10,000 pound challenge

David Wood · 03-18-2007, 04:44 PM

A buddy of mine asked me to post this for him (why he can't get his own account here, I'll never understand :sad:).

A simple challenge: take 10,000 pounds from floor to overhead (standing), in the least time possible. Basically, do it as a clean and press, or push press, or jerk. You can snatch the weight, too, I guess.

He did it the other day in about 43 minutes (he doesn't think it's particularly impressive, but it's a data point). He did it starting with 2 50-lb DBs (would require 100 reps total if he stuck with that weight (which he couldn't, he had to cut down to 45's, then 40's)).

He's 59 years old, by the way.

For me, I think I'd get it done a lot faster with 2 30's (requires 167 reps total). Alas, I won't be doing this anytime soon . . . *still* working on the shoulder rehab and contemplating surgery . . . but it sounds like an interesting challenge.

Don Stevenson · 03-18-2007, 09:56 PM

I'd probably do it as a barbell Power clean + push press/jerk.

The tricky bit would be figuring out the right load to manage fatigue.

200lb x 50 reps
150 x 67 reps
135 x 74 reps

Chris Kemp · 03-19-2007, 01:12 AM

For me I reckon the 135lb barbell option would be the quickest route. Have done a super-sized grace with 185lb and that took over 15 mins. Skinny li' Rx-ed grace is just over 3 mins. Sure that I could pace 74 reps out in somewhere about 10 mins as soon as I get a back tweak sorted out. Will post again when I have had a lash.

Cheers, kempie

Lincoln Brigham · 03-19-2007, 01:37 PM

Here's the thing:

I have seen that the most efficient way to get max tonnage per unit of time is to drop the amount of weight to a fairly low level, well below 50% of max. What this means is that in a competitive environment this type of workout favors the person who chooses the lightest weights, which might not be exactly the result we are looking for.

Here's what I've done with this type of workout in a group setting: I give people a sliding scale for the amount of weight they use. For example, in a "Tonnage Per 20 Minutes" workout of cleans, the trainees might get 1 point for using one-third bodyweight, 2 points for half bodyweight, 3 points for two-thirds bodyweight, and 4 points for three-quarters bodyweight. For a workout of push-presses I have used 1 point = one-quarter bodyweight, 2 points = one-third bodyweight, and 3 points = one-half bodyweight. And so on...

David Wood · 03-19-2007, 08:14 PM

I'm actually with Lincoln on this point (max tonnage in minimal time comes from choosing light weights). I also further agree that I've always thought of the point of CrossFit training to be to move the point of maximum power (work / unit time) "to the right" (i.e., towards being able to express maximum power at higher loads

The graph below expresses the idea (all numbers fictional) . . . the untrained person can do a fixed amount of work in some (increasing) amount of time as the load used to do the work increases. Maximum power is achieved at a fairly low load. The point of training is not only to increase the height of the power curve (greater maximum power), but more importantly, to be able to deliver that power under a greater load.

Chris Kemp · 03-20-2007, 01:27 AM

So a little experiment then? - Do we want folks to have multiple attempts at a span of weights? Or are we looking for some sort of scoring curve to reward folks for attempting at higher loads?

Anyways, will have a crack at the 135 option later in the week and see what folks are thinking.

Cheers, kempie

Don Stevenson · 03-20-2007, 06:27 PM

Ok i'll start with a disclaimer that i consider anything over 5 reps cardio and that this challenge will probably be utterly horrible for me but in the name of science i'm willing to give it a go at multiple loads to see what happens.

It can be my punishment for being slack over the last couple of months.

Gordon Limb · 03-21-2007, 06:27 PM

I'm up for part of the experiment. I have been "flirting with Linda" trying to find the sweet spot for max power by adjusting the load, but increasing the reps to get similar tonnage. I am still pretty wrecked at the end of the workout; when I use lighter weights and higher reps my power output is actually higher (according to CF North's power calculator).

What's the goal, max power or get 10 grand overhead as fast as possible? I think 222 reps with just a bar sounds like something that would make its way into a PainStorm...

Don Stevenson · 03-22-2007, 03:13 AM

David, tell your buddy if i ever meet him he's going to be in a lot of trouble!!:pokey000:

I did this today - 75 x 132lb (60kg) in 26:40

Power clean push press/power jerk

Basically 15 sets of 5 but lots of rests, got it all on video too so i'll try to post an edited version (which won't be work or family safe due to lots of swearing)

I'm glad i got the heavy version out of the way first. Next tuesday i'll do 45kg and then 30kg at the end of the week.

Gordon, Power is the rate of work done so fastest time and max power are the same thing.

Chris Kemp · 03-22-2007, 06:39 AM

Nice one Don, although I was expecting that you were more likely to work the top end with 135lb being the lightweight:stirthepot:

Was going to do Nasty Girls tonight but will do this with 135lb. Assuming I survive, I plan on doing 155 on Saturday morning. Maybe try 95lb and 185 over the next couple of weeks.

••••••• it's great being crazy!!

