Back Squat
5x45, 5x95, 5x135, 5x185, 5x225, 3x275, 3x315, 1x365, 1x405
3x420 @ 10
My form was a little off today. The reps got progressively messier as the set went on. The last one was kind of good-morninged. All were at or below depth.
Deadlift
5x135, 5x225, 5x315, 3x365, 3x405, 1x455, 1x495, 1x545
3x565 @ 10
I hate high-rep deadlifts. Back rounded pretty badly on the last rep.
Front Squat: 4x8 @ 205
Ab Pulldown: 3x15 @ 190
I weighed myself after this workout, and it turns out that I'm now 183. I'm usually a bit lighter after training, so this means I'm probably 184-186 before training. Whoa. Where did that weight come from? I'll either have to (1) start considering myself as a 198 or (2) learn to cut. I never thought I would be this heavy.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
white bread catchin up to you?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't 3x565 seem like the greatest feat of strength ever performed on MIT soil?
ReplyDeletesounds about right if we exclude former NFL offensive tackles and certain Israeli postdocs.
ReplyDelete@Danny: Thanks! I can't wait until 2 weeks from now when I actually test my new maxes. Based on my triples, I think I'm actually pretty damned close to a 1400 total. Unfortunately, I'm not 181 anymore...
ReplyDelete@Shanker: Who was the NFL offensive tackle? Dave? And I guess you could say that the white bread is catching up to me, but I'm actually leaner than I was (no fatter, anyway), so it's not all bad.
@Frank Ethan Brooks. Also, not to dispute the fact that you are in fabulous shape (the white bread comment is just a little ribbing), but do you have a baseline measurement for body fat % that you are comparing your present state to? To gain 4 lbs in 4 months of what would have to be basically 95% body fat is virtually unheard of and judging based on appearance is an accurate measure in the same way that making balloon animals is considered an established science.
ReplyDeleteThis little expose actually does have a point and it is this...while you are obviously stronger and bigger and have certainly added muscle cutting back down to 181 (if this is what you choose) is much more doable than you may think because this additional weight has not been added in the proportion you may think.
Unless you do, as I said earlier, have a baseline measurement and are actually tracking this fact, in which case this whole essay is a moot point (unless you like random balloon animal references).
*correction...I meant to say 95% muscle.
ReplyDeleteThat's true. I do keep track of my body fat %, though only crudely. Whenever I gain weight, I freak out and go home to measure my waist size, which has stayed pretty constant at 30-31", up roughly 1" from when I was 170 and below.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there are plenty of reasons why I may be temporarily heavier or lighter than usual. For example, when I came back from Taiwan in April, I was 173, but got back up to 181 (lean) within two months. A lot of that was water and semi-digested food weight (i.e. food poisoning).
Also, I'm guessing that I'm roughly 8% body fat. Assuming I was 8% @ 180, even if I gain 4lb of 50/50 muscle/fat (i.e. fairly sloppy gains), that would still put me at roughly 9% @ 184, which is really close enough to 8% to make no difference visually.
Right, "leaner than I was" was probably a bit of bravado, which I'm not immune to.
ReplyDelete