POWER OUTPUT STUDY: Tire Flips

The above short video clip was taken during a recent tire flipping session. (Don't blink, or you'll miss all the action. The camera was stuck in video mode, so sorry...no still pictures.)

Tom M and I had some extremely interesting conversation, debate, and pondering about Power Output and how it related to flipping this 500# rubber tire. Here was some of the talking points we'll share:

• We did Continuous Flips for as long as each of us could keep up. The rules are: flip the tire once in the first minute, twice in the second minute, etc. and continue until one could not complete the necessary number of flips in that minute. I got 6 in the 7th minute. (score = 6+6, total of 27 in 7 minutes). Tom survived 8 minutes (36 flips in 8 minutes).
• The "Continuous _______" workout for any movement demands more work each additional minute, and less recovery time. More work and less rest is a rough combo. Those first minutes are actually quite easy. Those minutes nearing the end are brutal, especially knowing that when you succeed, it gets HARDER.
• So the questions arose. These are simple questions, and one should not ponder the intent of the workout or the physiological or neurological advantages of reaching failure. Just listen to the objectivity of the questions poses: Could Tom do more than 36 flips in 8 minutes, if he changed the structure of the workout and averaged more than 4.5 flips per :60? Or could Lou do more than 27 flips in 7 minutes, if he averaged 4 flips per :60? We believe the answer to be yes.
• We both agreed that keeping a strict pace could in fact increase our AVERAGE power output over those minutes. We concede that the "Continuous Flips" workout allowed us to reach higher (though not optimal or maximum) power output in that last minute of survival, even at less than full rest. The only way to increase power output over a short duration (let's say :60) would be to front-load the work -- such as doing MAXIMUM flips in :60, then MAX minus 1 the second minute, etc. However, I doubt anyone could keep up the power output to last more than 3 minutes! Challengers??
• It is firmly my belief that sustained substantial power output in many ways is superior to a peaked optimal or maximum output followed by (or preceded by) a reduced output. It is my experience that for a finite workload or time limit, paced and sustained produces a higher performance (more area "under the curve.")
• In summary: balls-to-the-wall approach to many workouts is poor planning.

There is much to discuss with regards to this. I have only limited data, so any conclusion would be purely anecdotal in nature. And I agree with the below statement:

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." -- Sherlock Holmes

Let me know if you'd like to participate in a study of sorts to gather data, and reach some personal CrossFit records along the way! This does not have to do with flipping tires. One can actually do some experimenting with almost any movement or exercise. Some named CrossFit workouts that would be easy to begin with are: Randy, Karen, Cindy, Grace, or Isabel. There are plenty of other options too -- 100 pullups for time. 100 burpees for time, etc.

Stair Workouts Update

If you're looking at this building and saying to yourself, "That doesn't look all that tall," then you think just like I do. I say the same exact thing EVERY time I drive up to it before a workout. Then I have a change of heart halfway up.....

As you should all know by now (as I talk about it enough), I'm preparing for a stairclimbing event while wearing full tactical gear. So in prep, I have sworn to do all "under load." Here are my last three sessions in the above building:

• 4 climbs (72 floors)
• 50# vest
• 21:43

• 4 climbs (72 floors)
• 50# vest
• 19:33

• 5 climbs (90 floors)
• 25# vest
• 21:38

I take the elevator down. It not only saves my knees, but also shortens the recovery periods of this interval-style training. On average, a trip from the top back down to the base of the stairs is between 1:55 and 2:45 (depending on if I can get an elevator to stay up at the top for me). Sessions have been starting at 4:30am, and I haven't seen another awake soul in the building yet. Nothing will ruin a rest interval like a stop or two on the way down!!

I do the stair workouts on days when I do not do a session from Prison Workout #3 program. I'm really enjoying the mix of the two intertwined formats. I'm seeing a lot of progress on both fronts lately.

