Military Workout Mon 23 May 11

Interval Training


50-50-100-100-200-100-50-100-200-100-100-50-50


rest:
50,100 - 4:1
200 - 3:1

The Washingon diet

The following is taken from http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_government-health-guidelines.html


This article is very long however I believe it is well worth the read.  There just seems to be more and more information coming out that we've been led slightly astray (cough, cough) for the last 50 years on diet and nutrition research.


Enjoy.

Last October, embarrassing e-mails leaked from New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene disclosed that officials had stretched the limits of credible science in approving a 2009 antiobesity ad, which depicted a stream of soda pop transforming into human fat as it left the bottle. “The idea of a sugary drink becoming fat is absurd,” a scientific advisor warned the department in one of the e-mails, a view echoed by other experts whom the city consulted. Nevertheless, Gotham’s health commissioner, Thomas Farley, saw the ad as an effective way to scare people into losing weight, whatever its scientific inaccuracies, and overruled the experts. The dustup, observed the New York Times, “underlined complaints that Dr. Farley’s more lifestyle-oriented crusades are based on common-sense bromides that may not withstand strict scientific scrutiny.”

Under Farley and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York’s health department has been notoriously aggressive in pursuing such “lifestyle-oriented” campaigns. But America’s public-health officials have long been eager to issue nutrition advice ungrounded in science, and nowhere has this practice been more troubling than in the federal government’s dietary guidelines, first issued by a congressional committee in 1977 and updated every five years since 1980 by the United States Department of Agriculture. Controversial from the outset for sweeping aside conflicting research, the guidelines have come under increasing attack for being ineffective or even harmful, possibly contributing to a national obesity problem. Unabashed, public-health advocates have pushed ahead with contested new recommendations, leading some of our foremost medical experts to ask whether government should get out of the business of telling Americans what to eat—or, at the very least, adhere to higher standards of evidence.

Until the second half of the twentieth century, public medicine, which concerns itself with community-wide health prescriptions, largely focused on the germs that cause infectious diseases. Advances in microbiology led to the development of vaccines and antibiotics that controlled—and, in some cases, eliminated—a host of killers, including smallpox, diphtheria, and polio. These advances dramatically increased life expectancy in industrialized countries. In the United States, average life expectancy improved from 49 years at the beginning of the twentieth century to nearly 77 by the century’s end.

As the threat of communicable diseases receded, public medicine began to turn its attention to treating and preventing health problems that weren’t germ-caused, such as chronic heart disease and strokes, the death rates for which seemed to be soaring after World War II. Some observers cautioned that the apparent increase might be the result of diagnostic advances, which had improved doctors’ ability to detect heart ailments. This possibility, however, failed to deter the press and advocacy groups like the American Heart Association from declaring the arrival of a frightening epidemic.

One theory blamed the problem on the American diet, and in particular on cholesterol—both the kind that you ingest when you eat animal products and the kind that your body produces when you eat saturated fats. It wasn’t an unreasonable idea; cholesterol is, after all, one component of the plaque that clogs arteries and causes heart attacks and strokes. But isolating the true causes of coronary disease proved elusive. Multiple factors—not just diet but other personal habits, such as smoking, and genetics as well—were potential contributors. And measuring the influence of diet was especially difficult because of big variations among individuals in everything from blood composition to their response to different foods. Numerous studies on diet proved so inconclusive that in 1969, the National Institutes of Health found no hard evidence that what people ate had a significant impact on heart disease.

Nevertheless, in the 1970s, Democratic senator George McGovern’s Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs decided to fight the apparent epidemic by making recommendations on nutrition. “Our diets have changed radically within the past 50 years,” McGovern declared, “with great and very often harmful effects on our health.” As science writer Gary Taubes notes in Good Calories, Bad Calories, the McGovern committee, in coming up with its diet plan, had to choose among very different nutritional regimes that scientists and doctors were studying as potentially beneficial to those at risk for heart disease. Settling on the unproven theory that cholesterol was behind heart disease, the committee issued its guidelines in 1977, urging Americans to reduce the fat that they consumed from 40 percent to 30 percent of their daily calories, principally by eating less meat and fewer dairy products. The committee also advised raising carbohydrate intake to 60 percent of one’s calories and slashing one’s intake of cholesterol by a quarter.

