2014-11-28 training log

What the hey… it’s been a solid week, let’s see how well it continues!

I figured I’ve bumped my weights up all week, might as well do the same here. Bumped the BB rows up to 155 and it actually felt more solid than prior weeks — a recurring theme this whole week. In fact, I haven’t felt the work in my back like this in a a while… just put the mind on the muscle and less on the bar, and sure enough after 5×8 rows I actually felt some work in my back muscles. Huzzah!

The Meadows Shrugs continue to have my grip as a weak point, but that’s fine — just get stronger, over time.

Bumped up the BB curls too, since there are ‘pre-made’ bars in 10# increments at the gym… didn’t feel like futzing with plates to get a 5# bump so hey… 10# bump and did alright. :-)

All in all, a good week back on track.

I’ve already started to think about how I’m going to wind up 2014 and look into 2015. I think the only definitive things I can say at this point are:

  1. continue on the fat-loss plan — until I get to where I want to be, this remains focus.
  2. stick with Paul Carter’s approaches, Base Building as the core.
  3. before the end of the year I’ll likely have another set of sessions where I work up to my everyday max.

The last one is curious to me. When I started on Base Building back in August (along with the fat-loss diet), I based my numbers off my true 1RM’s that I had just accomplished. Since then, my weights have gone up. Yeah it’s been a lot slower than if I was eating big and on a proper strength-building program, but still, things have gone up. So I can’t help but be a little curious about where I am now, despite this caloric deficit.

And I think about 2015 goals. For sure the fat loss is the primary focus, but I’m sure I’ll accomplish that before 2015 is over. So what then? I don’t think I need to make that decision now (first thing’s first). But I’m guessing the first thing will be going back to strength work, probably a Strong-15 cycle (and then, probably a short version) and seeing where my strength is. If my maxes are below my all-time bests, then I’ll probably want to work to get them back to that level, and just cruise along from there. And that works into my current “where am I now?” curiousity, because I can’t help but wonder how much I’ve lost, if anything… or even if maybe my 1RM increased.

Oh well. No big deal either way.

Based upon Paul Carter’s Basebuilding

  • BB Rows
    • 155 x 8
    • 155 x 8
    • 155 x 8
    • 155 x 8
    • 155 x 8
  • Meadows Shrugs
    • 75e x 12
    • 75e x 12
    • 75e x 12
    • 75e x 10
    • 75e x 10
  • Wide, Neutral-grip Lat Pulldowns
    • 130 x 10
    • 130 x 10
    • 130 x 10
    • 130 x 10
    • 130 x 10
  • Seated Cable Rows
    • 80 x 12
    • 80 x 12
    • 80 x 12
  • BB Curls (350 Method)
    • 50 x 20
    • 50 x 10
    • 50 x 10
  • About these ads

    2014-11-27 training log

    Today may be Thanksgiving, but really… nothing changes. Still go to the gym, still stick to the diet. Well ok… I’m allowed one “cheat” each week and while I normally don’t take advantage of it, today I will. No, not a gluttonous stuffing of my face with turkey and dressing; the t-day dinner will remain as close to the diet as I can make it while eating at someone else’s house. No… the cheat will a slice of Wife’s awesome apple pie, with the streusel topping, that she only makes at this time of year. :-)

    The thing is, I’m back on the official defattening diet after a month of maintenance. Sunday? I was 247. Today? 242. That’s a lot of weight to have dropped in 4 days. I’m not 100% sure why, but I expect it’s not anything “real”… just my body losing some bloat, glycogen, water, and whatever else from starting back on the diet. That’s my guess, and we’ll see how things go over the rest of this week and into the next.

    But the flip side is that everything in the gym feels awesome. I mean, the prior bench, and squat/deadlift sessions went up in weight and still felt like I smashed things pretty good, especially compared to the prior couple of weeks. So I figured today, what the hey… and I bumped up the weight on the pressing by 5# and still did pretty damn good. Really, it was a good session all around.

    So, I don’t know what to make of things, but here we are. As long as there’s progress towards my goals, that’s the main thing, even if I cannot fully isolate out the reasons from all the possible things going on.

    In specifics… pressing was good. Again, keep tight, helps a great deal. Crush-grip the bar.

