Calling anyone interested in a friendly strength competition for this spring/summer

[B][U]July 30, 2021 - Bench[/U][/B]
[B]Close Grip Bench Press:[/B]
175 pounds x 1 rep
140 pounds x 3 reps
Feels like progress is being made on bench. This was the same weight I did the last time, but was easier this time around.

[B][U]August 1, 2021 - Squat[/U][/B]
[B]High Bar Squat:[/B]
245 pounds x 1 rep [[B]PR[/B]]
195 pounds x 3 reps
I've mentioned before that High Bar squatting is pretty uncomfortable for me (probably due to my natural leverages). I wore flat soles instead of heeled shoes, widened the stance a little, and moved the bar just a little lower, and it was better this time around. Balance is not great - had to really fight the tendency to lean forward out of the hole. Nowhere near perfect (and I'm sure never will be), but I'll take it. This was a 20 pound PR with [I]maybe [/I]1 rep in the tank.

[QUOTE=ECGordyn;1644018433]x1 @8.5
x5 @9

Edit: On the 137 there is a stick a few inches off the chest. Fast off chest, then slow stick, then faster to lockout.[/QUOTE]

That's fair, still maybe 9.5

I had mine at 8.5 then 9.5 so pretty close ratings.

[QUOTE=CW47;1644043173][B][U]July 30, 2021 - Bench[/U][/B]
[B]Close Grip Bench Press:[/B]
175 pounds x 1 rep
140 pounds x 3 reps
Feels like progress is being made on bench. This was the same weight I did the last time, but was easier this time around.

[B][U]August 1, 2021 - Squat[/U][/B]
[B]High Bar Squat:[/B]
245 pounds x 1 rep [[B]PR[/B]]
195 pounds x 3 reps
I've mentioned before that High Bar squatting is pretty uncomfortable for me (probably due to my natural leverages). I wore flat soles instead of heeled shoes, widened the stance a little, and moved the bar just a little lower, and it was better this time around. Balance is not great - had to really fight the tendency to lean forward out of the hole. Nowhere near perfect (and I'm sure never will be), but I'll take it. This was a 20 pound PR with [I]maybe [/I]1 rep in the tank.[/QUOTE]

I feel that for squats.

My hips lock up, bone on bone, if I try to stay too upright. I forced it a few times and shagged my hip flexor and labrum..

(I have terrible dorsiflexion rom, can't mobalise bone)

I no long do front squat without a box, so I can sit back.
And my hibar and ssb I just take the lean my genetics gave me.
They gave me much stronger and bigger quads than 99%+ of people so I can't really moan.

Just Gotta find your groove, burn it in and win with it

Took a mini-deload break for 3 days. Deciding to cut the Candito program short to align the ramp up for max retests with the end of this challenge.

Deficit continuously maintained (woke up 239.8)

Short lunch-break workout.

A.S.
Flat Bench:
4 x 8 at 225
Supinated Dumbbell Curls:
4 x 8 w/ 45s

Deficit maintained

Treadmill run:
1.5miles at 7mph

Deadlift:
5 x 5 at 365

Heroic music to set the tone for the final two months of this

[youtube]6fILxnBH1Tg[/youtube]

[QUOTE=EliKoehn;1644317103]Heroic music to set the tone for the final two months of this

[youtube]6fILxnBH1Tg[/youtube][/QUOTE]

God ****ing damn it Eli.
Now I'm going to have to boot up my 60 mod heavily upgraded skyrim and throw another 100 hours into it xD

When were we ending again?
I'll start my next block in 3 or 4 weeks.
So won't peak for another 10-12 lol.

Small 2.5ct PR

[youtube]FV9oTlQfCc0[/youtube]

I've felt quite consistent during workouts for a long time. Took 4 days off to get ready and go van camping at yuba river. Came back fresh, I thought, ready to hit a more solid 375 squat than last month. Warming up I felt sluggish, but I often do. Then 355 was HAAARD. WTF. So I figured may have just been a bad rep, but didn't add weight. I just barely made the next try at 355. Sleep was good, food was almost as usual (though I had oats milk and fruit instead of cereal and milk). No idea wtf happened. OHP felt lousy as well.

