Interesting system, and at first glance does resemble Blitzing. Doesn't address tertiary system or endurance. I couldn't find any results similar to Blitzing.

Looks like they were on the right track just didn't develop it enough to achieve full potential. They varied rep speeds for different affects, although they looked at cumulative weight loads. Looks pretty good.

Day 1 Numbers
 

Hello Blitz,

I do have access to bands for hamstrings, but it is only one level of resistence. So I stayed on the cables unless you have a recommendation with regards to switching to some other hamstring exercise (stiff leg deadlift, etc).

Exercise Max Rep wt. Goal Reps Reps
Lat Pull downs 210 70 64 54
V-ups 100 30 60 57
Leg Press 480 180 68 64
Chest Press 200 80 80 58
Hamstring Curls 150 50 44 37
Shrugs 120 40 96 92
Military Press 120 40 96 52
Bicep Curls 80 20 96 58

Bicep curls, I used free weights therefore dropped to 20% instead of 33%.
Ham Curls I had to slow down to control the weight, but by the the end of the minute I was still pretty smoked even at 37 reps.

Overall, during the workout I didn't feel overly fatigued. But at the end of the set I felt similar to running intervals. Both my heart rate was up high and my breath was short. I certainly felt like I worked out hard.

Sincerely,

Looks like a good start.
 

Couple of notes:
You "may" feel some soreness with the Hams as you rep speed was below 40.
Second, as you are working the triceps twice in one circuit you will see lower reps in the second one of the circuit.(Military press)
Drop it if the reps don't look right.

Dave

Blitz only Thread
 

Roger that.

Good Afternoon Blitz,

I feel I was a little misleading when I said "smoked", and that it would have been more accurate to say I was completing the goal reps for the three minutes. At this point I was physically able to do more repetitions but the floating lag produced by the pulley system was actually preventing me from increasing the repetitions per minute. Thinking I could effectively combat this I added weight, which to my dismay produced a more weight lifter like scenario. So to cut my long story short I ended up getting my hands on a Bowflex, dropped the weight back down, and have had better results since.

BOWFLEX + BLITZ = GOOD
PULLEYS + BLITZ = NOT AS GOOD

Yes, Equipment will make a difference.
 

Remember the Bow flex has 5# increments and to get more precise you should purchase wrist weights that allow 1 lb incremental increments.

And a note to Forward: I checked your posted weights and reps with "National Strength and Conditioning Association's RM calculator and these are your 1RMs for the exercises you did with multiple reps:
Lat Pulls 310 x 16 reps = 1RM of 458 lbs.
Seated Row 310 x 4 reps =347.2 lb 1RM.
Calf raises 400 x 18 reps = 616lbs 1RM.
Shrugs 300 x 12 reps = 430 lbs 1RM.
How do like those numbers? Dave

I will definitely keep that in mind. Thanks for the feedback.

Ian

Blitz,
I'm currently studying for a MAJOR IT exam, which my job depends on. As such, I haven't exactly been Blitzing properly for the last few weeks. That said, when I do have time, I'm doing the upper body days on my bowflex at home...and it's great...alleviates all the problems I was having with the cable machines. Only problem I have is that I have to estimate what my 1rm would be for some exercises (lat pull, etc)

I'm planning to order a 200# weight upgrade, so should be good there. I take the aforementioned test tomorrow morning, so I'll be starting back on the Blitz first thing monday...I'm just going to start over clean with the exercises you suggested. I'll post starting numbers for upper- and lower-body days as soon as I have 'em.

Try This...
 

Irishsquid, Go to "Critical Bench.com" and look up their "weight training chart" and they have a 1RM calculator that will project your 1 RM from what eve reps you are doing at a lower weight.

example: 165# done at 9 reps give you a 1 RM of 215#.
It's a nice chart for this.
Dave

Found that the chart projected a quite a bit on the high side for anything over 10 reps.
(Progressively worse as reps increased.)

Projected a bit on the low side 4-6 reps, but pretty close.

There is a good article here for estimating your 1RM. Its never a truly exact science, even if you are doing a true 1RM, which isn't a very safe way of doing it anyway. Another tool for readers......

http://www.xlathlete.com/xl/export/d...7343048009.pdf

Milon

Sir,

I like it! Back to PT.

V/r,

Forward

Just posted an assessment based on my own history.
Blitz's example @ 9 reps seemed to be near the best range for that particular calculator.
Results vary significantly among individuals, but a some general bias can be found in most of these calculators.

The xl athlete seems to overestimate from low reps and high reps.
Found the greatest accuracy around 5 reps.


There is also the issue of the difference between "perfomance" max and "training" max.

Can't remember the name of the guy, but he used to be the head of sports medicine for the former Soviet Union.
Wrote an excellent book; can't remember the his name or the book's name.:(

He distinguished between training and performance maximums.
The training max, whether done directly or indirectly, was only valid if the athlete was able to do it while keeping his heart rate below a certain level prior to attempting the lift.

The theory was that "psyching" for the lift (cranking up your sympathetic nervous system) was something which you should only do at performance time.
Results were better when training was designed with this in mind.

He believed that constantly cranking up your SNS led to poor recovery, injuries, overtraining, and underperformance at competition time.

Fortunately, Blitz's system naturally herds you into the appropriate excercise levels.

Gratefulcitizen,

The xlathlete method of 1RM testing is definitely more accurate if the weight is closer to the athletes 3-5 RM. I prefer it because it's safer than testing at a true (training) 1RM load and more accurate than testing at higher reps. The downfall of testing this way is how subjective it is. Its up to how you feel or how your coach/tester interprets your bar speed.

I believe the book and author(s) you are talking about is Supertraining by Yuri Verkhoshansky and Mel Siff. The author discusses training maxima vs competitive maxima on page 2 of this book if anyone out there has it. He also cites Zitorsky repetitively throughout this section, referring to his book Science and Practice of Strength Training. Both excellent training resources

It states in the book that training maxima is always less than your competitive maxima because optimal motivation only occurs under competitive conditions. Zitorsky defines a training max as the heaviest load which one can lift without substantial emotional excitement, as indicated by a very significant rise in heart rate before the lift. Its also important to consider that a training max can vary from day to day whereas a competitive max is more stable given the environment and level of excitation needed.

Another interesting point made in his book is the difference between the "less qualified athlete" and the "elite athlete". Verkhoshansky goes on to state that competitive maxima is the most effective way to determine training intensity, however this is only needed for elite level athletes. The majority of the population can use their training maxima as effective tool for determining training loads.


Verkhoshansky also has a website.
http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Home/tabid/83/Default.aspx

Milon

Believe that's the one.
Thanks for the links.