    Bent Laterals are actually doing better for me. I’m not fretting over getting so tired from them and instead doing like Meadows does in his “rear delt destroyer”. That is, if I start to get tired, fine… just keep moving the weight. If it has to be a bounce/swing sort of thing, fine, so long as the muscles are being activated, really being put through their paces, and being worked. That’s the key. And today was a lot of that. It sure wasn’t a strict 5×20 session, but my rear delts haven’t felt this worked in a while. :-)

    And so, life goes on. One day at a time, progress is progress.

    Based upon Paul Carter’s Basebuilding

  • Press
    • bar x 5
    • bar x 5
    • 65 x 5
    • 85 x 5
    • 105 x 8
    • 105 x 8
    • 105 x 8
    • 105 x 5/2/2 (rest pause)
  • Bent Laterals
    • 8e x 20
    • 8e x 20
    • 8e x 20
    • 8e x 20
    • 8e x 20
  • Upright Rows
    • 70 x 12
    • 70 x 12
    • 70 x 12
    • 70 x 12
    • 70 x 10
  • Triceps Pressdowns
    • 45 x 25
    • 45 x 25
    • 45 x 25
    • 45 x 12
  • Risky Locations

    “We live in a nice neighborhood.”

    “I never thought something like that could happen here.”

    “This is the good part of town.”

    You’ve probably heard – or even uttered – these phrases. Crime happens in a place you wouldn’t expect it to, and phrases like these come out.  The reality is, crime happens everywhere – no where is immune. But certainly, there are areas that can have a higher tendency for crime than others.

    Force Science Institute News #268 contains an article on “What locations are riskiest for you?” In this context, “you” means law-enforcement officers. And while I tend to look at things from a private citizen standpoint, this is still information worthy of note.

    The study looked at data from the nation’s second largest municipal police department (Chicago), and constructed “a “risk terrain model” that links an officer’s relative danger of felonious injury to the presence of certain environmental factors.” They looked at 991 batteries (“serious bodily harm or death, including firearm threats and assaults) against CPD officers over a 12-month period. They examined where those tended to occur across the city, at a granularity of about 1-city block. They also considered other “potential risk factors”, locations likely to be trouble spots like apartment complexes, night clubs, homeless shelters, laundromats, convenience stores, etc..

    From their analysis, they determined an “exceptionally strong” statistical correlation between batteries against officers and proximity to 11 environmental features.

    In a descending order of risk, “police who handle calls for service at locations with foreclosures, problem buildings [sources of complaints about criminal activity], bars, schools, gang territories, banks, apartment complexes, liquor stores, clusters of service requests for malfunctioning streetlights, grocery stores and/or retail shops are at a greater risk of felonious battery,” Caplin writes.

    At the upper end of this list, calls “within three blocks of foreclosures and/or within a dense area of problem buildings pose as much as two to three times greater risk of battery to police officers” than calls to locations at the lower end of the spectrum, he says. But even the lesser locations on the list present a significantly higher danger than the average among all the cells analyzed.

    Of course, the risk is even greater at locations where more than one of these “model features” is present.

    The specifics are unclear, but Caplan theorizes that the behavior of people can be influenced by the geographical features around them. “The nature of certain places may be perceived by offenders to be opportune locations to behave aggressively toward police,” he writes.

    For example, “foreclosures may be high-risk due to the absence of invested caretakers who would otherwise serve as ‘eyes and ears’ within the area. This void of guardians may serve as cues to certain suspects that the prospect for instant freedom from criminal justice authorities is better had with aggression toward police rather than cooperation.”

    Rather an interesting take-home. Of course, like any study it really is a call for further study: to have the study replicated in other cities, other jurisdictions, other departments, both within the US but also abroad. So, take the study results for what they are.

    Out of curiousity, I asked Tom Givens how this data compared to his (ever growing) data set of student/civilian incidents. His response:


    That all makes sense from a law-enforcement perspective. Bear in mind that these are police officers responding to calls for service. That takes them to foreclosed homes, ghetto apartment complexes, and such locations that the typical middle-class CCW holder is far less likely to frequent.

    In our civilians experience the most dangerous places are gas station/convenience store, shopping malls and parking lots in general. These are the places where your typical CCW holder has the highest chance of interacting with strangers, and thus with criminals.