I do have to somehow eat more, weighing less and less every day. Doesn't help that I'm lazy and been eating cheese and salami for lunch to get quick fat and protein, but found out I have high cholesterol so am struggling to switch lunch without just skipping it. But I've been in a deficit a lot, and that workout felt like uber huge deficit. No energy.

That was a couple days ago. So today I felt I should change it up on deadlift. Warmed up to a medium hard single at 445, then hit 50 reps at 375 over the next half hour. Was gonna do 365 but it looked really light... Damn should have stuck with 365 ������

Just finished 3 sets of 12 decline bench, bout to finish up with some accessories.

Also for some reason my laptop refuses to load this particular forum, so I'm stuck on my phone anyway. Edit: looks like it's just the main site that's down - the forum is fine.

[B][U]August 4, 2021 - Bench[/U][/B]
[B]Bench Press w/Chains:[/B]
155 pounds + 2 Chains x 1 rep
125 pounds + 2 Chains x 3 reps
Didn't feel like it was a good day to push it, so I stopped at 155 at about an 8-8.5 RPE. I've been slowly widening my grip, and the wider grip today I think played a part in me feeling a little weaker, but no complaints - this was a solid enough workout.

[B][U]August 5, 2021 - Deadlift[/U][/B]
[B]Deficit Deadlift - 2.5 inches:[/B]
355 pounds x 1 rep [[B]PR[/B]]
285 pounds x 3 reps
Night and day difference from last time, where I hit this for only 335. As mentioned last time, I tried to make sure I sat down more. I think I took it a little too far, but it was a positive adjustment. Also figured out a much better setting for my belt when deadlifting, which allowed me to get plenty of air and didn't seem to have any impact on my positioning. The top rep moved extremely smoothly for a 10 pound PR. It didn't feel any more difficult than the previous rep I had done at 335. I will gladly take the 10 pound PR though, and shoot for another next time around (with the form tightened up just a little bit).

Here's video of the 355 deadlift.
[youtube]EX3K_Wn9HWI[/youtube]

[QUOTE=WolfRose7;1644326293]God ****ing damn it Eli.
Now I'm going to have to boot up my 60 mod heavily upgraded skyrim and throw another 100 hours into it xD

When were we ending again?
I'll start my next block in 3 or 4 weeks.
So won't peak for another 10-12 lol.

Small 2.5ct PR

[youtube]FV9oTlQfCc0[/youtube][/QUOTE]

Nice set!

And yeah, I'm surprised I never really got into the game. Heroic lore has always appealed to me, but stuff like Elder Scrolls, Game of Thrones, etc., I only paid much attention to recently.

Great feel captured by the music, I think. Currently reading a great history of the Dark Ages and this seems to fit the setting (minus the modern instruments, of course). I've been listening to this song on loop at my desk the past few days... xD

[QUOTE=EliKoehn;1644406773]Nice set!

And yeah, I'm surprised I never really got into the game. Heroic lore has always appealed to me, but stuff like Elder Scrolls, Game of Thrones, etc., I only paid much attention to recently.

Great feel captured by the music, I think. Currently reading a great history of the Dark Ages and this seems to fit the setting (minus the modern instruments, of course). I've been listening to this song on loop at my desk the past few days... xD[/QUOTE]

What’s the book (I am trespassing but my curiosity got the better of me)?

I thought they didn’t call them the Dark Ages anymore? I was a bit surprised that a devout christian would follow the renaissance propaganda and use that term!

[QUOTE=EliKoehn;1644317103]Heroic music to set the tone for the final two months of this

[youtube]6fILxnBH1Tg[/youtube][/QUOTE]

Video game sound tracks are the GOAT

[youtube]U-3kJcBfQ9w[/youtube]

[QUOTE=EiFit91;1644411043]What’s the book (I am trespassing but my curiosity got the better of me)?

