Author Topic: The Squat Thread  (Read 42540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2010, 08:54:26 pm »
0
RJ:

(expletive) you guys! Laughing

40 / 72.5 = .552

And squatting is damn easy.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2010, 08:55:18 pm »
0
tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.5    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

Adam.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Respect: -1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2010, 09:52:21 am »
0
tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

You should add a couple of more columns such as current squat weight and maybe svj & rvj numbers.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12841
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +7949
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2010, 10:55:57 am »
0
50.7
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #49 on: March 29, 2010, 05:43:56 am »
0
50.7

thanks!




tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.5    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12841
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +7949
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #50 on: March 29, 2010, 01:42:51 pm »
0
50.7

thanks!




tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.7    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

Not that it matters that much, haha.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12841
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +7949
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #51 on: March 29, 2010, 01:48:56 pm »
0
50.7

thanks!




tally sorted:

43.9    (Nightfly)
47       (jumper5000)
47,8    (rip)
49,4    (miles)
49,5    (raptor)
50,5    (vag)
50.7    (LBSS)
50,7    (adarq)
50,75   (arowe)
50,75   (allstar)
51,14   (Volleybel)
51,3    (zgin)
51,39   (nba8340)
51,5    (tychver)
52       (nishan.a)
52,1    (kingfish)
54.1    (Adam)
55.2    (RJ)
55,9    (mattyg55)

Not that it matters that much, haha.

Just looked back at the earlier posts and noticed that 52-53 is supposedly "normal." Lower value = longer legs. However, I've always perceived myself to have somewhat short legs/limbs and a long torso. Other dudes my height seem to have longer legs than I do. Whatever. FWIW squatting deep feels fine until the weights get really high, but at that point I don't think anyone is comfortable.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

Flander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • One beast coming up
  • Respect: +312
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2010, 08:05:19 am »
0
99,5/187,5=0,5306

Squatting deep is damn ez.


adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2010, 03:16:23 pm »
0
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Tam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2010, 07:13:45 am »
0
48.6

Squatting deep is damn hard.

vag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5993
  • Respect: +3778
    • View Profile
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2010, 10:15:56 am »
0
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!
Target training paces (min/km), calculated from 5K PR 22:49 :
Easy run : 5:48
Tempo run : 4:50
VO2-max run :4:21
Speed form run : 4:02

---

it's the biggest trick in the run game.. go slow to go fast. it doesn't make sense until it smacks you in the face and you're like ....... wtf?

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2010, 02:07:15 pm »
0
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!

yup, this data gathering turned out pretty good.. true science! lolol

djoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2010, 07:12:09 pm »
0
remind me pls, SHR =  standing height / height?
re-evaluate, daniel-san, re-evaluate

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2010, 07:19:41 pm »
0
remind me pls, SHR =  standing height / height?


SHR = (sitting height / standing height) * 100 = for example (for me), (37 / 73) * 100 = 50.7


Flander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • One beast coming up
  • Respect: +312
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Squat Thread
« Reply #59 on: November 18, 2010, 02:07:57 am »
0
thnx flander/lbss.. I'm glad we took the SHR data, it definitely indicates high SHR = easier going ATG.

pc

Im very glad that what we suspected from the chart seems to be verified from real data ( with some expected deviation of course )!

yup, this data gathering turned out pretty good.. true science! lolol


We should do more of this kinda shit. I love this. So interesting and fun to compare with other people.