    Hope this helps.


    Either way, this information does give you an idea of where there is greater risk, and lends into John Farnam’s quip about personal safety: “Don’t go to stupid places, associate with stupid people, and do stupid things.”

    2014-11-25 training log

    It must be a new level of 80% days, because it’s unusual to have +10% days in a row.

    Everything was just solid today.

    I went ahead and upped my working max on my squats by 10#, recalculated percentages. Yeah, it often works out to only being a 5# increase, save the final 1-rep weight, but that’s what it is. Every bit adds up to more work.

    But the 275 went up firmly. Even last week when the 265 felt crappy, the 275 was solid. Yeah… tightness matters. Crush grip that bar, get everything tight…

    During the working sets I really felt my torso being tight. I haven’t felt that in a while. But again, crush-grip the bar, and the tightness just radiates out to everything else. I know this, I just don’t always do it.

    I almost wondered if I should jump up another 10#! I won’t… I’ll stick here for a bit, but still. What I might do tho is if next squat session feels this good, after the 275 keep going up… like maybe to 300, then 325 (essentially my working max right now), just for singles. AND… without a belt. That should be very interesting for me.

    And get this. The deadlifts? This was the first time the 315 felt “easy”. Oh sure, I was worked, but my speed was there. The lift wasn’t slow. I truly could just explode and the bar moved really well. That’s a first. Admittedly, I felt a little tight in my hips, so it’s possible I wasn’t getting down as much and put a little more back into it, but even when I focused on keeping the torso as upright as possible, things still ripped pretty well. I’ll give it another week, then up the weight by 10#.

    I didn’t lunge today. Since I’m back on the defatting diet, instead I got on the elliptical for 15 minutes. Set it on one of the steeper angle, more resistance settings, and moved at about 140 strides per minute. Nothing huge, but I figured if it helps me up things a bit to burn more, I’ll take it. Fat loss is my focus.

    Just felt like a damn good day.

    Based upon Paul Carter’s Basebuilding

    • Squats (model 1)
      • bar x 5
      • bar x 5
      • 160 x 5
      • 185 x 4
      • 220 x 3
      • 240 x 2
      • 275 x 1
      • 195 x 5
      • 195 x 5
      • 195 x 5
      • 195 x 5
      • 195 x 5
    • Sumo Deadlift (model 1)
      • 135 x 5
      • 225 x 5
      • 315 x 3
      • 315 x 3
      • 315 x 3
      • 315 x 3
      • 315 x 3

    2014-11-24 training log


    Things have been feeling good, so I went ahead and up’d the weight. Just a 5 lbs increase, but that’s how you do it… start light, progress slowly, progress longer, build a real foundation.

    Benching went really well, actually. The main work sets were really good, and focusing on crush-gripping the bar really carries over into getting the whole body tight and thus moving the weight well.

    Whereas last week the dips caused my body to scream, this week my body was like “ok, I know what’s going on now” and they went really well. The first set was smooth and I certainly could have done more than 4×6. But again, start light, make progress, especially since part of this is trying to rehab my shoulder… which actually is feeling much better since I discovered the stretch angle I needed was the one you get at the bottom of a dip (vs. things like pec stretching standing in a doorway). Been a big help.

    All in all, things went well. Is this a +10% day? Hard to say, but I really feel like it was just a solid 80% day, progressing like one should.

    In other news… I’m back officially on a “losing” diet. During the past month Nick put me into a maintenance mode. While there was leeway to gain some weight (Nick allowed me up to 5 lbs of gain), I really didn’t. I’ve basically held around 245 the whole month. A little up, a little down… I mean, yesterday morning I was at 247, and this morning at 245. I reckon I lost a little bloat given I was hungry all day yesterday. But basically I held steady.

    My goal is to aim for a rate of 2 lbs per week. Aggressive I know, but I would really love to drop say 15 in 8 weeks. Being around 230 at the start of the new year would be pretty awesome. So, I’m going to do whatever it takes to get there. Driven.

