # of sets I chose for a given weight and # of reps)
Comparing results, 420/490 = 0.857 or an ~14% increase in work volume per minute by adding 1 rep/set! (Is this too geeky for Giryas? Am I not thinking this through correctly?)
I haven't done the math going from 7 to 8 reps, but I assume it would be the same or similar and if someone else wants to calculate and share, that would be great.
Somehow it helps to put numbers on these feelings (of effort expended), so I can gauge the intensity of various workouts, and I'm thinking it might help me to structure future workouts without overtraining, because I was staring at my 24 and I know it's going to hurt a lot more when I start doing the VO2 snatch protocol with that!
I also wondered what it would be like when (yup I said when, not if) I move to 30 second sets. Thoughts of extreme pain and agony flashed across my mind when I considered doubling my work time, even with the 16! In time my man, in time...
6 comments:
Should be 70/420 for a 16.66666% increase.
I think you nailed the reason for the different feeling. Nice work, Jim!
And I've been developing computer systems for over 16 years and still hate math numbers!!
I skipped reading the numerical part of your post.
Maybe time for me to retire and be 100% trainer.
I don't get why you did what you did, Aaron. Care to explain?
Taikei, You will be 100% trainer soon, already you are, in your heart.
Jim,
420 is the starting point. You increased output by 70 lbs/min over that. 70 is 16.66666% of 420.
If you started at 490, then went down to 420, it would represent a 14.29% decrease (70/490).
This is the same reason why a 50% reduction in stock price requires a 100% subsequent gain to break even.
OK I can follow that Aaron, but I don't get why the amount of increase would be different than the amount of decrease when going from 6 to 7 reps or vice versa. Shouldn't it be the same?
Amount is the same, but the percentage is different because the starting point used for comparison is different.
It all depends on the direction.
Post a Comment