Lastly, I'll be using some of the data gathered from these climbs (time, total weight, total height) to plot some Power Output charts. Should be interesting for those of you who analyze that stuff.

Tower climbing update

The above photo captures some of the equipment used in my stairclimbing training. They are:

• weight vest (adjustable in 2.5# increments up to 50#)
• 35# sandbags (abbreviated SB)
• high-rise hose pack
• fire hose rolls

These "implements of destruction" are used during my training sessions at the fire department's hose tower. The tower has an interior metal grate staircase rising 35ft from basement to the top. The basement has adequate space for gymnastics and kettlebelling, and the ground-floor door leads to the outside. With those characteristics, literally most any variation of stairs, weights, running, dummy dragging, tire flipping, or whatever else can be combined. It is a real treat to have such a facility!

While I do design combination workouts for general physical preparation (GPP), lately I have been adding sport-specific preparation (SSP). Have no fear. My GPP needs are still being met through the Prison Workout #3. My SSP workouts are stair climbing (no kettlebells, no pullups, or anything else). So what do my stair-only workouts look like? Here are some examples of recent WOs:

• 10 climbs wearing 50# vest
• Carry up a 35#SB or KB on even numbered climbs

• 10 climbs wearing 50# vest
• climbs 4,5, and 6 added carrying a 35#SB to the top
• recover for ~5 minutes
• 10 climbs with no vest

• 15 climbs wearing 50# vest
• hit only every other stair on every climb

As you can see there is a trend. I call it "working under load." That 50# vest gets damn heavy. But recall this is in preparation for Fight for Air CLIMB, where I'm wearing and carrying full police tactical gear for 31 floors. The training MUST replicate the event...in not only body mechanics, but also duration, intensity, and load. The longest duration of the above workouts was the third one, and that was barely over 15 minutes. The middle WO had two components. The first phase (vest) took 9:46 and the second (bodyweight) took 6:43. The top WO took 10:28, but I finished feeling like I dogged it a bit. Look for me to kill that time soon.

I haven't used the high-rise pack or the rolls recently. Simply, I have been training solo. I don't run out of heavy things to carry up when I am by myself.

So in summary...I am doing the PWO#3 some days. Other days I do stair climbing for SSP. Other days I rest. The mix of GPP and SSP (AKA: Event Prep) right now is keeping me very focused. Anticipated changes include getting back to the 18-story building for training. I will continue with this plan through the event in 4 weeks.

DEFINITION: Performance-Based Workouts

I throw around the term PERFORMANCE-BASED quite liberally. Without giving a clear definition, I recklessly leave room for misinterpretation. So what does the term mean to me? I'll first discuss it by way of theory and then practical application. By being overly-inclusive with theory, I would risk being too abstract for any intellectual material to actually find application or study in the gym. That's why I include some very nuts-n-bolts talk about this topic.

Performance-based workouts demand increases in output. This output is sometimes quite measurable. Some obvious examples of measured performances are:

• How quickly can you run one mile?
• How much weight can you back squat for one rep?
• How high can you box jump?
• How many times can you lift 50# from ground to overhead in 5 minutes?

Increases in any of those "tests" are seen on the stopwatch, the scale, the tape measure, or the tally sheet. Though most participants of workout programs do not care to measure their performances. Instead they measure themselves! They step onto bathroom scales. They wrap tape measures around their waists, hips, or biceps. They pinch their fat folds with calipers. Their journals are filled with body measurements of all types. This casual approach to training is flawed.

We must first understand that functional workouts are quite measurable. There are certain aspects of our workouts that can be quantified: reps can be counted, the duration can be timed, and the loads can be weighed.