I thought they didn’t call them the Dark Ages anymore? I was a bit surprised that a devout christian would follow the renaissance propaganda and use that term![/QUOTE]

No trespassing at all. If anyone's derailed the main point of the thread it's actually me with some of these references.

Ha, I'm surprised you caught that!

It's called "The Inheritance of Rome" by Chris Wickham. As your statement would have anticipated, the subtitle is "Illuminating the Dark Ages." While aiming to have a comprehensive focus as a general history of the period - and about two thirds in, this holds true, although dynastic politics and theological debates naturally feature most strongly - throughout the narrative runs the argument that the period is subject to two primary errors, one being that it tends not to be approached on its own terms and is instead mined for or dismissed by modern concepts of nationalism simply seeking origin stories, or in contrast to notions of progress which fail to consider the whole philosophical world of late antiquity and its values as the set piece for the politically shattered world that followed. It was published in 2011 - and I bought it new but hadn't read more than a third or so initially - so, being relatively recent, also makes references to a wealth of new finds in archeology which in some cases were nonexistent in the previous literature on the period. That kind of stuff is particularly exciting to me, especially when it offers meaningful comparisons to the existing scholarship.

I used the term "Dark Ages" on purpose, mostly for subjective flare. :) It has an appealing essence to it, I think, and ironically serves the fact that it's probably one of the least considered periods, leaving it "dark" in historical consciousness. But despite the relative lack of source material, you still have Isadore of Seville writing a massive encyclopedia encapsulating much ancient knowledge, for instance, quickly disseminated throughout burgeoning monasteries and cathedral schools, nearly all of the roads and monumental architecture of antiquity, metalworking that in some cases hasn't been matched until the modern era, and other features which even if one should be careful not to overstate, make this time out to be surprisingly vibrant in a number of ways.

[QUOTE=EliKoehn;1644415323]No trespassing at all. If anyone's derailed the main point of the thread it's actually me with some of these references.

Ha, I'm surprised you caught that!

It's called "The Inheritance of Rome" by Chris Wickham. As your statement would have anticipated, the subtitle is "Illuminating the Dark Ages." While aiming to have a comprehensive focus as a general history of the period - and about two thirds in, this holds true, although dynastic politics and theological debates naturally feature most strongly - throughout the narrative runs the argument that the period is subject to two primary errors, one being that it tends not to be approached on its own terms and is instead mined for or dismissed by modern concepts of nationalism simply seeking origin stories, or in contrast to notions of progress which fail to consider the whole philosophical world of late antiquity and its values as the set piece for the politically shattered world that followed. It was published in 2011 - and I bought it new but hadn't read more than a third or so initially - so, being relatively recent, also makes references to a wealth of new finds in archeology which in some cases were nonexistent in the previous literature on the period. That kind of stuff is particularly exciting to me, especially when it offers meaningful comparisons to the existing scholarship.

I used the term "Dark Ages" on purpose, mostly for subjective flare. :) It has an appealing essence to it, I think, and ironically serves the fact that it's probably one of the least considered periods, leaving it "dark" in historical consciousness. But despite the relative lack of source material, you still have Isadore of Seville writing a massive encyclopedia encapsulating much ancient knowledge, for instance, quickly disseminated throughout burgeoning monasteries and cathedral schools, nearly all of the roads and monumental architecture of antiquity, metalworking that in some cases hasn't been matched until the modern era, and other features which even if one should be careful not to overstate, make this time out to be surprisingly vibrant in a number of ways.[/QUOTE]

I'd be interested to hear how our understanding of the "Dark Ages" has been shaped by the writers of the time, and if there are any inconsistencies between what those writers put down and what other scholars or archaeologists have since discovered. A major feature of the Dark Ages is that we can't "see into it" much, as there are fewer records from that period compared to the previous historical eras (Greece and Rome prior, and the Renaissance after). So we put a lot of value on the writings that we do have, when those writers were very much in control of the information they recorded, and possibly selected only certain information to record. Just some healthy skepticism.