Some of the country’s leading researchers spoke out against the guidelines and against population-wide dietary recommendations in general. Edward Ahrens, an expert in the chemistry of fatty substances at Rockefeller University, characterized the guidelines as “simplistic and a promoter of false hopes” and complained that they treated the population as “a homogenous group of [laboratory] rats while ignoring the wide variation” in individual diet and blood chemistry. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences released its own dietary suggestions, which saw “no reason for the average healthy American to restrict consumption of cholesterol, or reduce fat intake,” and just encouraged people to keep their weight within a normal range.

Even members of McGovern’s committee demurred. In a supplemental foreword to the second edition of the guidelines, ranking Republican senator Charles Percy acknowledged that the scientific record included “extreme diversity of opinion.” Canada’s Department of National Health and Welfare, Percy noted, had recently declared that “evidence is mounting that dietary cholesterol may not be important to the great majority of people”; Great Britain’s Department of Health and Social Security had reached a similar conclusion in 1974. Percy concluded that it was important to inform the public “not only about what is known, but what is controversial.”

Still, the low-fat guidelines gained traction in an era when food advocacy and vegetarianism were rising, as Taubes relates. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich had published his apocalyptic bestseller, The Population Bomb, prophesying mass starvation because the earth could no longer provide enough food for humanity. Ehrlich’s book was out of date as soon as it appeared, thanks to scientific advances that made agriculture more productive worldwide. But it nevertheless gave ammunition to advocates who urged people in developed countries to eat fewer animal products so that the world’s poor, supposedly hungrier and hungrier, could consume more of the grain that wealthy nations turned into feed for domestic animals. In 1971, Frances Moore Lappé’s vegetarian manifesto Diet for a Small Planet hit the bestseller list.

A new kind of health-care advocate, evincing a passion far removed from disinterested scientific inquiry, also took up the campaign for a vegetable-based, low-fat diet. A good example was the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which in 1975 organized a National Food Day that included, the New York Times reported, an “all-out attack” on foods that it considered harmful. On the hit list: prime beef, high in fat and cholesterol.

When the McGovern committee issued its guidelines, these advocacy groups attacked opponents as shills for the food industry—dismissing the National Research Council’s more restrained dietary recommendations, for instance, because some of the scientists who worked on them also served as consultants to industry groups like the Egg Council. By contrast, the advocates noted, the McGovern guidelines were largely the work of a committee staffer, a former newspaper reporter whose very lack of scientific expertise meant that he had no such conflicts.

But the line between advocate and policymaker was blurring on both sides of the debate. One of the important figures promoting the dietary guidelines was Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Carol Foreman, who had formerly been director of the Consumer Federation of America, a cosponsoring organization of National Food Day. “People were getting sick and dying because we ate too much,” she told Taubes. She urged government scientists to tell Americans what to eat, even if “it’s not the final answer.”

The McGovern dietary recommendations weren’t just ahead of the science, though; they were racing ahead of it. Two of the most important U.S. government–sponsored studies on the role of fat and cholesterol in heart disease didn’t appear until the early 1980s, long after the committee had promulgated its advice. The results hardly cleared things up. The first study, known as the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, followed 12,866 people between the ages of 35 and 57 at risk for heart disease. Some of these subjects were placed on a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet; others were merely told to keep seeing the family doctor. The study found no statistically significant difference in mortality rates between the two groups.

The results of the second study, the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, appeared in 1984 and continue to spark debate. Using the drug cholestyramine to reduce high cholesterol rates in a group of male test subjects, the study reported a lower death rate for those on the drug than for subjects who took a placebo. Did this mean that cholesterol was to blame for heart disease, after all? Some observers, including Ahrens, cautioned that the average cholesterol level of the American public was far lower than that of the test group taking cholestyramine, meaning that there was nothing in the study to suggest that a nationwide effort to change citizens’ diets would make much difference in public health. But the press seemed to prefer a narrative that made diet a major cause of heart attacks. A 1984 Time cover story about cholesterol showed a dinner plate turned into an unhappy face, with two sunny-side-up eggs the frazzled-looking eyes above a frowning strip of bacon.

The scientific controversy grew more intense. In 1992, an authoritative review of 19 cholesterol studies worldwide found that, while men with cholesterol levels above 240 were disproportionately likely to suffer heart attacks, men with cholesterol levels below 160 were disproportionately likely to die from all causes, including lung cancer, respiratory disease, and digestive disease—an outcome that suggested a relationship between lowcholesterol levels and disease, something that scientists had never considered. The study also showed no difference in mortality rates for men with cholesterol levels between 160 and 240, even though the guidelines advised keeping levels below 200. Perhaps most surprisingly, the study also found that cholesterol levels made no difference at all in death rates among women. There was little doubt that some public-health researchers wished such research would go away. “Some people don’t want to talk about it,” said Michael Criqui, an epidemiologist at the University of California at San Diego and an associate editor of Circulation, which published the review. “They think it is going to impede public-health measures.”