We must look at some other terms. WORK CAPACITY is the ability to do work. No kidding? Work is actually a highly quantifiable numeric value determined or measured by how far a defined force is moved or displaced. The weight of an object is actually a "force," measured by mass and gravity's pull. (Since we most all live entirely in the earthly realm with a constant gravity, many of us improperly interchange mass and weight). So WEIGHT = FORCE. The distance of movement or displacement is a change in position. For example, if I lift a box off the ground onto a shelf seven feet up, then I have displaced that box seven feet. The work I completed is determined by how much the box weighs multiplied by the distance I lifted it. WORK = FORCE X DISTANCE. A nine pound box would yield work equal to 9x7=63 work units. (NOTE: The unit of measurement is not important here. While scientists use Newtons, Watts, Joules, meters, and kilograms, I won't fog up this already cloudy topic anymore. Any unit of measurement, whether officially-accepted or made-up will do.)

Now, there are five boxes each weighing nine pounds. I lift them each onto the same 7-foot shelf. The work I completed is equal to 5x9x7=315 work units.

So with this box-and-shelf case study, how can I increase the work performed? Well I either have to increase the force or the distance. How do I do that? Well I can increase the overall force by making each of the five boxes heavier. Or I can increase the displacement by two ways: First, I can make the shelf taller. Second, I can lift more boxes. The taller shelf option is an easy one....the change is displacement is obvious. However, more boxes? Lifting five boxes seven feet is the same as lifting one box 35 feet. When more boxes are added, all that really changes is the displacement! If I add three boxes, my new displacement is 7x8=56 feet with 504 work units.

Keeping a journal is a fundamental step in measuring changes in output. Finding repeatable benchmark workouts is also important. Websites such as LogsItAll or BeyondTheWhiteboard have been developed by CrossFitters who wanted ways to track progress. They include rankings and graphs for and charts and all sorts of eye-candy.

Here is my charge to you:

• Commit to a journal, whether computerized or pad-n-pencil.
• Select a couple of benchmark workouts to focus on.
• Pick benchmarks with different demands (speed, stamina, pure strength, absolute power)
• Perform the benchmarks over the course of a week or so.
• Set short-term and long-term goals for those benchmarks (ex: 5-min FRAN).
• Develop a plan to reach those goals.
• Record all your workouts in the journal.

Performance has nothing to do with how you look. It has everything to do with how you execute tasks. This does not mean that losing fatty weight is bad. Actually, losing fatty weight turns your body into a more efficient machine pound-for-pound....think about how a lighter body can move during pullups!! Set your goals to be performance goals. Not appearance goals.

You will not be disappointed.

CrossFit Journal: "Rise Up!"

The CrossFit Journal was again gracious enough to publish a recent article of mine.

The article called Rise Up began as a list of blog posts containing data from some stairclimbing workouts. As many of you know (including some of you who help collect data), I constantly examine training from a point of efficiency and efficacy....how efficient are my efforts? and am I making progress? Those blog posts turned into this piece that culminates in a challenge to add stairclimbing to workouts.

If you don't subscribe to the online CrossFit Journal (CFJ), send me an email. I have a PDF of the article I can get to you.

Lastly, if anyone is willing to help gather more data for my continuing study of human power output, please let me know. There are only a few pieces of easily gathered raw data I need from you. The data will be used to plot performances against past training sessions.

Exercise of the Week: US Secret Service Snatch Test

The US Secret Service Snatch Test (abbreviated SSST) has become a benchmark workout. There is a score, and it can be compared to others. Here are the basics:

• Use a 53#KB (or 24kg)
  
• Do as many snatches as possible
  
• In 10 minutes
  
• Switch hands as necessary
  
• Tally total repetitions

Here is an article that fully explains it. From DragonDoor.

I did this today. I'm using the sleepiness of 4am as my excuse as to why I thought this was to be completed with a 35#KB (duh!). I also purposely added the difficulty of tapping the ground between each repetition. With that variation, I was able to collect some good data with regards to Power Output. My score: 178.  That's a pretty poor score, but I'm not even going to let that factor in.  Again, I did not do the snatch movement as prescribed (as I did a more challenging option) but I did use a lighter load.  In the coming weeks, I will tackle the SSST with the proper form and proper weight for an accurate score.

