CFWUx2 snatch bal 10 10 5 3 3 1 1 1
10:11
50lb dbs

I have a hard time to believe that we still use the Framingham to evaluate the risk factors of heart diseases.  It is like we forgot to do our homework and validate a study.  Unfortunately the general population, me included, usually rely on our doctor to do his homework and be critique of science if need be.  This makes me appreciate even more to see the amount of MDL1 attendees.  

Re did this one, this time I did the weight for all three sets instead of working up

85% (75 lbs dumbbells)
Strict L-pull up (singles)
3:39

Rx'd

85% (75's)
3:43 

Rx'd

Timer 
RND1: 3:54 1k row (pr)
RND2: 3:58
Rnd3: 4:00
16kgDB 8/9/11
Toes assisted pull ups 7/7/7

Done

dumb bell bench press @ 15 lbs 
5 pushups

3000m bike - level 10

65# DB (heaviest DBs I have)-37% BW X 10 reps each round. 5:53 1000m row-3:33. Total running time-10:09

2x30kg 
BW 79kg 
Total 7:55

50# DBs all we had. 55% BW
3:47 Row

93% bar (no dbs)
6:30. 100r split 20s of sdlhp@25kg, wall ball@9kg, KB row@22kg, standing burpees (can't run, no row m/c). I can row 1k under 5mins and run 800m under 4mins so thought it was fair.

Rx’d Plus? Didn’t have heavy enough dumbbells for flat bench so did incline dB press and did 8 reps each round immediately followed by 5 unbroken tempo L pull-ups 2 seconds up 2 seconds down. First set was overhand grip and final 2 sets were supinated grip and chest to bar strict tempo L pull-ups. Used my 70lb dumbbells with 5 lbs of magnetic weights on each one. 79% of body weight. (190) row time: 3:32.9 (pr?)that row sucked about halfway in and just kept getting worse! 

70%, 3:56

70lbs dumbells 
Total with row 5:31
Did 1000m in 3:09

7:10 total time (40lb dumbbells)

56.5% 
I did a 1 mile run in place of the row as I don't have a rower 6:31

75 dumbbells 4:02 4:20 row

65#dbs (84.6% of body weight)

6:00 for bench and l pull-ups
Did 1, 2, and 4 subsets for bench
3:40 for row

9:54 total (with transitions)

69 %. No rower, so did 75 box jumps in 7:12.

75% and 3:43

52.5# dbells & L-pulls w/ underhand grip; 100 SDHP in 8:52 (went into wod w/ beginnings of a migraine so felt sluggish)

M50/5’5”/155

40# DBS 51%, did the 3 RDS in 2:48, rested 1:00, 1k row = 4:36

50-50 lb Dbs ( 65% ) 
3’33 

130lbs/185lbs(BW) = 70%
1000m Row = 3:42

Tucked pullups, 65-lb DB's @ 150-lb bodyweight for bench press. 3:49 Row

As rx’d.  DB Load = 0.67.  1K Row = 3:23.5.

Took the opportunity to not rush the 3 rounds.  I used 60# DBs, which are the heaviest I have; could have gone heavier.  Did the L pull-ups unbroken, really focused on keeping them strict and not using any momentum from bringing the legs into the “L”.  I did lower and then re-raise my legs between some of the reps.

This is 3 seconds slower than my best 1K, but I’m glad I went hard.  On the ground for awhile after this, and when I did stand up, legs did not want to function.  Cramping and stiff.  

I used to think that 500m was maybe the worst distance for an all-out, max effort row.  But I think 1,000 might be worse.  With 500, you can gut it out for the two minutes.  With the 1K, the first 500 still sucks, and then you have another 500 on the back of it.

45m/5'10"/180

2*40 kg
90 kg Bw 
5 min break 
3:56 row 

Completed 2019-01-28
63% for the Bench Press
Bent knees for the pull-ups
3:56 for the row

subbed 800m run for row

100# = 62.5% (easy, try 110# next time)

3:22

142% db bench 
Weights 210
Dbell 150x2
Row 3:30

Subbed :20 hanging l-sit for pull-ups. This couplet should be done for quality, rather than for time. Truly go for quality rather than speed. Pace as needed to allow for this stimulus. I probably could have gone heavier on the bench, maybe 80lbs, but approached with caution as this is a movement (DB bench press) that I almost never perform.