More recent research has further undermined the cholesterol-as-bad-guy hypothesis. Scientific American summed up the disturbing state of the evidence in April 2010. The magazine cited a meta-analysis—that is, a combination of data from several large studies—of the dietary habits of 350,000 people worldwide, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found no association between the consumption of saturated fats and heart disease. Another recent study noted by Scientific American, by Harvard nutrition and epidemiology professor Meir Stampfer and associates and published in The New England Journal of Medicine, tracked 322 moderately obese people, each following one of three diets: a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet of the sort that the American Heart Association recommends; a so-called Mediterranean diet, rich in vegetables and low in red meat; and a low-carbohydrate diet without any calorie restrictions. Not only did the low-carb dieters lose the most weight, the study found; they also had the healthiest ratio of HDL (so-called good) cholesterol to LDL (bad) cholesterol.

The latest nutritional thinking has indeed zeroed in on carbohydrates as a likely cause of heart disease. Easily digestible carbs, in particular—starches like potatoes, white rice, and bread from processed flour, as well as refined sugar—make it hard to burn fat and also increase inflammations that can cause heart attacks, several studies have concluded. A 2007 Dutch study of 15,000 women found that those who ate foods with the highest “glycemic load,” a measure of portion sizes and of how easily digestible a food is, had the greatest risk of heart disease.

Looking at such evidence, several top medical scientists have concluded that the government’s carb-heavy guidelines may actually have harmed public health. In 2008, three researchers from the Albert Einstein School of Medicine—including the associate dean of clinical research, Paul Marantz, and a former president of the International Hypertension Society, Michael Alderman—observed in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine that since 1977, Americans have largely followed the government’s advice, doubtless as conveyed by the doctors they consulted. Men, for instance, cut their fat intake from 37 percent of their daily calories to 32 percent and increased their carbohydrate intake from 42 percent to 49 percent. Yet over the same three decades, the fraction of American men who were overweight or obese increased from 53 percent of the population to about 69 percent. The doctors wondered whether this correlation was an unintended consequence of telling the entire population to change its eating patterns. “In general,” the doctors wrote, “weak evidentiary support has been accepted as adequate justification for [the U.S. dietary] guidelines. This low standard of evidence is based on several misconceptions, most importantly the belief that such guidelines could not cause harm.” But, they concluded, “it now seems that the U.S. dietary guidelines recommending fat restriction might have worsened rather than helped the obesity epidemic and, by so doing, possibly laid the groundwork for a future increase in CVD,” cardiovascular disease.

It’s true that the particular kind of carbohydrates that the government has always recommended are carbs rich in fiber, which aren’t as quickly digested as those starches implicated by the latest research. But it’s difficult to tell an entire population to change its dietary habits without sowing confusion about such fine points. Further, as an October 2010 article inNutrition points out, the government’s definition of what constitutes a fiber-rich grain is so broad as to include many foods that might actually promote heart disease because they are too easily digestible. “At a minimum,” says one of the authors of the Nutrition piece, SUNY Downstate Medical Center biologist Richard Feinman, “if you have an area of controversy or ambiguity in the science, you shouldn’t be issuing guidelines to the entire population.”

The guidelines themselves quietly acknowledge that they may have worsened public health. The 2000 version eliminated the recommendation to reduce intake of overall fat in favor of carbs, noting “the possibility that overconsumption of carbohydrates may contribute to obesity.” But that was as far as the government would go. It retained the advice to limit consumption of saturated fat and to keep intake of cholesterol to 300 milligrams per day, for example, even though dietary cholesterol—that is, the cholesterol we ingest by eating animal products—has been discounted by many researchers as a source of plaque buildup. (It was this advice about dietary cholesterol that led doctors, starting in the 1970s, to counsel patients to avoid eggs. Subsequent studies have concluded that any restrictions on eating them are “unwarranted for the majority of people and are not supported by scientific data,” as a 2004 article in The Journal of Nutrition put it.)