Further derailing this comp. thread, the scholar Bart Ehrman talks a lot about this phenomenon of how literature and/or history is created from incomplete texts or incomplete understandings of the past based on those texts. Ehrman's focus is the New Testament, but the pattern he describes applies to much of history: the New Testament as we have it is based on copies of copies of copies of copies of original texts, and we have no real idea what those original texts said. The resulting NT is a product of multiple copies penned by multiple authors at different times and in very different circumstances and for different purposes. Some authors were just scribes who worked all day in candlelight, and made mistakes copying texts because their eyes were tired. Other authors possibly made mistakes with a purpose. But there's a major religion founded on that text, or series of texts, and also founded on what wasn't included in those texts (for example the Apocrypha). So, accurate or not, history and culture have been founded on writings that are still murky.

[QUOTE=ECGordyn;1644430433]I'd be interested to hear how our understanding of the "Dark Ages" has been shaped by the writers of the time, and if there are any inconsistencies between what those writers put down and what other scholars or archaeologists have since discovered. A major feature of the Dark Ages is that we can't "see into it" much, as there are fewer records from that period compared to the previous historical eras (Greece and Rome prior, and the Renaissance after). So we put a lot of value on the writings that we do have, when those writers were very much in control of the information they recorded, and possibly selected only certain information to record. Just some healthy skepticism.

Further derailing this comp. thread, the scholar Bart Ehrman talks a lot about this phenomenon of how literature and/or history is created from incomplete texts or incomplete understandings of the past based on those texts. Ehrman's focus is the New Testament, but the pattern he describes applies to much of history: the New Testament as we have it is based on copies of copies of copies of copies of original texts, and we have no real idea what those original texts said. The resulting NT is a product of multiple copies penned by multiple authors at different times and in very different circumstances and for different purposes. Some authors were just scribes who worked all day in candlelight, and made mistakes copying texts because their eyes were tired. Other authors possibly made mistakes with a purpose. But there's a major religion founded on that text, or series of texts, and also founded on what wasn't included in those texts (for example the Apocrypha). So, accurate or not, history and culture have been founded on writings that are still murky.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for chiming in.

While methodologically your argument - or rather, the warranted skeptical thought itself - makes sense, it nevertheless generates and then relies upon an argument from silence, doing little to shoulder the burden of proof to the contrary. The overwhelming majority of all literary source material for pre-Christian classical antiquity itself belongs to this same stream of monastic scribal preservation. While superficially concerning, the burden of proof still lies on unseating the mutually consistent historical narrative supported by multiply-attested, interdisciplinary reference, regarding antiquity as well as the beginnings of the Christian era.

Even pre-Christian antiquity - towards which we would assume said tired or deliberately deceitful scribes would offer the least effort towards preserving authenticity - consistently shows itself to be minutely attested by even the smallest thread of hologlyphic texts which provide our modern knowledge of such affairs. To give two examples, Homer references a boar-tusk helmet whose construction is meticulously described in the [i]Iliad[/i] and this - indeed, in addition to the very existence of Troy, as of the specifics of Priam's treasure, the Lion's Gate of Mycenae where the heroes of the Achaeans - were all disbelieved as unreliable legend, but archeology has attested to all of these in very precise details, once discovered, as described by the Iliad preserved not only by our tired monks potentially disinterested in the preservation of a pagan past purely for the sake of its literary beauty, but also by Arab scholars who had their own separate, non-Christian streams of textual transmission, affirmed by major translation centers such as 9th century Barcelona under such scholars as Gebhard, until the culmination of scholasticism in the 13th century.