Bench Press: 70lb DB (55%)
1000m Row: 3:49.8 (each 250m split was at :57 seconds)

M47/170
Sub tempo ring dips 7-7-4,2,1
L sit pull ups, 5-5-2,1,1,1

For row subbed
AMrap in 4 mins
10 PC
10 sdhp
@35 lbs

50 burpees for time 2:55. Hadbt tested that in a long time. 
Today's wod 8:01
24% dbs=50lbs, l sit pull ups, row went slow avg 2:05

75%, 60# DB
3:58 row 

7 32 60lbs

First completed Back Squats 4x7: 225#, 245, 275, and 295

Then the WOD: 17:11, subbed 800m run for 1k row.
Took ~7 minutes just on the run. I literally couldn't even after the squats!

55lbs each
4:14

DBs 55% (2 x 21,5 kg)
Row 3:54

90# DB / 50% BW, 3:51 row

body weight: 185 LB
dumbbell bench: 95's all three sets 
percentage of body weight: 102% ya!!
1K row: 3:32

I made myself a minute rest between rounds, no rest from the press to the L sit pull ups. this three round work out was a great way to "get to know your body". I don't do that much bench press any more, however this was one of the first times I was able to feel my lats help me out during the press. for the row I had a goal to keep my strokes low, that goal went out the window about 650 meters in. I then went in to survival mode. great work out!

103% (165 weight, 85# db's) 3:16 time for exercises, legs dropping below horizontal some though. No rower, did 5 min on bike as fast/for distance as able.

60%.  4:37

Pair 30lbs dumbbells (heaviest I have), scaled pull ups to strict band assisted one leg at 90 degrees strict pull ups. Row 1,000 meters: 4:03. Completed 1/25/19.

Reading Dr. Eades’s review/assessment of the Framingham study, two points come to mind. One is what Dr. Eades meant by “cargo cult,” which I’ll get to, and the other is implication of the word “strong” in this statement:

“…the researchers could correlate the diseases the patients developed with the earlier findings on their exams and lab work and begin to get a sense of the cause. If strong patterns emerged from the data, all the better, as that would strengthen the notion of causality.”

This speaks to the previous discussion of the utility of observational (cohort) studies like Framingham in inferring causality. Framingham was launched concurrently with the case-control studies in the late 1940s that linked cigarette smoking to lung cancer (by Doll and Hill in the UK and Wynder in the U.S.). That link could be called a “strong pattern,” as smoking is a relatively rare disease in non-smokers and a common disease in smokers. One in ten get it. The more you smoke, and the longer you smoke, the greater the risk. When epidemiologists like the Framingham folks set about doing their cohort studies, at least from my journalistic perspective (I first wrote about problems with this kind of epidemiology for Sciencein the mid-90s), these are the kinds of associations they thought they might find. If they worried that this might not be possible with common diseases like heart disease, I could never find it in their early discussions. But what they have found in these cohort studies are not 10x or 20x increased risks of disease, but rather associations one to two orders of magnitude smaller. Very subtle increases along the lines of a doubling of a risk. These subtle increases can be explained by a whole host of factors, from the kind of methodological and analytic biases introduced by the research itself to the confounders that are often the unknown unknowns in this business. This is what Dr. Eades is setting up in this assessment. While Framingham is famous for linking high cholesterol and high blood pressure to heart disease, half a century later we finally accept that the link with LDL cholesterol may indeed be causal (via Mendelian randomization studies being maybe the final nail in that coffin, maybe) but there’s still no real understanding of the diet or lifestyle factors driving that. And while high blood pressure certainly increases risk of cardiovascular and cerebral vascular disease, its role in metabolic syndrome and the diet/lifestyle trigger of high blood pressure have also remained unresolved. The catch with all these studies from Framingham onward, is these people were making up the methodologies as they went along. They didn’t have the benefit of hindsight that we have, and no one had ever done this stuff before. They assumed it was easy and when they found out it wasn’t, they were too far along to accept reality. Or at least that’s my take. 

So now let’s get to Dr. Eades’s use of the term “cargo cult” to describe pseudoscientific statistical procedures. He doesn’t tell us his origin in this post, but it comes from  this commencement address given by Richard Feynman, the Nobel Laureate physicist, at Caltech in 1974:
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm 

Everyone interested in science should read and maybe reread (and reread) that commencement address. Feynman understood as much as anyone alive what it took to do science right – i.e., to establish reliable knowledge – and this commencement address captures the essence. What’s specifically relevant here is his discussion of the mouse experiments by “a man named Young” in which Young methodically (seems like it could have taken him a few years) ruled out all alternative explanations for what he was seeing in his initial experiment, just so he could establish what he had to do to do the experiment he wanted to do correctly. The kind of criticism of Framingham that Dr. Eades quotes from Russell Smith in this post can sound like nitpicking and the work of a researcher who’s trying to explain away a result he (or she) doesn’t like, but its precisely this kind of nit-picking that is a necessary ingredient of all the best science. It says, “here are all the ways (that I can think of) that we might be misinterpreting what we’re seeing and here’s how to redo the experiment (or observation) such that we have a higher likelihood of trusting the results.” Every new experiment or observation, though, is likely to bring new ideas about how you’re misinterpreting it and mistakes you’ve made. Like Young’s mouse experiments, you just keep doing them again and again until neither you nor anyone else you know can think of how you might have f*cked up — an alternative explanation for what you think you’ve observed. 
 
In public health science like Framingham and virtually all the nutrition studies  (the subject I think I know best), this kind of critical assessment is absent because it is considered all too easy to do — not the studies, the nitpicking – and who has the money, after all, to repeat the observations, let alone the time (decades) to do it? So my take as a journalist is that the researchers themselves have convinced themselves not to be critical, and, as a result, they’re doing cargo cult science. As Feynman says he could see a danger of this kind of delusion happening even in physics, and that was 1974. It certainly happened in nutrition and chronic disease and public health research. The question is to what extent can any studies be trusted, and what, if anything, can be done about it.  

Scaled to:
3 rounds of:
7 dumbbell bench presses
5 strict L pull-up 

Then,
100 Sumo Deadlift high pulls (the gym I had to use today had no rower, 30lb KB, heaviest they had)

80lb dumbbell X 7 / 79%
4:03 on the SDHP

Getting a lot better at stuff I suck at, loving the new programing HQ. Ignore the haters. 

Dumbbells @ 70% bodyweight. Should have went a little heavier.  
1000m row in 3:29

5’8” / 161 lb / 20 / M

Dumbbell Weight 75lb (46.6%)
Row 3:55.3

25#/4:46 

"As mentioned above, the researchers undertaking this study had no idea what was causing the cardiovascular disease responsible for a huge swath of annual U.S. deaths. The FHS was initiated to try to find a possible cause or causes. Assume you are one of the researchers setting up this study–what are you going to look for? Remember, you don’t have a clue as to what’s causing cardiovascular disease, yet you’re designing a study to generate data you hope will reveal a cause somewhere along the way. But you don’t know which data are going to come to light and elucidate some connection to the disease being studied. How do you determine potential risk factors? How do you decide what to look for? How do you decide what to measure?"

This statement by itself points to both the theoretical value of FHS and where it has subsequently gone wrong. Beginning with what the FHS researchers knew when the study started, a large observational study is a solid recommendation - if we don't even know what to test, it allows us to observe a variety of variables that may be correlated with (and so subsequently could be shown to be causal in) a disease we care about. But these observations, unless they're exceptionally compelling, ought to be considered hypothesis-generating - ideas that subsequent studies directly testing each will confirm or refute. It is far from valueless, but it also isn't information we should be directly presenting to patients or clinicians, at least without secondary substantiation. The risk of an observed correlation not representing causation - whether due to methodological errors, confounders, idiosyncrasies in the population or chance - is significant. The desire to give patients the best treatment science can support is reasonable, but to intervene based on this sort of data would be like giving patients a pill without a clear understanding of either its probability of effectiveness or its side effects.