Supporters of the guidelines have increasingly resorted to ad hoc, even political, justifications for them. In a 2008 American Journal of Preventive Medicine article, for example, two influential nutritionists, Marion Nestle of New York University and Steven Woolf of the Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, admit that “whether the evidence is good enough to recommend population-based dietary changes comes down to a matter of subjective judgment.” But developing dietary recommendations is still a crucial government responsibility, they argue, in part because the government is already heavily involved in food policies. “Dietary guidelines have implications at every level of government, from federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the local school board,” they write, and without clear guidelines, big food industries and special interests could lobby political leaders and shape policy in unhealthy ways. But this argument makes sense only if you assume that the government’s guidelines will be any healthier.

Nestle and Woolf also argue that government’s success in persuading people to stop smoking justifies its efforts to change American eating habits. “If it was paternalistic for the government to advise people how to eat,” they ask rhetorically, “was it equally paternalistic . . . to alert the public about the hazards of tobacco use and to recommend in 1964 that smokers give up cigarette smoking?” But the major scientific dissenters from government dietary policy don’t accuse it of paternalism, though that’s a legitimate argument; they dissent because they find the government’s evidence inadequate and its recommendations potentially harmful.

The government’s response to the growing controversy has been to keep issuing the guidelines—and call for more research. Asked last year about whether the 2010 update would reflect the latest studies challenging previous recommendations, a USDA spokesperson merely suggested that the controversial areas be “put on the list of things to do with regard to more research.” In other words, more research is needed to overturn or withdraw the current recommendations, even though they were based on inconclusive evidence from the start.

As if all this weren’t troubling enough, the USDA, again with uncertain scientific warrant, is now targeting sodium as a public-health menace. Following the lead of New York City’s health department, which is prodding food manufacturers to make their products less salty, the 2010 guidelines recommend that sodium consumption fall as low as 1,500 milligrams a day for those over 51, more than a one-third reduction from the amount that the previous version of the guidelines suggested.

For the general population of healthy Americans, however, that advice may be pointless or, again, even harmful. Decades of research have yielded continuing controversy over the benefits of lowering salt consumption. The science remains so inconclusive that Alderman recently described calls to reduce sodium intake as merely “opinion or common practice,” not science. Experts like the authors of the October 2010 Nutrition article argue that people with particular health problems, such as hypertension, may indeed suffer from excessive sodium intake. But that’s a far cry from saying thateverybody should cut down on salt. Alderman, an expert on hypertension, worries that the war on salt may have unintended consequences; diets that reduce salt intake produce a host of physiological changes, including decreased insulin sensitivity, which can raise the risk of heart disease. None of these concerns has stopped the Center for Science in the Public Interest from waging a zealous public-health crusade denouncing salt as “the deadly white powder you already snort.”

It’s all the more important to understand the problems with the dietary guidelines as the federal government embarks on its new campaign against obesity, which research and clinical experience have shown to be a major factor in ailments like diabetes and chronic heart disease. When the White House announced late last year that First Lady Michelle Obama would lead the fight against childhood obesity and she observed that “we can’t just leave it up to parents,” some prominent conservatives, including columnist Michelle Malkin and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, accused the administration of entering an arena where parents, not the government, should be making decisions.

Opponents of the administration’s plans, however, shouldn’t just debate the government’s proper role in people’s health; they should also point out that its population-wide diet advice goes well beyond what science has established. “Some people in this field act more like zealots with a passion for a cause than scientists waiting for the evidence to support their conclusions,” complains California Polytechnic public-health economist Michael Marlow. As Marlow notes, America’s obesity rate was far lower back when nutrition was largely a parental responsibility, before government became widely involved in the diet-advice business.

The best thing government can encourage Americans to do on the health front may well be to develop their own diet and exercise programs, based on their individual circumstances, in consultation with health-care professionals. Otherwise, public-health medicine risks violating the central principle of medical ethics: First, do no harm.

Military Workout Fri 20 May 11

5 Rounds of:

20 Lunge Jumps(each side)
20 Squat Jump

Rest as needed
Then:

20 Burpee's

Then:

5 Rounds of:

20 Push Ups
20 Heaves

Rest as needed
Then:

20 Burpee's

Then:

5 Rounds of:

20m Sprint
20m Bear Crawl
40m Rope Pull

Rest as needed
Then:

20 Burpee's

Military Workout Wed 18 May 11

Individual Weight Training.


5 Sets @ 5 Reps @ 5RM


4 exercises out of the following:


Deadlift
Bench Press
Back Squat
Shoulder Press
Front Squat
Clean And Press
Turkish Get Ups
Single Leg Squats (each side)
Weighted Heave

Military Workouts Tue 17 May 11

Interval Training


The workouts this week are going to be very basic. I have a sinus and chest infection so I have to make it as simple as possible for whoever decides to run the session.

