Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Not great mate, I've backed everything off and stopped doing 5x5 and gone back to 3x8. So now just doing a bit over 100kegs, but failing on the 8th rep of the 3rd set at the moment because I've been off the gym for a bit. Just focusing on trying to get my back right.

When I was having a little go at one point earlier I ran out of space on the bar at 116 or so and managed 7 continuous reps, so not really stellar. Was trying some of Rev's stuff, so you'd do as many 116s as you could, then do singles to say 18 total reps, working my way up to 30 total reps, which I did. But oddly did not see any improvement in my initial continuous reps portion, probs not eating/sleeping enough.

So for now, just dropped it right back to bit over 100, think it's 102.x and go for my 8/8/6-7 as that seems to be an OK number for me at the moment while I work on my lower back.

Edited by ActionDan

Fair enough, it's still quite good numbers really. And 116 for ~7 reps is fantastic. That'd be around 130kg 1RM.

Good idea playing it safe; I should probsbly subscribe to similar logic rather than trying to break old records with a recovering shoulder. I just feel like I don't have the unbreakable plateau there that I did 9 months ago.

Not even using whey protein these days! Just eating better food than I used to, and more of it.

I've actually cut back on the calories a little as my sessions have only been 30mins tops and haven't been walking with Kate much as I've just been too busy on house and shed stuff plus all the social events that happen around this time of year.

Still having WPC, but just with water and have dropped a couple snacks from my diet. I needed to do that anyway after my week in QLD bingeing.

I've never known how reps translate to 1RMs, but I couldn't imagine me bencing 130.

Did you try for 130 though? Can find 1RM calculators all over the internet. For most part they are fairly accurate. Obviously there's variance with some people being better at 1RM than they are at volume reps, but x reps at z weight generally does equal 1 rep at y weight.

As an example, I never used to do singles/1RM. Only ever trained with reps on bench. Then used a calculator to guess it, gave the 1RM a shot and only just got it up. Pretty good guess!

I've actually cut back on the calories a little as my sessions have only been 30mins tops and haven't been walking with Kate much as I've just been too busy on house and shed stuff plus all the social events that happen around this time of year.

Still having WPC, but just with water and have dropped a couple snacks from my diet. I needed to do that anyway after my week in QLD bingeing.

I've never known how reps translate to 1RMs, but I couldn't imagine me bencing 130.

closer to 140kg 1rm.

http://www.strstd.com/ is a site i find really accurate for myself.

Maybe when I was doing the 116 reps, but not a chance at the moment. Lack of core drive from my back has had a notable impact.

I was doing 100s easy before 8/8/8 but a weaker back and a little time off has dropped 1-2 reps off that 3rd set, so no chance of making that 130-140 now.

Either way, not fussed, have never cared about 1RMs for myself, love to see people hit their goals though.

inb4 obesity diabetes heart attack

1461055_10151880722734081_1776150765_n.j

Fk you man...my prosciutto wrapped chicken doesn't look as tasty now :(

P.S. put the flurry in the freezer, don't let that shit melt while you eat the burgers

had some beers last night, didnt drink any water before training this morning = lots of sweating and struggle central! On the plus side, I managed to break through my curl plateau haha.

Still not benching or pressing and doing the assistance movements reccommended by Tolga and Rev as well.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...