    Based upon Paul Carter’s Basebuilding

    • Bench Press (model 2)
      • bar x 5
      • bar x 5
      • 120 x 5
      • 135 x 4
      • 160 x 3
      • 175 x 2
      • 200 x 1
      • 210 x 1
      • 200 x 5
      • 200 x 5
      • 200 x 5
      • 175 x 5
      • 175 x 5
      • 175 x 5
      • 140 x 20 (AMRAP)
    • Chest Dips (between benches)
      • BW x 6
      • BW x 6
      • BW x 6
      • BW x 6
    • Incline Press (350 Method)
      • 85 x 22
      • WT x 17
      • WT x 13

    Sunday Metal – My Favorite Judas Priest

    When you have a career as long as Judas Priest, you know there are going to be lots of favorites.

    “You Got Another Thing Comin'” is a favorite, because it’s one of those songs I gravitate to when I need to refresh my attitude.

    But as unconventional as it is, and probably no surprise to long-time readers, one of my favorite Judas Priest songs to listen to is the “Rising in the East” version of “Diamonds and Rust”


    Federal HST Ammo Tests

    After reading my post about “Pick your ammo, and move on“, long time reader and KR Training student, shared some data collection he performed a few years ago.

    This reader went out and did some ammo testing and did a nice write-up with charts and pictures and such about how it all went. It was originally posted on another website, but no more. He sent me the original HTML and pictures and said I could repost it here if I wanted to. So here it is, only touched up for formatting and other HTML-isms to make it work here on my blog.

    The Testing of 9mm Federal Premium HST Rounds

    on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 in Dale, Texas.

    The purpose was to get a better understanding of how these rounds would function in various guns and check out the +P versions. All the reviews found to date have tested the 147 grain rounds, however the 124 grain as well as both +P versions seem to have been left out. I assumed the +P were just too new for the 2001 to 2005 testing data I had found on-line so we set up a test to see what would happen!

    Weight was measured on an American Weigh Scale AMW-100 (0.01g graduation). A 100g weight was used to calibrate the scale before measurements were taken. Expanded diameter was measured with manual vernier calipers. Gel calibration was done with a .177 cal steel BB. Muzzle velocity (fps) was recorded by a Gamma Master Shooting Chrony chronograph with ballistic printer.
    The Ballistic Grade Gelatin was provided by Vyse in their “Complete Trial Pack” for $90.00 including shipping. All three 6 inch by 6 inch blocks were made in a single batch using 10% gel and 90% RO water (water was under 140F). The gel is sticky nasty stuff – and smells like wet dog.

    Shots were taken 10 feet from the gel and all velocity measurements were at the muzzle of the firearm.

    Block 1 – BB depth 3 11/16 inches – 604.58 fps – Used for 9mm Glock 19 Test (4.06 inch barrel)
    Block 2 – BB depth 4 3/16 inches – 608.47 fps – Used for 9mm Kel-Tec Sub-2000 Test (16 inch barrel)

    Block 1 shot from the left
    Block 2 shot from the right

    Initial velocity measurements in fps

      115gn Remington (R9MM3) 124gn HST Federal Premium (P9HST1) 124gn +P HST Federal Premium (P9HST3) 147gn HST Federal Premium (P9HST2) 147gn +P HST Federal Premium (P9HST4)
    Sub2000 1212.07 1279.19 1352.66 987.75 1047.86
    Sub2000 1015.85 1257.13 1325.55 946.07 1041.02
    Sub2000 1072.37 1287.35 1358.12 1003.81 955.25
    Sub2000 1059.88 1261.98 1347.24 1020.57 1005.06
    Sub2000 n/a 1264.35 1356.9 994.08 1040.93
    Sub2000 in Gel n/a 1229.05 1337.56 1042.99 1053.15
    Average 1090.04 1263.18 1346.34 999.21 1023.88
    Standard Deviation 84.89 20.22 12.65 32.79 37.63
    G19 1092.6 1146.08 1213.89 978.25 1021.94
    G19 1066.42 1111.56 1210.37 999.25 1000.57
    G19 1097.06 1139.39 1200.77 975.26 990.99
    G19 1085.74 1155.49 1203.15 986.14 981.59
    G19 1082.15 1159.03 1191.9 972.83 1006.9
    G19 in Gel n/a 1139.18 n/a n/a 1003.31
    Average 1084.79 1141.79 1204.02 982.35 1000.88
    Standard Deviation 11.80 16.91 8.60 10.70 13.83

    Into the Gel!