Military Workout Mon 16 May 11

Max Push Ups in 2 Min
Max Situps in 5 min @ 3 second cadence
Run 2.4km

Military Workout Fri 06 May 11

Split into teams of two.


T1 Static rope hold - Fault: Rope touches the ground. (one person on one end, the other on the other end. Both pulling against each other so that the rope remains off the ground)
T2 Mountain Climbers - Fault: Knees touch the ground or hands come off the ground.
T3 Push Ups - Fault: Knees touch the ground or you break the push up position.
T4 Heaves - Fault: You drop off the bar.
T5 Squats - Fault: You noticeably stop. 
T6 Prone Hold - Fault: Knees, hips, stomach touch the ground.
T7 200m Run.


40 minutes with a 2 minute break for re-hydration once every team has completed all seven exercises.


Rounds are as fast or slow as the runners take. If a fault occurs by the other six teams, then everyone but the person who faults does 10 burpees, then the runners continue until another fault occurs or they finish the 200m.


To be completed in cams and boots.

Military Workouts Wed 04 May 11

Run, cycle, row or swim for 40 min.


Recovery Session. Try and keep your HR between 110 and 130 bpm.

Military Workouts Tue 03 May 11

AM Session


Reverse Tabata's


10 Sec Work, 20 Sec Rest.


Cycle
Row
Ergoski
Run
---------------
Pack March 5km
---------------

Military Workout Mon 02 May 11

AM Session


Fitness Assessment


Max cadence push ups
Max unassisted cadence sit ups (maximum of 300)
Max strict heaves
Multi-stage Fitness Test (beep test)


This assessment is conducted every month, the data is collated and entered into a database to track any increases (or decreases if that is the case) in fitness amongst the troop. It tracks both individual and group fitness levels.


In addition to the fitness assessments, I have incorporated the results from training sessions into the database. This addition to estimated Max VO2, maximum anterior, posterior and core strength has allowed the ability to progressively track 1RM capacity and approximate Max VO2 capacity over various distances and modes (running, swimming, cycling and rowing).


Easy session, most people have been away for two weeks on leave and we are starting the training cycle over again. So it's time to record some measurable data, see where everyone is at and get back into the swing of things.


PM Session


5 rounds of:


10 x Deadlift @ 10RM Max (or higher if possible)
10 x Sprint Starts (max 10m)


Rest 1-2 Min between rounds.


Strange looks were coming from some of the people in the base gym. One person actually came up to me and told me that 'those types' of workouts weren't allowed in this gym. He was just another patron, the PTI's are fine with anything as long as it is 'safe' and your wearing at a minimum, a pair of Five Fingers, shorts and a singlet. Needless to say that my response was short and to the point between my gasps for breath and beginning my next sprint.

Some squats and speed bench

Myself and the boys from www.elitegear.com.au on a DE bench session working up to 80kg + 2 blue bands either side and a ME squat session worked up to 215 with a green band each side.

Military Workouts on hold until the end of RTP

Due to the Easter and ANZAC day long weekend and the unit being on a reduced tempo period, organised physical training has ceased. It will resume at the beginning of next week once everyone is back from doing nothing and generally being pretty lazy.


As for me, I will be continuing on with my restoration until we are all back and I'm taking them again for organised PT. The last week has consisted of stretching, low impact eccentric exercises (I have nearly fully recovered from tendinitis in both the IT and hamstring tendons at the knees) and some massage therapy.


Next week marks the beginning of a new cycle in their training (and mine). During the previous cycle of three phases the troop have improved their fitness by 43.4 percent. Nearly all of them can lift twice the amount compared to their initial efforts, VO2Max has increased by over 30 percent and both posterior and anterior (combined average) strength has increased as an average by 74.3 percent, with core strength improving by 77.9 percent.


This next cycle will be some exciting times for us all here. I'm losing three of my fittest guys as they head of to do promotional courses for two months, this will definitely close the void, creating a more competitive arena for the rest. We have a new boss (a new LT straight out of the training command) who's only directive is that he wants the troop 'fit as fuck', but want's to have one session a week dedicated as a 'Battle PT' session. Wednesday's PT sessions are now to be conducted by a senior NCO in accordance with the programmed type of session it is to be (let's see how long that lasts) and I am to take over as the unit's go to man for all things PT related. The guys running PT for the other troops have started to take notice of the vast improvement in the fitness levels of the people I am training and have began to run some similar PT sessions, the jury is still out on whether they fully understand the science behind it, or the concept of continual adaption and recovery, multiple pathway training or the idea that some sessions are hard, others less hard and some easy.