Cheers, kempie

03-19-2007, 08:14 PM	#5
David Wood Departed Profile: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,303	I'm actually with Lincoln on this point (max tonnage in minimal time comes from choosing light weights). I also further agree that I've always thought of the point of CrossFit training to be to move the point of maximum power (work / unit time) "to the right" (i.e., towards being able to express maximum power at higher loads The graph below expresses the idea (all numbers fictional) . . . the untrained person can do a fixed amount of work in some (increasing) amount of time as the load used to do the work increases. Maximum power is achieved at a fairly low load. The point of training is not only to increase the height of the power curve (greater maximum power), but more importantly, to be able to deliver that power under a greater load. Attached Thumbnails

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Used Bumper Plates in Fullerton Ca for 1.00 per pound?	Nick Cruz	Equipment	10	11-11-2010 08:08 AM
Pood to pound conversion	Max Seid	Equipment	6	04-23-2007 03:01 PM
100 Pound Pullup at BW 160!	Ben Kaminski	Testimonials	6	08-15-2006 06:35 AM
300 pound female training program	Jamila Bey	Fitness	12	01-25-2006 07:36 AM
20 pound medicine ball	Jared Probst	Equipment	4	03-22-2005 11:53 AM

03-18-2007, 04:44 PM	#1
David Wood Departed Profile: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,303	A buddy of mine asked me to post this for him (why he can't get his own account here, I'll never understand :sad:). A simple challenge: take 10,000 pounds from floor to overhead (standing), in the least time possible. Basically, do it as a clean and press, or push press, or jerk. You can snatch the weight, too, I guess. He did it the other day in about 43 minutes (he doesn't think it's particularly impressive, but it's a data point). He did it starting with 2 50-lb DBs (would require 100 reps total if he stuck with that weight (which he couldn't, he had to cut down to 45's, then 40's)). He's 59 years old, by the way. For me, I think I'd get it done a lot faster with 2 30's (requires 167 reps total). Alas, I won't be doing this anytime soon . . . still working on the shoulder rehab and contemplating surgery . . . but it sounds like an interesting challenge.

03-18-2007, 09:56 PM	#2
Don Stevenson Affiliate Profile: Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sydney NSW Posts: 1,038	I'd probably do it as a barbell Power clean + push press/jerk. The tricky bit would be figuring out the right load to manage fatigue. 200lb x 50 reps 150 x 67 reps 135 x 74 reps

03-19-2007, 01:12 AM	#3
Chris Kemp Affiliate Profile: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Chester-Le-Street North East England Posts: 837	For me I reckon the 135lb barbell option would be the quickest route. Have done a super-sized grace with 185lb and that took over 15 mins. Skinny li' Rx-ed grace is just over 3 mins. Sure that I could pace 74 reps out in somewhere about 10 mins as soon as I get a back tweak sorted out. Will post again when I have had a lash. Cheers, kempie

03-19-2007, 01:37 PM	#4
Lincoln Brigham Member Profile: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Kirkland WA Posts: 3,987	Here's the thing: I have seen that the most efficient way to get max tonnage per unit of time is to drop the amount of weight to a fairly low level, well below 50% of max. What this means is that in a competitive environment this type of workout favors the person who chooses the lightest weights, which might not be exactly the result we are looking for. Here's what I've done with this type of workout in a group setting: I give people a sliding scale for the amount of weight they use. For example, in a "Tonnage Per 20 Minutes" workout of cleans, the trainees might get 1 point for using one-third bodyweight, 2 points for half bodyweight, 3 points for two-thirds bodyweight, and 4 points for three-quarters bodyweight. For a workout of push-presses I have used 1 point = one-quarter bodyweight, 2 points = one-third bodyweight, and 3 points = one-half bodyweight. And so on...

03-20-2007, 01:27 AM	#6
Chris Kemp Affiliate Profile: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Chester-Le-Street North East England Posts: 837	So a little experiment then? - Do we want folks to have multiple attempts at a span of weights? Or are we looking for some sort of scoring curve to reward folks for attempting at higher loads? Anyways, will have a crack at the 135 option later in the week and see what folks are thinking. Cheers, kempie

03-20-2007, 06:27 PM	#7
Don Stevenson Affiliate Profile: Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sydney NSW Posts: 1,038	Ok i'll start with a disclaimer that i consider anything over 5 reps cardio and that this challenge will probably be utterly horrible for me but in the name of science i'm willing to give it a go at multiple loads to see what happens. It can be my punishment for being slack over the last couple of months.

03-21-2007, 06:27 PM	#8
Gordon Limb Member Profile: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Niceville FL Posts: 47	I'm up for part of the experiment. I have been "flirting with Linda" trying to find the sweet spot for max power by adjusting the load, but increasing the reps to get similar tonnage. I am still pretty wrecked at the end of the workout; when I use lighter weights and higher reps my power output is actually higher (according to CF North's power calculator). What's the goal, max power or get 10 grand overhead as fast as possible? I think 222 reps with just a bar sounds like something that would make its way into a PainStorm...

03-22-2007, 03:13 AM	#9
Don Stevenson Affiliate Profile: Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sydney NSW Posts: 1,038	David, tell your buddy if i ever meet him he's going to be in a lot of trouble!!:pokey000: I did this today - 75 x 132lb (60kg) in 26:40 Power clean push press/power jerk Basically 15 sets of 5 but lots of rests, got it all on video too so i'll try to post an edited version (which won't be work or family safe due to lots of swearing) I'm glad i got the heavy version out of the way first. Next tuesday i'll do 45kg and then 30kg at the end of the week. Gordon, Power is the rate of work done so fastest time and max power are the same thing.

03-22-2007, 06:39 AM	#10
Chris Kemp Affiliate Profile: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Chester-Le-Street North East England Posts: 837	Nice one Don, although I was expecting that you were more likely to work the top end with 135lb being the lightweight:stirthepot: Was going to do Nasty Girls tonight but will do this with 135lb. Assuming I survive, I plan on doing 155 on Saturday morning. Maybe try 95lb and 185 over the next couple of weeks. ••••••• it's great being crazy!! Cheers, kempie