Performance Output data:

Work = 41,500 ft-lbs

Power = 94 Watts

Power/BW ratio = 0.86 Watts/kg

"Tackle the Tower" Wattage Calculator

As I promised, I am posting some information about calculating Power Output for the stair climb. As a reminder, here is a link to a previous post regarding some Power Outputs for stair training sessions.

P = (BW x 310 x 1.3558)/T

• P = power in unit of measurement "Watts"
  
• BW= climber's weight in pounds
  
• 310= height of total displacement in feet (event-specific)
  
• 1.3558 = adjustment to Watts from ft-lbs/sec
• T= climber's time in seconds
  

So my wattage for the 4:52 was.....342 Watts! Compared to training sessions, this was high. The highest attained wattage during training was only 178 Watts, about half of the intensity of the actual competition. I guess I need to make some adjustments to training next year!  I can make the adjustments by doing more work in a taller building, thereby decreasing "down" time....pun not intended.

If you calculate your own Power Output, be sure to post in a comment.

Wattage while climbing...

MEN AT WORK. Climbing stairs is definitely "work" but it can also be measured in terms of "power." From a previous post, Power is summarized as how quickly work is being done.

If Work is equal to how much weight is being moved how far (foot-pounds), then power is equal to how much work in a certain time (foot-pounds per second). This Power notation is then converted into the common unit of measurement -- WATTS.

I decided to compare a couple of stair training sessions with regards to Work and Power. Since my race is timed, the time element is important to me! Here are four different stair WOs and my performances:

• A = 84 floors, 20 carrying 70# of sandbags, all with 25# vest, in 25:26.
  
• B = 84 floors, 20 carrying 70# of sandbags, no vest, in 21:48.
• C = 60 floors, none with sandbags, all with 25# vest, in 17:30.
  
• D = 84 floors, 20 carrying 70# of sandbags, all with 50# vest, in 27:50.

As you can see, some are with sandbags, some are while wearing a 25# or 50# weight vest, and two different distances. Each of the four was done on a 4-floor tower, and I had to walk down between climbs...but the timer continued. The time began before the first climb, and ended when I got to the bottom after the last climb. Lastly, I kept my weight to be 238#.

Here are the Work results:

• A = 279,077 N
• B = 254,129 N
• C = 187,461 N
  
• D = 304,024 N

Now here are the Power results:

• A = 183 Watts
• B = 194 Watts
• C = 178 Watts
• D = 182 Watts
  

These results are worth study time. I don't think anyone needed a physics calculation to determine that the most work was done during workout D...the one with the most weight and the tallest height. Surprisingly, the most Power was produced on the training session WITHOUT the weight vest. The added weight (and added time necessary to complete the WO) did not balance out with the longer duration of the weighted climb. However, during workout B, I still carried sandbags up every 4th climb. I wonder how my Power output will change on 84 floors without any sandbags. I bet it goes up as my time decreases.

My hypothesis is this: In preparing for a timed event such as a stair race, training sessions should focus on Power more than Work Performed. I should be shedding the weight vest for faster upward sprints...attempting to reach (and train in) the highest Power output possible. Maybe I'm totally wrong on this. Maybe practicing with the vest has allowed me to produce more Power without it.

For now, I will be limiting the weighted training sessions until my race on Feb 8th. Then I will have the luxury of messing around with different loads, heights/floors, durations, and whatnot.

Comments? Disputes?

Note: On 02-08-09, I made a few adjustments to this post for consistency sake. It did NOT affect the outcome, only the unit of measurements. LH

Note: On 10-22-09, I adjusted the units to Newtons and Watts using more accurate data of the heights of the climbs. LH

Power!!

Before I post, I must apologize to Vinny. He hates when I bust out the chalk and start up with the math equations on the blackboard...