A second pre-Christian example would be, very interestingly, the discovery of the tomb of the survivors of the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Herodotus, our only major narrative source for the Persian Wars during which this battle was fought, recounts precisely 192 Athenian deaths in this heroic battle, against that of several thousand Persians. This was doubted by historical scholarship as a ridiculous, almost impossible exaggeration, until in 1970 the tomb was believed to have been discovered. The complete skeletons of exactly 192 bodies were exhumed and reassembled, once again attesting to the reliability of precise detail referenced in our extant sources in their current form. Again, we could assign both or either a motive of disinterest or deliberate manipulation to Christian monks who would have found an Athenian triumph irrelevant to their expectation of an imminent return of Christ and his plan of redemption for the world, and this point is only the stronger for the fact that it is precisely these more ancient, nonreligious texts which indeed have the least extant source material, yet receive such impressive rebuttal of longstanding textual criticism.

The ancient Mediterranean world and its vast extant classical literature - of which we have full texts of only about 10% of what is referenced and known of by title: Homer, Hesiod, Terence, Anaximander, Xenophon, Caesar, Cicero, Ptolemy, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Sallust, Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy, and others, mutually refer to one another in a rich complex of information which would be incredibly difficult for any kind of easy fabrication, and is furthermore continued in synthesizing reference by the ensuing Patristic literature of Augustine, Jerome, Josephus, Ambrose, et al. So there is a long-standing, dynamic and complex interrelationship of all of these mutual references, notwithstanding what archeology and other disciplines show to be true concerning specific claims, only a couple of the most doubtful of which are mentioned above, which puts a major burden of proof on the valid skepticism opining simply that "none of it could be true" or what we think. If fine details are continuously affirmed by interdisciplinary scholarship, and the literature itself is so interconnected, [i]why[/i] should we hold all of it in more than mild doubt in the absence of any concrete arguments made against specific truth claims?

Let me say once again that I don't disagree with the principle of Ehrman's skepticism, but he fails to approach this question seriously. About four years ago I had the opportunity to watch this debate between him and Daniel Wallace, another expert textual critic, on the basis of second-hand sources who knew Wallace personally. It's obviously beyond the scope of a post at the time it clocks in, but it is a rich debate and both scholars speak at great length for their respective cases. Ehrman did concede that he could not answer this burden of proof, but nevertheless chose to endorse ambiguity and general uncertainty, despite all of which I briefly mention above. "I don't know and neither does Dan" was his answer to these questions, which is a weak scholarly position, and I concede my inferiority in the discipline as someone who has only got a rough reading knowledge of Latin, a bachelors focusing in this, and a handful of classics read personally. Maybe you'd find it interesting to watch:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRHjZCKRIu4&t=5s[/url]

Nevertheless, while I would not discourage even the radical skepticism which makes such a bold claim and challenges even our very assumptions of what can be known of anything in ancient history, its insufficient response to numerous positive cases made for minute and sometimes rather obscure details, and to unravel all of the mutual, interrelated references to a massive literature preserved by many hands and in no disagreement with archeology, shakes little of my confidence in what we can presume to know.

*Also, Ehrman makes reference to a large absolute number of textual discrepancies in the extant hologlyphs for the New Testament, but does not mention that an actual 99% percent of these are minute grammatical differences, such as definite/indefinite article, an individual adjective, or even a variance of regional spelling! Statistics are easily manipulated.

I watched the David Letterman show back in the early '90s where he took a phrase from a religious book and had someone translate it into another language. That translation was given to another translator to translate it to another language and so on. After the 60 minutes they translated it back to the original language. The general meaning was there, but it didn't sound like the original message.

[QUOTE=EliKoehn;1644433923]Thanks for chiming in.

While methodologically your argument - or rather, the warranted skeptical thought itself - makes sense, it nevertheless generates and then relies upon an argument from silence, doing little to shoulder the burden of proof to the contrary. The overwhelming majority of all literary source material for pre-Christian classical antiquity itself belongs to this same stream of monastic scribal preservation. While superficially concerning, the burden of proof still lies on unseating the mutually consistent historical narrative supported by multiply-attested, interdisciplinary reference, regarding antiquity as well as the beginnings of the Christian era.

