Saturday, August 23, 2014

Sunday August 24, 2014: Case Study (Pt. 1)

Today we are delving into the case study/ design logistics for HPA-Gold (next week we will discuss Blue). 

Based on the initial testing phase we have compiled the following data...

Structural Balance:
BS:FS- Slight Front Squat Priority 
BS:PC- Power Clean Priority 
BS:Sn- Snatch Priority 
FS:Clean- Balanced 
Press:WPU- Balanced
*Indication- Group is stronger than fast and UB Push/Pull absolute strength is poor relative to squatting ability/ bodyweight. 

CP-Battery/ Neuromuscular Efficiency
NME Test- 5 reps 
*Indication- moderate NME score. This is neither good nor bad; it is simply an reference point/indicator for what type of strength protocols will work best for the group as a whole.

8 Minute AMAP: PC @90%- 20 reps (range = 14-26)
*Indication- As a whole the group has a poor CP-Battery. 

5 RFT BJ/PCJ- 7:29 
*Indication- CP-Battery in a mixed setting is comparatively better than in a single modality setting, but still needs overall improvement/ further development. 

Gymnastic Density/ Muscular Endurance 
UB C2B Pullups- 19 reps
UB Kip HSPU- 22
UB  Strict HSPU- 15 reps 
*Indications- Muscular endurance (gymnastic specific) needs development. 

50 BS For Time- 3:23 average (2:42-4:10 range)
*Indication- Muscular endurance (specific to Low-load squatting) will not be a priority in this first cycle. 

50 Kipping HSPU FT- 4:34 average (3:58-5:07 range)
*Indication- as previously stated, gymnastic specific muscular endurance will be a priority. Not only do we need to get the UB stronger/ increase the # of reps that can be performed UB; we also need to create sustainability within these characteristics. 

30 Muscle Ups: 8:06 avg (6:13-10:05 range)
Indication- Based on comments from the group it seems there may be some technical deficiencies. We will implement video review here to correct that, but for now this is not a major priority. 

Regional Rope Climb WOD- 10:01 average (9:53-10:12 range)
*Indication- Time cap for regionals was 7:00 here. Since the focus for this group is in fact regionals we ideally need this score to be a bit faster. However, it gives us a good comparison being that we already established this testing characteristic as a weakness/priority (ie- we can see where we are as a group relative to where we need to be). 

5 Min C2B/Burpee- 3 rounds+14 reps/ avg (3+7 to 4rd range)
*Indication- this is solely for test/retest purposes. Ie- it is a relative test rather than one used to get an absolute score.

5 Min DU's: 256 average (251-265 range)
*Indication- group is proficient with DU's. No issues here. 

Energy System Testing
Repeat #1- 5:19 average (4:22-6:29 range)
Repeat #2- 5:44 average (4:22-7:54 range)
*Indication- absolute power potential is low for the group (even for those on the low range). This will be a priority moving forward, as will aerobic base development (which will help create sustainability between efforts even with incomplete recovery). 

Power Clean/Burpee Repeatability Test:
Repeat #1- 3:51 avg (3:08-4:53 range)
Repeat #2- 4:18 avg (3:12-5:54 range)
*Indication- Same as the above test. 

2,000m Row- 7:15.5/avg (6:57-7:34 range)
1,600m Run- 6:22/avg (5:53-6:51 range)
*Indication- as a group aerobic power is more developed than anaerobic, though it still needs further development. Ideally we want the average for the 2k sub 7:00, and the Run sub 6:00 (atleast). 

10 Rounds For Time: 500m Row/15 Burpee
29:02 (only one data point)
*Indication- We only have one data point here (one athlete responded), which will create a big skew. If we were to go by this one point alone I would saw the group as a whole is VERY well developed aerobically. However, this athlete had the fastest times on other tests so they are not indicative of the group. I have correlative data for the other test results and this, so I would put the average for this group at around 32:00-35:00 minutes for this test. That being said, developing an aerobic base via sub maximal work will be a priority. 

-In terms of structural balance points the priority for the group will be getting olympic liftings maxes as well as UB push/Pull absolute strength up (note- this isn't to say we will not continue trying to get squat maxes up. It is simply an indication of where the priority lies). 
-The avatar for the group is "Stronger than Fast" (this is determined by the relationship between BS/FS/Clean/Snatch Maxes, absolute power potential, and CP-Battery). As such, absolute speed/ speed strength work will be strategically used to reach a balance point. 
-As a group muscular endurance (UB/ Gymnastic specific) needs development. Increasing absolute strength on these movements will be a foundational element of this (as it will serve as a base), but specific Rx's also need to be put into place (in a non-fatigued format). 
-NME is moderate, which will dictate Rx's used within CP (strength) work. 
-CP-Battery is poor. Specific Rx's will be used accordingly for improvement (as well as will speed-strength development). 
-As a group absolute power potential is low.
-Group is more enduring than powerful on an absolute scale. However, on a relative scale for aerobic development they are more powerful than enduring. 

-UB Push/Pull Absolute Strength & Olympic Lifting Maxes
-Muscular Endurance & CP-Battery
-A-Lactic Power (10-20s time domain)
-Aerobic Base Development 

Initial Training Split (4-6 week cycle):
Snatch Intense/ Battery
Front Squat Moderate 
UB Gymnastic Pulling Strength/ Single Leg CP

Short End Power (Cyclical Modalities)

Aerobic Power (Cyclical Modalities + low tension movements)

UB Push/ Pull Absolute Strength
UB Push/Pull Muscular Endurance 

Clean Intense/ Battery
BS Moderate/ Intense
UB Gymnastic Pushing Strength
CP-Battery/ Grinders

Mixed Aerobic Work 

***Post all questions, comments, or concerns to the comments section below***


  1. As a guy who worksout by himself I was wondering if you could post times or rounds or reps that we could shoot for. Might help us push ourselves more. Also wondering what your yearly template looks like for athletes wanting to make it to regionals. So we kinda know where we are heading.

    1. For testers I can deff give times to shoot for based on data I've collected. But for % effort based work in intentionally do not. This is because it is completely atglete specific and the goal is to learn ones own engine and not get caught up in anyone else's race. Also note that the goal on % effort pieces is not the fastest time or the most rounds. It is simply to operate at a given intensity level to achieve the correct response.
      In regards to the yearly template... We do not use templates of any kind. Each training split/plan is made specifically for an athlete, or on this case the group. That being said, I'm working on a post with the Skelton for golds periodization. Though it will be subject to change based on the feedback I observe.

  2. If we wanted to do extra work, would it be detrimental to what you have planned for us ie more squatting or 250m row repeats for 10 sets with 3 min rest

    1. Multiple part answer here.
      While it may not be detrimental in some cases, it can in others. Though, in either situation you may not get the intended dose response of the training session, or progress as planned since the correct peaking/periodizafion structure will be taken out of play.
      If you feel like you need to though, it would be best to add work the day before rest days (ie- Wednesday/ Saturday) so you'll have a day to recover. Appropriate things to add would be exercises for a given structural deficiency (or assistance exercises), lower intensity aerobic work, or EMOM type work. I'd advise against adding volume to power/ anaerobic based work (ie- 250m row/ rest 3m as mentioned above) though.
      If you do end up adding work to m/t/f though make sure it isn't something that will effect the following days training (based off the splits provided above) and also note that volume will increase as cycles go on as well.
      Hopefully that answered the question/ cleared things up a bit. Thanks for asking as well since I'm sure this is a question many will have

  3. Thanks Evan, as hard as it is I will stick with what you have for us and trust the process.