So I tried to compare some performances between two participants during a WO. Several variables quickly arose... weight of kettlebell, height of participant (and hence overhead reach), time, and number of repetitions.  Each of these can easily be converted into the proper units of measure to compare Work (or in this case Power).

Luckily, each participant did the WO for the same time (20 minutes).  That makes differences in Power and Work directly proportionate. But for the sake of future experiments, I converted the results to Power instead of Work. Here is the difference:

• Work measures the amount of energy, as a function of Mass, Acceleration, and Displacement.. (Force and Distance).
  
• Power measures the Work with respect to Time.
  

Here is an example: Weightlifter 1 and 2 are the same height. They both lift 100 pounds from the ground to overhead. They each do this ten times.  Weightlifter 1 does it in ten seconds. Weightlifter 2 does it in 15 seconds.  Both weightlifters do the SAME amount of Work. However, Weightlifter 1 is more powerful because he did the same work in less time.

My scenario:  

• Different KB weights
  
• Different heights
  
• Different bodyweights
• Different repetition numbers
  
• Same time limit

The Power formula was used to calculate which participant was more powerful (and since the time limit was equal, whichever participant did more Work, was also more Powerful). The movement was kettlebell clean-and-press, with total repetitions in 20 minutes. Participants had displacements of 75 and 78 inches (from floor to bottom of KB at top of press), KB weights of 55# and 50#, performed 122 and 182 repetitions, respectively.  The questions raised: 

• Could the participant with the shorter reach AND fewer repetitions still have Power/Work output equal to (or greater than) the other participant by using a heavier KB? 
  
• Leaving the weights alone, how many repetitions would the Power/Work "loser" have had to add to win? 
  
• Leaving repetition numbers alone, how much heavier would the "loser's" KB have to be to win?
• Leaving all else alone, how much quicker would the "loser" have to perform the same number of repetitions to be as Powerful as the winner?

The answers were reached only after using the Power/Work formulas.

The shorter participant (26 watts) with the heavier KB did produce less Power than the taller participant (36 watts). The shorter one would have had to do 50 more repetitions in the same time. Or do the same work in 5:45 less time, or use a 78#KB and do the same number of reps.

Power-to-Weight Ratio:  Power per kilogram of participant's bodyweight.  Since the shorter participant weighed considerably less than the more powerful participant, I adjusted the "score" based on bodyweight.  Since many of the figures were estimated (or rounded), a truly accurate reading is not available. But, the less powerful participant's ratio of Watts/kg = 0.3444, and the more powerful participant was 0.3409.  Too close to call, but you see how the efficiencies of the two participants' bodies are virtually EXACT! (at least in this experiment)

Amazing stuff. I am surely going to be experimenting with the above Power formula.  Some other linear lifts and movements I will experiment with  include:

• Deadlifts
  
• Sumo Deadlift High Pulls
  
• Thrusters
  
• Clean-and-Press
  

For example: Imagine Barbell Deadlifts.  If a two-minute test is used, with maximum repetitions being the goal, how will Power output change with higher reps of 135# versus mid-reps of 225# versus lower reps of 315#?? Or Power outputs for maximum repetitions without stopping, which would mean different time limits?

I produced a rudimentary Microsoft Excel spreadsheet "calculator" to determine Power and Work outputs for future experiments. I'll surely send it out to anyone who emails me. This could be a lot of fun.  If you are interested in helping out with my experiment by collecting data on some baseline WOs, please email me. The more data points I have to use, the more accurate results I can expect.

Reading: "Toward an Understanding of Power" by Patrick O'Shea.

NOTE: The actual WO was AMRAP in 20 minutes of KB C&Ps, with round one being 1R and 1L, round two being 2R and 2L, and so on.  Round 10 had 10R and 10L.  This definitely affected the total repetition numbers for 20 minutes. I'm confident that a less-structured WO would allow both of the participants to perform more repetitions in 20 minutes.