Even pre-Christian antiquity - towards which we would assume said tired or deliberately deceitful scribes would offer the least effort towards preserving authenticity - consistently shows itself to be minutely attested by even the smallest thread of hologlyphic texts which provide our modern knowledge of such affairs. To give two examples, Homer references a boar-tusk helmet whose construction is meticulously described in the [i]Iliad[/i] and this - indeed, in addition to the very existence of Troy, as of the specifics of Priam's treasure, the Lion's Gate of Mycenae where the heroes of the Achaeans - were all disbelieved as unreliable legend, but archeology has attested to all of these in very precise details, once discovered, as described by the Iliad preserved not only by our tired monks potentially disinterested in the preservation of a pagan past purely for the sake of its literary beauty, but also by Arab scholars who had their own separate, non-Christian streams of textual transmission, affirmed by major translation centers such as 9th century Barcelona under such scholars as Gebhard, until the culmination of scholasticism in the 13th century.

A second pre-Christian example would be, very interestingly, the discovery of the tomb of the survivors of the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Herodotus, our only major narrative source for the Persian Wars during which this battle was fought, recounts precisely 192 Athenian deaths in this heroic battle, against that of several thousand Persians. This was doubted by historical scholarship as a ridiculous, almost impossible exaggeration, until in 1970 the tomb was believed to have been discovered. The complete skeletons of exactly 192 bodies were exhumed and reassembled, once again attesting to the reliability of precise detail referenced in our extant sources in their current form. Again, we could assign both or either a motive of disinterest or deliberate manipulation to Christian monks who would have found an Athenian triumph irrelevant to their expectation of an imminent return of Christ and his plan of redemption for the world, and this point is only the stronger for the fact that it is precisely these more ancient, nonreligious texts which indeed have the least extant source material, yet receive such impressive rebuttal of longstanding textual criticism.

The ancient Mediterranean world and its vast extant classical literature - of which we have full texts of only about 10% of what is referenced and known of by title: Homer, Hesiod, Terence, Anaximander, Xenophon, Caesar, Cicero, Ptolemy, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Sallust, Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy, and others, mutually refer to one another in a rich complex of information which would be incredibly difficult for any kind of easy fabrication, and is furthermore continued in synthesizing reference by the ensuing Patristic literature of Augustine, Jerome, Josephus, Ambrose, et al. So there is a long-standing, dynamic and complex interrelationship of all of these mutual references, notwithstanding what archeology and other disciplines show to be true concerning specific claims, only a couple of the most doubtful of which are mentioned above, which puts a major burden of proof on the valid skepticism opining simply that "none of it could be true" or what we think. If fine details are continuously affirmed by interdisciplinary scholarship, and the literature itself is so interconnected, [i]why[/i] should we hold all of it in more than mild doubt in the absence of any concrete arguments made against specific truth claims?

Let me say once again that I don't disagree with the principle of Ehrman's skepticism, but he fails to approach this question seriously. About four years ago I had the opportunity to watch this debate between him and Daniel Wallace, another expert textual critic, on the basis of second-hand sources who knew Wallace personally. It's obviously beyond the scope of a post at the time it clocks in, but it is a rich debate and both scholars speak at great length for their respective cases. Ehrman did concede that he could not answer this burden of proof, but nevertheless chose to endorse ambiguity and general uncertainty, despite all of which I briefly mention above. "I don't know and neither does Dan" was his answer to these questions, which is a weak scholarly position, and I concede my inferiority in the discipline as someone who has only got a rough reading knowledge of Latin, a bachelors focusing in this, and a handful of classics read personally. Maybe you'd find it interesting to watch:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRHjZCKRIu4&t=5s[/url]

Nevertheless, while I would not discourage even the radical skepticism which makes such a bold claim and challenges even our very assumptions of what can be known of anything in ancient history, its insufficient response to numerous positive cases made for minute and sometimes rather obscure details, and to unravel all of the mutual, interrelated references to a massive literature preserved by many hands and in no disagreement with archeology, shakes little of my confidence in what we can presume to know.