Many of the "atrocious" behaviors Smith & Eades point out would look less atrocious if the study were viewed in this narrow context. For example, notifying subjects' physicians of their health status is less problematic when any relationship between heart disease and any factors that may be affected by physician behavior (e.g., cholesterol) is merely highlighted for subsequent study, rather than being used to directly inform clinical goals.

Unfortunately, Framingham data has not been used in this way. And this interpretation and use of the data, moreso than the study itself, may be the most important problem.

92%
3:23 on rower

10:10 total time 

6:00 on the L and dumbbell floor bench press. 12-7-7 reps on bench. 130# 68% of body weight 

4:10 on row 

I changed workout slightly to get a different stimulus and to accommodate lack of equip.
3 rds
7 DB bench press (65#s - total was 50% BW)
5 L pull ups
800m Run
18:20

94%, 3:55 Rx’d 

M/46/155

Rx at 80%. 3:45 row. 6:40 total

64% (2*30kg) time: 3:07”
Row 3:38
Total: 7:24” 
My biceps... 😢

80% 3:44

50s, 55s, then 60s (72%)
Can’t do L pull ups. Did strict wide arm.
Row in 4:10

Did 15 reps of bench press with 50 lb dumbbells (61%). Heaviest dumbbells I have.
3:33 for the row

Did the following by mistake:
3 rounds of 
7 dumbell bench presses (20kg/44# dumbells, cannot bench press more because of shoulder injury) 52%
5 L-sit strict pull-ups
800m run in th 1st & 2nd round, 100SDHPs in the 3rd.
14:06
It was fun though...
M 42/1.78m/77kg

34 percent 
3:58

74,2% Rx 3:31 row 

35 lb db 7 second negative
Perfect l sit pull ups
3:46 1,000 meter row

D 15 db
Purple band l sit pull
5:12 1,000 meter row

87% (80#x2).Row 3:27.
Rx

84% (80lbs x 2). Row 3:49
Rx

10%, assisted pull-ups, 5:02 - 1K row, 3 rounds of side crunches, normal crunches, leg lifts

82% and harder ring rows, elbow was feeling better but not gonna push it

3:33 row

3:31.7
65#ers:  74%

total DB load = 150#, 78%BW
3:33 for the 1,000m row

29% #35DB
4:30 Row

80% bodyweight. 2:59 1000 m run

60%  4:01, Rx
Surprised how gassed I was on the row

26.7%
Assisted pull-ups with one knee bent at 90%
4:03 ski erg 1000m

Honeymoon day 3 w/hubs
3 rounds:
Max set of push-ups 
5 L pull-ups on a swing set
(No row)

BD 100 lbs total, L pull ups estrictos y row 3:30 min. Tiempo total:  7:50 min (33años/174cm/81kg)

BW 175
Bench at 80%
Row- 3:43.8

M/56/6'2"/179
DB = 7 x 55#, 65#, 70# (61%, 73%, 78%)
5 strict L pull-ups each round
row 1000m 3:52
(maintained 1:45-1:50 pace, but must have come out of the gate slower than I thought)

9:54 #35dbs (best I could do with strict L-p.u’s) 

185 bench press(no dumbbells available)

3:26.8 1k Row

M/ 80kg/ 1,80m/ 35
55% bw 
DBs 22kg
Row 3’40”
Total time 6’55”

I had a good time with this one!

Used 50lb DBs = 57% BW. Could’ve done more weight but that’s all I have. So tried to go as slow as possible on the way down.

I was happy with my L-Sit Pull Ups. I had a slight bend in the knees but was able to keep 90 degrees through the hips.

Sub’d Airdyne Bike for Rower...1.4 miles in 4 minutes. 

Had 45 dumbbells so I did 10 50% bodyweight

500m row 1:49 

had a tough zwift ride this morning

77%.  no monitor but I pulled 110 strokes at damper 5 in 3:27.  close enough 

63# KB
Feet on wall lsit pull-ups

1000m run with 2 year old in stroller and hills. The run was awful! 

RX DB 63% of bw (18kg DB) - Row 3:59

Used 80lb DB’s.
86% of BW
1k row-3:24.7

57.6% 
8 minutes
RX

Floor Press w barbell (#GarageGym) at 100% (175#)
L-sit Pull-ups 

3:38 

M-42-69-170#

Bench press 58% of body weight (50kg)

5:17 for 1000m row

77% (182 lb with 70 lb dumbbells) 
Row: 3:28.4

M/44/6'2"/185#

60# DB's
3:35 on the row

91% (175lb with 80lb db, 160 total) and 2:33 for 100 sdlhp (no rower)

12:16 3 rds slow Negatives all my time and 20#DBs on floor x14 instead of 7. then Row concept2 1000m 4:04.5

73%
3:42.3

40%, 4:03

46% of press
body weight rows for pull ups as I suck at them.
sub run for rowing forgot to time myself!

8:34

Massive props to those of you down in the 3:xx and 4:xx time frame. 

Had 50lb. weights available - 28% of bw. 

Went 15-12-9 on the bench press. 

I found this workout fascinating. I'm a long time CrossFitter and feel very comfortable with my strict gymnastics work (or so I thought) - I'm a 20+ strict pull-up guy. I love a good set of strict muscle-ups or HSPU's. And yet, the L-sit has posed a ridiculous trouble spot in my fitness. I would love to know what people think. 

Even getting to an "L", meant unintentionally adjusting my hanging position. What I mean is is that if I wasn't careful, my arms would not only engage at the shoulders but bend a little at the elbow. My head would shift backward as though I were holding a bar out in front of my frontal plane. From there, I could execute the pull-up fairly comfortably. But when I focused and allowed myself to sink to a full hang (maintaining active shoulder and engagement through the lats), initiating the L pull-up was much, much more difficult. It was as though hanging in an L took all the tension bandwidth I had and in trying to add more tension (pulling), I was SOL. I observed a similar "shift" in position from the L-sits we did on 190114.

In the end, my time was slow due to turning rounds two and three into five, very deliberate singles. 

800 M Run subbed for row - 3:08. 

50%
4:40

~80% (75lb each) 3:23.8 rx

78% 4:28 which I believe is a PR.

31.5% DB Bench Presses
Assisted Pull-Ups (120)
4:25

57 / 172

Shoulder replaced and didn't go as heavy as I could for fear of dislocation. Wife would have killed me.

52% - 3:43 (90#s and PR by 6 seconds!)

72%, 3:52. PR’d my 1k and got L pull-ups for the first time. 

3 Rounds

7X 50% Body wt DB Bench Press(55 lb DBX2)
5 Strict L sit pull-ups

Then for time 1000 m row
4:36

Total Time 10:16

How do you figure out the body weight %? I’m a lil unsure... I’m thinking if I weigh 130 and use 30# Dumbbells that’s 39%???? Is that right??? 130x.30%=39

66% 11:40 rx’d 

M/175cm /73kg/38yo
Bench press @ 83% (2x30 kg)
L pull ups rx
No rower so 150 reps @ pulley

3 rounds of

7 x 2 x 40 kg DB BP (75% of BW)
5 x L-pullups 

C2 1.000 m

3:23,1

M/44/6”5/#234

M/59/6'3"/168
DB bench presses @ 65% bw rounds 1 & 2, 71% round 3.
5 strict L tuck pull ups.
3:46 1K row.
Semper Fi!

41% body weight;scaled pull-ups to negative L-sit pull-ups. Row 4:40

79%; 4:10

180/195 = 92.3% no rower:(

50% BW (SET OF 24 KG KETTLEBELLS)
3:50 ROW 

63%, 4:09

M/44yo/5'8/#199
100%
3:14_ 2 miles on assault bike

Rx
50% BW  (Set of 32# dumbbells)

1000m row:  4:41(PR)

The L pull-ups almost seemed easier than regular ones at 1st! 
My row is still slow, but that’s the fastest I’ve done 1000m so far. 

total time 10:17 rx
85% (75 lbs dumbell)
3:26 row.  totally spent

13.75% 4min 15 second row
Weight needs upped massively, first experience of CrossFit is positive though 👌🏻

Hopefully, I interpreted this correctly:
Best set= 72.5lb dumbbells x 7 (145lbs)
My Weight= 216 
145lbs/216lbs= 67% of bodyweight 
Row- 3:30

Round 1- Got 2 strict L pull-ups and then did 3 strict pull-ups and 3 toes to bar.
Round 2- Got 3 strict L then 2 strict pull-ups and 2 toes to bar.
Round 3- Same as round 2

Did this for time at work, used 70lb DB's(biggest we have), 66.7% of 210 body weight.
7:10 overall time
3:13 for 3 rounds
3:43 for row

M/38/5’8”/208

Rx’d 77% (80# db) set 1, 87% (90#db) sets 2 and 3. 3:50 row. 

