PR: 500 reps Mills in 18.5 min with 25lbs Clubbell

[Scott Sonnon]

Today, I set a new Personal Record (actually, I don't think anyone has achieved this volume yet): 1 set of 500 reps Mills with a 25lbs. Clubbell in 18 minutes 34 seconds.

For those of you following the Experiment (http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2247), I'm evaluating the impact of time-nonspecific, increased volume upon time-specific OCS performance. We'll be comparing the results of this approach (LSD - Long Slow Duration) against two other approaches (HIIT - High Intensity Interval Training - and HIT - High Intensity Training).

This experiment began as a result of considering: Velocity Specific Clubbell Training (http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2236).

Today's results show promise:
1 set of 500 (250R/250L) nonstop in 18 minutes and 34 seconds.
This translates to approx. 27RPM.
At 10 minutes, I was at 140R/130L.

Not only was this a PR (and I don't think anyone has done this volume yet), but it demonstrated significant increases over last work session. This cannot be "merely" skill development for me, since I have well-grooved the skill already, firstly; and secondly because my winning competition tempo was 24RPM.

The previous work session produced:
1 set of 400 (200R/200L) nonstop in 16 minutes 20 seconds.
That translated to roughly 24RPM.
And at 10min, I was at 125R/120L.

So over the last work session, I gained an:
1. increase of 100 reps
2. increase of 2 minutes 14 seconds longer activity
3. increase of 3RPM over 18min
4. increase of 15 reps right arm and 10 reps left arm in 10 min, for a total...
5. increase of 10 points in my OCS numbers. This is still an uncontrolled, pseudo-scientific experiment. However, I'm still pleased with the significant gains! If you're interested in following along the progress, feel free to stay tuned at my Personal Training Log: Take Rt. 300 to Mt. Olympus (http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2211).

[JasonE]

Glad I was already sitting down when I read that...

That's pretty amazing! You must have eaten right, AND been feeling pretty burly! :shock:

...You're about my size, but I feel pretty small and weak about now... :lol:

I'll check back with you on this in a year or two. :P

[Lee Hadden]

That's incredible progress Coach - only goes to show how our understanding of optimum OCS progress is in it's infancy, and just gives a glimps of what just is possible and beyond. Your numbers are inspiring - and will tear down self-imposed limitations to all that read this.

I'm sure this will spur on us all in experimenting with various "un-tapped" training protocols, which can only rapidly develop the progress of us all, and ensure the growth of this amazing sport.

All the Best,

Coach Hadden
CST Head Coach

[WarpedMind]

I was just wondering... when doing a high number of reps of anything (i.e. Scott's PR), can that actually be bad for the nervous system? I seem to remember reading something somwhere where GTG was good to a certain extent, but you can burn out your neural receptors if you do too much . Am I off base with that?

[Scott Sonnon]

Tom,

Welcome back. You've been gone for a long time.

My Mill practice and rep count were not done using Pavel's GTG style, so I don't understand your question there.

The nervous system can handle whatever load you incrementally progress to withstand.

[WarpedMind]

Thanks for the welcome back. :)

I guess using the term GTG was inaccurate.

What I meant was basically, when you do the same repetitive motion THAT MUCH, could it cause any damage?

But I guess the answer to that is a firm "no".

Man, the body is an incredible thing!

[Scott Sonnon]

Tom,

The answer isn't, "no." Actually it's most often, "yes." But it's with the qualifier that, "it depends upon whether you've incrementally prepared."

I know that my CNS could have handled a lot more than the 1,000 reps I performed yesterday. However, my hands were not prepared for more volume for sure - I have 10 blisters on my right hand, three ripped during the performance.

Incremental progression is the key.

[WarpedMind]

Then I guess my next question is about term incremental progression.

Each workout, you upped it by 100 reps. That's definitely incremental. But can the increments that you take be too big?

For example, if I go from 100 reps to 1000 reps in one workout (I wish!), that would certainly be an incremental progression. But obviously, that increment would be far too large to be considered a logical next step in the workout.

My question then is, how do you determine how big your increments should be? I mean, if you have nothing left in the gas tank when you're done with a workout, is that an indicator that you incremented your progress too much? Or is that the goal?

(Sorry if this is a dumb question.) I guess this seems important to me to understand, because it is an indicator of how much progress one should try to make from one workout to the next to the next.

[Scott Sonnon]

Tom,

When pondering increments, you don't have to do everything; just the next thing. This is the key to every ultra-endurance event I've ever done, whether running a 40 mile marathon or swinging 1,000 reps with a Clubbell.

Stop worrying about what increments are too big, and just follow a program with small increments. Big jumps in capacity (big "increments") are a by-product of consistently taking small baby steps - in other words, creating a stable foundation in which dynamic adaptation can anchor and flourish.

Worry about the limit of your potential after you've been training safely and consistently for a couple years.