Back on next week, I want to start getting some photo's of these sessions, security is an issue though.

Some squats

Here's a couple of vids of our good friend Mitch from elitegear.com and myself squatting last week.  We both worked up to 180 box squat, here's the 170's.

Military Workout Wed 20 Apr 11

20 km recovery cycle.


Made into a bit of a treasure hunt as such. Teams of two.

Military Workout Tue 19 Apr 11

Metcon incorporating a breathing ladder.


Run 300m
1-10-1 Breathing Ladder


Round 1
Kettlebell Swing


Round 2
Medball Slam


Round 3
Burpees with a SAS bar (10,15 or 20kg metal bar)


Round 4
Thrusters


Round 5
10 reps of each exercise in rounds 1-4


Each round is concluded with the same exercise being conducted with a rope. As soon as the last person is on the rope doing the exercise for 30 seconds then the next round begins. Round 5 was concluded with mountain climbers whilst holding the rope.


Unfortunately a couple of people thought that they could cheat by not doing the required reps. This was addressed at the end of the session with a little remedial training to encourage greater compliance, adhesion and a friendly reminder that they are all responsible for their choices. This consisted of about 5 minutes of push ups and prone holds. It's the army, not a boot camp on a beach or in a park. You do not get to chose whether or not your going to do something without some form of ramification (within reason). Society has well and truly swung towards an attitude of rights, rather than responsibilities. Why should the armed forces lower their standards just because the rest of society has?

A bit of an abscence...

Been a crazy time for SSC the last few weeks so the posts haven't been forth-coming as they should.  This will be rectified next week with a couple of new posts, sorry for the delay.

In the mean time, here's some videos of guys squatting big weights, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SqSzENSPN4&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOvi22d1dbw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZLegqUaKcA&feature=related

Military Workout Mon 18 Apr 11

Sprint session.


No longer than 100m, rest at 4:1

Military Workout Fri 15 Apr 11

100 Reps of each of the following in 60 minutes:


Medball Slam
BOSU DB Press
KB Swing
Squat
Push Up
Push Press
Burpee
Sit Up
Medball Throw
Sumo Deadlift High Pull


Can be completed in any order, split into any amount of reps to reach 100. If completed under 60 minutes, then finish of the time doing multi-stage fitness test (beep test) until failure, then restarting at 1.1.

Military Workout Wed 13 Apr 11

3 Rounds of:


20 x Squat 
20m Squat Jump
20 x Lunge
20m Backwards Lunge Walk

Then: 


3 Rounds of:

20sec Push Up 
20sec Push Up / Squat transitions 
20sec Burpee

30 Sec rest between rounds


Then: 

Teaching/Practicing Turkish Get Ups 

Military Workout Tue 12 Apr 11

Interval Training

Military Workout Mon 11 Apr 11

Fitness Assessment


Max cadence push ups
Max unassisted cadence sit ups (maximum of 300)
Max strict heaves
Multi-stage Fitness Test (beep test)


This assessment is conducted every month, the data is collated and entered into a database to track any increases (or decreases if that is the case) in fitness amongst the troop. It tracks both individual and group fitness levels.


In addition to the fitness assessments, I have incorporated the results from training sessions into the database. This addition to estimated Max VO2, maximum anterior, posterior and core strength has allowed the ability to progressively track 1RM capacity and approximate Max VO2 capacity over various distances and modes (running, swimming, cycling and rowing).

Military Workout Mon 04-08 Apr 11

All will be quiet on the western front as we take off for a week to go and train out field.


Will be back posting the military workouts once we're back to normal work on 11 Apr 11.

Military Workout Fri 01 Apr 11

Pack march 10 km


Boots, cams, webbing, pack, rifle.


For time.

Military Workout Thu 31 Mar 11

Pick one exercise:
Thrusters, Clean and Press, Push Press, Shoulder Press
Then:


09 @ 60% 1RM + OH hold until failure
07 @ 70% 1RM + OH hold until failure
05 @ 80% 1RM + OH hold until failure
03 @ 90% 1RM + OH hold until failure
01 @ 50% 1RM + OH hold until failure


Then:


Pick one exercise: - two spotters required for this (one each side of the bar)
Back Squat, Front Squat, Weighted Lunge (hold twice per round once for each leg with weighted lunge)
Then:

09 @ 60% 1RM + Squat hold until failure

07 @ 70% 1RM + Squat hold until failure

05 @ 80% 1RM + Squat hold until failure

03 @ 90% 1RM + Squat hold until failure

01 @ 50% 1RM + Squat hold until failure

Military Workout Tue 29 Mar 11

Row 30 min.


Finish up with some Clean and Presses. Concentrate on technique not the load.

Military Workout Mon 28 Mar 11

Due to an auditing team being present at the unit this week, troop PT has been canned. As a result I will be conducting my own sessions before or after work, anyone within the troop who is keen (or stupid) enough to do them also. All they need to do is ask for a copy of the workout.


3 Rounds of:


20 x Squats
20m Walking Lunges (10 forward, 10 backwards)
20m Walking OHS (3 paces to 1 OHS) @ 20kg
20m OH Walking Lunge (10 forward, 10 backwards)


Then:


3 Rounds of:


20 x Pushups
10 x Military Heaves
10 x BOSU Press @ 20RM of Bench Press
10 x Weighted Military Heave @ 20% BW


Then:


3 Rounds of:


20 x Atomic Situps
10 x GHD Situps
20 x Situp & Medball Throw against a wall
10 x GHD Situps


Optional (as if the prior wasn't enough):


20m of Renegade Man Maker Bear Crawl.


Starting in the Push Up position, Dumbbells (or Kettle Bells) in each hand, do a push up, then a one arm row. Place the DB slightly forward of the starting position,  do a push up, then a one arm row with the other arm. Place the DB down parallel to the other. Feet up to the DB's, clean and press, then place the DB's back at your feet. Back into the Push Up position, repeat with alternate arm doing the initial row (eg. your first rep starts with the right arm doing the row, after you complete the clean and press and have returned to the push up position, the first row you complete is with the left arm) until you have completed 20m. 

The Parasympathetic Secret

This article was first published on EliteFTS.com, 10May10.  Enjoy.


"You wake up after a restful night’s sleep to hit up the gym before the sun comes up. The last few training days have been pretty taxing on you, but surprisingly, you were able to hop out of bed with very little soreness. But that was gone three minutes into your warm up. Today is your deadlift day, and even though your legs, back, and arms feel strong, the weight feel heavy. Way too heavy. Why is this? Why do you feel so weak and unmotivated to lift heavy and strong? Because while your muscular system may have recovered from your previous workouts, your nervous system hasn’t.

If you’ve ever felt this way in the gym, odds are that it can be attributed to your nervous system being in a sympathetic state. To understand how to fix the problem, you must first understand the problem, so a brief physiology lesson is due. The nervous system is broken down into two main components—the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS). The CNS is made up of the brain and spinal cord while the PNS is broken down into subdivisions—the sensory-somatic nervous system and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). The ANS controls much of what goes on internally in the human body to make sure that it functions normally, such as breathing when we aren’t thinking about it, stimulating the release of bile from the gallbladder, and controlling our heart rate.

The ANS is once again divided into two categories—the parasympathetic nervous system and the sympathetic nervous system. These two systems serve opposite roles in the body, with the parasympathetic nervous system signaling for the body to be in a more relaxed state while the sympathetic nervous system signals the body to be in a more aggressive or alert state. This is important to know because when you spend prolonged periods of time in a sympathetic state (i.e. when you work out), metabolites begin to build up in the bloodstream. As these metabolites continue to collect, your average heart rate will begin to rise with everything you do. And there, my friends, lies one of the best indicators as to whether or not you have truly recovered from your workout.

One of the best ways to go about monitoring the state of your nervous system is to check your resting heart rate (RHR) upon waking every morning. This is a habit that I’ve gotten into and it has paid off tremendously. I know that when I’m fresh, my RHR is around 44 beats per minute (bpm). However, by the end of every week, my RHR starts to creep up around 60 bpm. That’s when I know it’s time to head to the gym for a recovery session, which always brings me back down into the 40s by the next morning. Not only will someone’s RHR increase, but their heart rate during other activities will be higher than normal as well. This is why many professional and collegiate athletes are being required to wear heart rate monitors during their workouts, so coaches can watch their heart rate that day during specific drills and compare that to what it has been on other days. This is also to make sure that their heart rate doesn’t get too high or too low during their training session, so they can get the most out of the athletes both on that day and in future training sessions.