Total DBs - 40% bw
Scaled negs l pull ups 
1000m Row: 4:14

71% Rx 
3:17 Pr 

67% db bench but I was spotted my last rep of the 2nd two rounds. Got my first L-pull ups ever. and PR on my 1000m row by 9seconds with a time of 3:44

Made up yesterday's wod then
1 min rest into today's wod
used 50# db's (all I have) which is 57% of bodyweight.
3 rnds
7 db bp 
5 strict L pull ups from rings
3:18
then 1000m row
4:46 (yuck-I was fried)
m/48/175

Bodyweight 232lbs
70lb dumbbell
Chinup L sit 
1000m row 4:02 

80lbs each hand dumbbell press
1000m row 3:43.2 

50% body weight (37.5kg each hand) 
7:11 including row. 

55%, 3:35 Row 

25%
4:04

Round 1, 38 % (scaled to strict pull-ups)
Round 2, 3:55

9:55 with 40 pound DB

3:47. I missed yesterday’s workout so went on and did a 10min amrap of the couplet after the initial workout. Used 80lb DBs, weigh 220. So a single DB is 37%, ifyour counting total DB weight, 73%. L pull-ups as prescribed. As mentioned by others, these felt really good. Better than usual, I was never in danger of missing one. I did however end up having to break up the bench press. 

Did a 1k ski-erg because I’m still nursing a knee injury. 3:28.6. PR. 

Subbed 40cal elliptical hard run for 1000m row. 
Total DBs = 57%. 
Row time = 3:59 (0.29 mile).

I only have access to 50-lb dBs at most and no rower, so here’s how I scaled. 

3 rounds
7 5-second bench press (5 seconds up, 5 seconds down)
5 Lsit pull ups. 
Then
800 meter run. 

6:55 I think RX..... L Sit pull-ups may have been questionable...
75% Bodyweight (75# DBs)
3:27 1k row

5 minute warm up Airbike 140 Cals
3 Rounds of:
7 Olympic Ring Push Ups feet above rings with 15# Vest 
5 L-Sit Pull Ups with 15# Vest
slow is fast....3:51

Then 1K Row  3:55

90%,95%,100% (185) 
L sits were easier than ever
4:37 row

Male, 32
Ht: 5’10”
Wt: 225

10:00 to complete the three rounder with dumbbells at 53% of body weight. As prescribed on the pull-ups. Though the L was slightly bent I did my damndest. 

3:34 on the 1K row. 

84% of BW, with a barbell, and dead hang h pull-ups on a fat bar.  Don't have the DBs to do this one with a legit load.  I didn't do the bench and pu's for time, but moved quickly.

4:03 for the 1k row.

Dumbell 55%bw 

Dumbell 14kg each hand 
Row 1000m in 4.40 min

60% of body weight 
3:58.7 1 K row 

40% (70s) Rx 
3:38 1k row

 Wowsers love the combo!
21:39 total time
1st row: 4:43
2nd row: 4:40
3rd row: 4:39
25#  dumbbells  ( add about 35 to 40%/body weight)
Scaled to a light band for the L pull-ups

45% for dumbbells
L sit pull-ups rx and unbroken!
2:56 (800m run)

Rx 63.2%
Row in 4min 2sec

40kg each hand dumbbell press.  2:47 for 3 rounds rx. 1000m row in 3:35:20 after 500m row in 1:33:40. Rx

70%, 03:32

63% 3:39 that was a good one!

78% (60x2)
3:40

Dumbell benchpress 25x2,35x2,45x2 kg
L sit pull-ups 5
No row, assault bike 1k 2:30 min

56% (55 lbsx2); 6:40 total with row

83% (75lbsx2); 3:27.7 (PR)

The L pull-ups felt easier than ever. I wonder if it’s this programming?🤔 

40% 3:56 Row 

85%, 03:48

3:51

50kg! 4min 1000,m row.