*Also, Ehrman makes reference to a large absolute number of textual discrepancies in the extant hologlyphs for the New Testament, but does not mention that an actual 99% percent of these are minute grammatical differences, such as definite/indefinite article, an individual adjective, or even a variance of regional spelling! Statistics are easily manipulated.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for taking the time to type out this excellent and highly elaborate post, I found it extremely interesting. Would rep but “You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to EliKoehn again.”

Agree on the time period as “dark” in the sense of neglected in focus relative to other time periods. You see the same thing in the history of ideas as well - for instance in philosophy classes they often jump right from antiquity to modern philosophy (perhaps with Aquinas as an exception). But there are interesting things about the medieval period here as well: for instance medieval scholars were actually much more proficient in logic than the enlightenment philosophers who followed.

I think it was Whitehead who wrote that the medieval period was an “age of faith, based on reason” whereas we now live in the “age of reason, based on faith”. Always liked that quote.

Trying to eat moar food. Saturday was Petaluma music festival. I rolled 2 joints. Ambitious. We managed to finish one between the 2 of us lol. I also had several beers. Beer is a nice treat when I'm not drinking it every day! The Motet closed out the show. I miss live music!!
Sunday recovery. Today, bench press day. Similar workout as deadlift day:

Warm up to 265x1, back off to 225x50 spread over 30 minutes.

Weighted chins, (+85x3)x5

Front squats, better: 135x10 / 185x8 / 185x8 / 195x6
Tough to stay upright enough to keep the bar in place!

Some half hearted RDL, only (3x315)x3.
Feel I need more hamstring work, but already too tired for much.

Bodyweight dips, 30 / 25 / 25

Several upper accessories. Chest flys hella weak after all that bench pressing and dips.

When is this thing over again, and what are the lifts? I haven't been doing any barbell rows. Focusing on the big 3 mostly, plus I really wanna get a one arm chin up. If my tendons cooperate.

30m of density work is nuts.
I think my 12m ones are long 😂

From Friday:

A.S.
Flat Bench:
285 x 2, 275 x 3, 225 x 10

Barbell Curl:
135 x 3, 3, 3 (a couple of these were slightly cheated, and a couple were quite clean)

--

Today

A.S.
Flat Bench:
275 x 5, 4, 3.5 (failed 4th), 3

Pull-ups:
4 x 8 at bodyweight

As suspected, pressing strength is down and callisthenic strength is up, upon losing weight

Since I got a raise yesterday, I had a proper cheat meal and ate several slices of some of my favorite pizza with some drinks, so, deficit not maintained, but I don't begrudge it this time.

Low volume and tech work today:

Back Squat (ATG, Paused):
225 x 3

Conventional Deadlift:
2 x 8 at 315 (went slow and mindful to keep all points of form in check)

The squats were incredibly difficult for me, as you can clearly see. Truly a challenge. From previous performance, I'd estimate an equivalent @10 would have been 10-12 reps to parallel without a pause. I think I should train this way more often. Would appreciate knowing if anything jumps out at you:

[youtube]Z8Y4GVOeCnA[/youtube]

I would pause higher before pelvis tucks under.
Trust someone whose spent far to long undoing poor practice, we do not want to practice poor positions.

Would probably suggest a metronome set to 60bpm and wait for the beeps depending on if the goal is 2 or 3. Or you will likely subsconiously pause less as it gets harder.

I like the hard triples selection for the assistance work

Chest is really tight from all those bench reps on Monday.

Squat day today:
345x1 / 285x50 < 30 minutes
Got really sore by the end.

OHP: 160x1 / (135x4)x3
Too exhausted from squats for really heavy stuff.

RDL: (225x10)x3

One arm chin work:
1 hold + negative each arm / 2 single finger archer chin ups each arm / 40 assist x3 each / 35 assist x1 each

Found a weird chest press that lifts you up a bit as you press. Did a few sets on there for fun.

I think for my main lifts, I'll up the weight and reduce reps a bit each week, see where that lands me in a couple months.

Deficit more loosely counted and likely exceeded slightly... Got to tighten it up not to reverse course.