Many people think that it’s best to take a day off from the gym when they start to feel groggy and unmotivated. While not seeing the gym for a day may be good for their mindset, what their body more than likely needs is a light training session, working basic movement patterns, easy cardio, or a brief skill session, depending on whether or not this person is a competitive athlete. Regardless of which activity the subject chooses, the most important thing is that his or her heart rate is kept between 120 and 130 bpm. I can’t stress this enough. When doing recovery work, you must monitor your heart rate and make sure that it stays between 120 and 130 beats per minute. If you own a heart rate monitor that gives you constant feedback, your possibilities for recovery work are endless. If not, you will be confined to using some sort of cardio equipment that has a heart rate monitor on it. These activities should be performed for 20 to 45 minutes on a day when no other training is scheduled. For athletes, I recommend doing something that is low impact on the joints, such as biking, using the elliptical, or wearing a heart rate monitor in the pool.

So what is so special about the 120 to 130 bpm range? The secret is that within this range is where the body makes a switch from the parasympathetic to the sympathetic nervous system. Below 120 bpm, the parasympathetic nervous system still sends signals to the body while above 130 bpm the sympathetic nervous system is completely in charge. Within this heart rate range, the body is best able to flush out the metabolites of previous workouts. Therefore, it allows your body to optimally recover and sends your nervous system from a sympathetic state back to a parasympathetic state.

So the next time your legs are fresh but your head is in a fog, try some nervous system recovery work to get back to “beast mode.” Get big or die trying."

Military Workout Fri 25 Mar 11

Walk, shuffle or run 7.5km.


Boots, cams, webbing (9kg) and rifle (or substitute weighting 4kg)


For time:

Military Workout Wed 23 Mar 11

Pick 1 exercises from both lower body and upper body. Then 1 from the full body list.
Work up to 1RM.
Then drop back to 50% load for 5 reps, increase by 20% after each set for 5 reps until failure.


Lower Body – Minimal rest between sets
Dead Lift
Back Squat
Front Squat
Med Restrict Alternatives:
Machine Back Squat
Leg Press
Leg Extension
Leg Curl

Upper Body – Minimal rest between sets

Bench Press

Hang Cleans 

Push Press

Shoulder Press

Med Restrict Alternatives:

Machine Bench Press

Machine Shoulder Press

Seated Row

Full Body - Minimal rest between sets

Clean and Press

Thruster

Overhead Squat

Sumo Deadlift High Pull and Press

Military Workout Tue 22 Mar 11

Fartlek Training

Military Workout Mon 21 Mar 11

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 reps of each of the following @: 
20-18-16-14-12-10-8-6-4-2RM


Bench Press +
Deadlift +
Hang Clean +
Back Squat +
Pull-up +
Box Jump @ 45" Box 

Military Workout Fri 18 Mar 11

Walk, Shuffle or Run 10km


Boots, Cams, Webbing (9kg)

Military Workout Wed 16 Mar 11

5 Rounds of:


20 x Squat Jump with Medicine Ball
20 x Jumping Lunges with Medicine Ball
20m Lunging Walk with Medicine Ball.


12 min to complete. Every time the ball hits the ground, add 10 seconds to your time.
Deduct your time from 12 minutes, this is your rest.
Then:


5 Rounds of:


20 x Medball Slam
20 x Medball Toss
20m of Leaping Burpees

Military Workout Tue 15 Mar 11

30 min of various water based exercises.
Water Running, Swimming, Lung Capacity Training.
Followed by 20 min of stretching


This is a recovery session to help loosen up the muscles and whilst increasing blood flow to the entire body.


During the stretching session I will be yet again explaining the reasoning behind their training and why they are being made do what they do. It is understandable that some of them have never done training like this before, it's expected that initially they may be apprehensive about having to do sessions that will put them out of their comfort zone or well beyond it. 


The simple fact is though that it works, as a group, the average fitness levels (based on the military requirements) has increased by 25.4 percent in 6 weeks, as opposed to the control group (whom chose and conduct their own PT) which has decreased by 8.9 percent. Strength capacity has gone through the roof, one member has increased his anterior strength capacity (bench press) by 184 percent. That's not a typo, 184 percent. Another member took his deadlift (after being taught how to deadlift) from a 1RM of 70kg to 3RM at 145kg (approx 1RM of 156.45kg) in 3 weeks, that is an increase of 123.49 percent.


Some of them are still not getting it, it's certainly not rocket science but heck, if the cold hard data I have been producing for them from their efforts isn't enough and the fact that they all performed better in their Basic Fitness Assessments isn't enough proof. Perhaps it's time to start drawing pictures for them.