50lbs/ 3:54

Globo scale...as is.  Sub 800m run or 800m treadmill run at moderate incline if no rower available.  If you don't have heavy enough dumbbells do 7 strict tempo pushups on parallelets, rings, plates or dumbbells with feet raised above your back (decline) and note reps.  Wear a vest or use a plate to add resistance if needed (safety first!)  Clean form on the db bench or pushups.  For lsit pullups, knee raise pullups will work as a scale.  If you are elite or looking for an extra challenge, do the lsit pullups as tempo.

what about dumbbell weight ?

Stimulus
This is a two-part training. In the first part the focus is on strength and it is not for time. It presents a pressing spine-extended movement paired with a pulling spine-flexed movement. Athletes should pick a dumbbell weight that is challenging but that allows them to keep good mechanics, and a varitation of an L-sit pull up, that lets them work their pulling capacity while also working on flexion at the hips. In the second part the focus is on power and short distance rowing. All athletes should go for the prescribed distance making sure that their capacity is greatly challenged. 

OPTION 1
3 rounds of:
7 dumbbell bench presses
5 slow AF negative L pull-ups

Then,
Row 1,000 m for time

OPTION 2
3 rounds of:
7 dumbbell bench presses
5 reverse row sit backs

Then,
Row 1,000 m for time


For videos of modifications check @dotcomscaled on Instagram

Champions Club Scaling Notes

STIMULUS: Again as seems to be a theme with the recent string of workouts, we see strength movement paired with a conditioning piece. Adding those into workouts and not just the warmup or whatever helps our discipline, in my opinion, and understanding that most workouts are practice. Not a game. (We talkin’ bout practice mayne!) The interesting things I see on this one are 1) it doesn’t say the entire thing is for time — which I actually missed at first glance — and 2) bench press is with dumbbells. I would try to use anything possible except a bar for those presses because, among other reasons, less connection means everything is working harder. The time thing means we can put extra emphasis on keeping the couplet for quality. I’m also wondering if the “post % of bodyweight will be used for a later date (I have not looked ahead, so I honestly don’t know).
Either way, that 1,000m row at the end is going to be a sprint.

GROUP: Lots of variables here. First, the workout could be read as either go right into the row after you finish the couplet, or get a quick drink of water, shake the arms out, and give yourself a minute or two before hitting it. For the group, I’ll probably time the entire thing (run instead of row) because I trust them to go slow on the couplet based on how they’ve done on previous workouts. Really happy with them at the moment actually. Floor press is always what we go with due to lack of benches and squat racks, and we’ll use dumbbells or kettlebells here. If you don’t have enough equipment, just set up half the group at floor press and half at pull-ups then switch. As for the L-pull-ups, we’ll do the same variations as before (Ricky Reps as I like to call them) just with adding a tuck or an L position depending on strength. We’ve seen a lot of improvement recently in this area, so we’ll stay away from the ring row here. The important parts are pulling with more midline tension and pushing with less connection.
Rowing sucks more than running, in my opinion, and should be kept if possible. But running, bike, or jump ropes also work. Even burpees if you feel like it. I only like to go SDHP as a sub if the technique is automatic.

INJURY: For a shoulder injury, make this a legs/midline couplet. One-arm dumbbell slow squats and hollow body hold or L-hang/sit could work. If the hip is an issue, maybe hold off on the L position for pull-ups.

I’M SCALING THIS WELL IF: I find myself really struggling to do 5 L-pull-ups in a row; that means I’m truly going “for quality”

I’M SCALING THIS POORLY IF: The row is the same pace as the couplet, I’m thinking about the dumbbells in the corner as I bench with a bar, I crap my pants on the L pull-ups

GENERAL FEAR LEVEL (1=REST DAY, 10=PR-DRIVEN FGB): 5. Way less if not for the all-out row/run at the end.

GENERAL EMASCULATING LEVEL (1=WHO DOES RING HSPU ANYWAY?, 10=THIS TEENAGE GIRL IS DEADLIFTING MORE THAN ME): 7. Higher than average because of the dumbbell variation on the press.