A.S.
Flat Bench (TNG):
5 x 10 at 225*

Hammer Curl:
1 x 10, 4 x 8 w/50s - would not have gotten the other sets of 10 clean, so dropped it down to 8s after the first set

*On the last rep of the last set, I failed just shy of a full lockout but was still above the pins. In frustration, I rested a minute and then put up a clean single. I've got to stop getting wigged out by the commotion around the bench, which resumed immediately upon starting the set when I waited for no one to be walking around it. Still, got this weighing in under 240 where a 5x10 with two plates was an inconsistent ability last year when I was 15 pounds heavier, so that's a promising sign of overall improvement. :)

Finally kind of hit a wall with everything happening at once right now, and ended up with 5 days of no lifting. Both days on the weekend were dedicated to packing up boxes and moving them into the garage. Then I came down with a bug that wiped me out pretty good on Monday and Tuesday. Was feeling better yesterday but was watching the 2 kids and a puppy on my own, and just couldn't fit it in. Finally got a workout in today. Hoping to start stringing together some solid workouts, but I honestly have higher priorities right now.

Anyway, pretty decent session today considering the 5 day layoff.

[U]Box Squat - 16 inch[/U]
285 pounds x 1 rep
225 pounds x 3 reps
Started out with the squats feeling pretty poor, but worked it out as I went along and got within 10 pounds of my PR. These often feel harder for me than regular squats because the box puts me close to the slowest part of the lift, and forces me to start there with no bounce/momentum.

[B][U]August 13, 2021 - Bench[/U][/B]
[U]Floor Press[/U]
185 pounds x 1 rep
145 pounds x 3 reps
This matched my PR but was more difficult than it had been previously.

[B][U]August 14, 2021 - Deadlift[/U][/B]
[U]Sumo Deadlift[/U]
385 pounds x 1 rep [[B]PR[/B]]
305 pounds x 3 reps
20 pound PR for my Sumo, and for the fist time ever my max is higher on Sumo than on conventional. This moved pretty good. I may have had another 5 pounds in me, but this was very close to a true max. Don't have time to upload it right now, but I do have video of it if this ends up being my best before the deadline.

[B][U]August 15, 2021 - Press[/U][/B]
[U]Seated Overhead Press[/U]
115 pounds x 1 rep [[B]PR[/B]]
90 pounds x 3 reps
115 was what I've been considering my PR, but this was done as a standing OHP a couple of years ago. Did it seated today, which I find much more difficult than standing. My overhead pressing has always been terrible, so it feels fantastic to make some progress on it.

Really happy to see the continued progress, even with the inconsistent schedule right now.

Good job on those PRs CW, knew they would start coming in

Been a while since I've posted anything substantial here. I'm switching jobs soon, I ended up accepting a really good job offer at one of the faang companies, for some reason its killed my motivation to train hard. I'm also a little sad about leaving my current job, but I'll try to stay in contact with those I care about

I think I'm doing enough to maintain muscle mass, but I'm probably around 80% of my peak strength

[QUOTE=SaviorSelfJT;1645002063]Good job on those PRs CW, knew they would start coming in

Been a while since I've posted anything substantial here. I'm switching jobs soon, I ended up accepting a really good job offer at one of the faang companies, for some reason its killed my motivation to train hard. I'm also a little sad about leaving my current job, but I'll try to stay in contact with those I care about

I think I'm doing enough to maintain muscle mass, but I'm probably around 80% of my peak strength[/QUOTE]

Congrats getting the new job. I also stepped up in May and it's been a really good change. My mental energy spread around to several different things besides training, but you'll get back to it when you do.

What's a faang company?

[QUOTE=ECGordyn;1645017923]What's a faang company?[/QUOTE]

********, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google

Deadlift day on Friday, 43 reps at 395
Bench day today, 43 reps at 235

Still adding weight to chin ups, 5 sets of 3 with +90 today. Also found the assisted pull up machine, so doing some of that with 30-40 lbs assist.