    Pictured Above – 124 grain HST fired from a Glock 19

    9mm 124 grain Federal Premium HST (P9HST1)

    A single round was fired from a Glock 19 and a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 into Gel. Both rounds were found to have lost mass due to fragmentation (lost petals). All bullets had retained gel under the copper jackets along with a piece of a broken petal. The round from the Glock 19 retained 2 of the six lead petals while the round from the Sub-2000 fired bullet retained zero petals.

    9mm 124 grain +P Federal Premium HST (P9HST3)

    A single round was fired from a Glock 19 and a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 into Gel. Both rounds were found to have lost mass due to fragmentation (lost petals). All bullets had retained gel under the copper jackets. The Glock 19 bullet captured 1 of the broken petal against the copper jacket and retained 2 of the six lead petals. The round from the Sub-2000 fired bullet retained zero petals.

    Pictured above – 124gn (upper) & 124gn +P (lower) fired from a Kel-Tec Sub2000

    9mm 147 grain Federal Premium HST (P9HST2)

    A single round was fired from a Glock 19 and a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 into Gel. They were all fully intact with a bit of gel under the copper jackets. The only noticeable difference between the Glock 19 round and the Sub-2000 was the additional gel penetration depth of just under 1 inch for the sub-2000. The size difference of the expanded 147 grain HST was noticeable when compared to the expanded 124 grain HST.

    9mm 147 grain +P Federal Premium HST (P9HST4)

    A single round was fired from a Glock 19 and a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 into Gel. They were all fully intact with a bit of gel under the copper jackets. The only noticeable difference between the Glock 19 round and the Sub-2000 was the additional gel penetration depth of just under 1 inch for the sub-2000. Again, the size difference of the expanded 147 grain +P HST was noticeable when compared to the expanded 124 grain HST (+P or otherwise!).

    Pictured above – 147gn & 147gn +P (left to right) fired from the Kel-Tec Sub-2000

    Pictured above – 147gn +P fired from the Glock 19

    Recoil between the 124gn & 124gn +P was noticeable. You would be lucky to notice the difference between the 147gn and 147gn +P recoil. I really couldn’t tell in the G19 and another shooter using a Walther could just barely tell with the 147s.
    The permanent wound cavities were very similar with the 147gn creating just slightly longer/larger destruction in the gel.

    Recovered Bullets


    Comparing a 124 grain HST (left) to a 147 gain HST (right). The 147 grain bullet protrudes slightly more from the casing and there are longer & deeper cuts along the side of the bullet. The +P is marked on the casing as such while the non +P has luger on the head stamp.

    147 grain HST
    124 grain HST

    Notice how almost all the petals are missing from the 124 grain bullets below

    I also shot a 9mm Ranger-T into the gel just for fun. It had good penetration (about 13.5 inches into block 2) and retained the sharp copper points. However it was small compared to the 147 grain HSTs and fragments from the Ranger-T were visible in the gel. I didn’t end up saving it but should have upon reflection. It was very similar in size to the 124gn +P shot from the Kel-Tec Sub-2000.

    Some fun

    I had thought about shooting into 4 ply denim however it had already taken a long time to set up and test the 9mm. There were some more fun things to play with so we ended up shooting a HP .22LR. Surprisingly good penetration (11 inches) and it actually expanded. A hollow-point .223 was shot from about 15 feet and did an amazing amount of damage to the gel with significant fragmentation.

    Then we fired a .308 HP into the gel. Velocity was measured at 2880 fps. The gel block jumped above the table about 2 feet and it blew a hole about the size of a loaf of bread in the bottom of the table. The gel block split along its side. We did find a sizable divot in the dirt below the table. We can only assume that a fragment of enough velocity and mass broke away, traveled down and out of the block creating the hole in the table. Wow!

    We then shot the last intact block with a .30-06 HP. This broke the table in half and ripped part of the supporting saw-horse in half. The back side of the block was in fragments.

    Taking aim with the .30-06.

    Checking out the damage!

    This was a group effort! My thanks to everyone that helped with the testing!

    Updated November 28, 2008

    Thank you again to my reader for sharing that and allowing me to reprint the testing here!

    About these ads

    Writing about whatever interests me, and maybe you.


    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 825 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: