With great enthusiasm I announced in June a new series of posts on this site where I publish the results from the group classes at 626 and any insights gleaned from the direction of the training.  So, without further ado, I give you the results from the most recent 6-week, train-test block.

The Results

ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Double LegBack Squat 1RM232 lbs217 lbs
Front Squat 1RM201 lbs187 lbs
Front / Back Squat86.6%86.2%
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Single LegSplit Squat 8RM37 lbs per hand33 lbs per hand
% Unloaded6%8.3%
Split Squat Load x 311198
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Upper Body PushingDip 1RM (male)68 lbs64 lbs
Dip * 3 (male)204 lbs193 lbs
Dip 1RM (female)26 lbs13 lbs
Dip * 5 (female)130 lbs65 lbs
% Unloaded33%30%
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Upper Body PullingPull up 1RM (male)36 lbs40 lbs
Pull up * 3 (male)108 lbs120 lbs
Pull up 1RM (female)19 lbs13 lbs
Pull up * 5 (female)93 lbs65 lbs
% Unloaded27%37%
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
BendingSorensen Max Hold1:351:37
Deadlift 1RM (male)301 lbs305 lbs
Deadlift / 1.25 (male)241 lbs244 lbs
Deadlift 1RM (female)223 lbs208 lbs
Deadlift * 1.0 (female)223 lbs208 lbs
Deadlift 1RM (gym ave.)276 lbs282 lbs
Deadlift / Back Squat119%130%
Power Clean 1RM143 lbs139 lbs
Power Clean / Back Squat62%64%
Power Snatch 1RM108 lbs100 lbs
Power Snatch / Back Squat47%46%
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
CoreSide Bridge Hold (to 90s)1:261:23
Tabata Sit-ups8.4 sit-ups8.3 sit-ups
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Work CapacityAlactic (30s Row)151m146m
Lactic Power (400m Run)1:211:22
Lactic Endurance (4min AMRAP)30 burpees27 burpees
Aerobic (20min AMRAP)246 reps301 reps

Wait… what?

There are a couple tests where the results improved, but by in large, the numbers in the tables above indicate a massive failure on our part to improve member fitness.  So what happened?  Should we just close up shop?

Initially, these results caught me off guard.  We take our program and what we offer to our members very seriously.  I knew there had to be a problem in the numbers though, during our testing week the whiteboard looked like the picture below most days.  All of those green letters say “PR.”  So what’s the deal?

fitness testingWell, I mentioned in my last results post, my statistics tabulation system was imperfect and something I intended to improve upon over time.  Unfortunately, I didn’t have much time over the previous 6-weeks to look into that, so I was hoping to get by with tabulating the results as I did last time.

The problem was that we had an in house competition the weekend after our testing week.  Approximately 25% of the gym participated in this event (which was super fun by the way).  Most of those that participated were more advanced athletes, and to maximize their performance at the competition, many of them didn’t participate in the full week of testing.

The absence of these members ended up biasing the data, giving the appearance that the gym got weaker as a whole.  What really happened though, was that the stronger athletes were on the bench and the newer athletes were out there crushing their PRs.  So it turns out we didn’t fail after all… phew!!!

Fixed it!

Fitness TestingUltimately, I had to go back and correct the data analysis so that only athletes for which I have both June and July test data on were considered.  This re-tabulation is part of why it took me a bit longer to get these results published.  Here are the corrected numbers.

ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Double LegBack Squat 1RM227 lbs237 lbs
Front Squat 1RM190 lbs196 lbs
Front / Back Squat83.7%82.7%
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Single LegSplit Squat 8RM34 lbs per hand36 lbs per hand
% UnloadedTBDTBD
Split Squat Load x 3102108
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Upper Body PushingDip 1RM (male)70 lbs62 lbs
Dip * 3 (male)210 lbs186 lbs
Dip 1RM (female)20 lbs18 lbs
Dip * 5 (female)100 lbs90 lbs
% UnloadedTBDTBD
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Upper Body PullingPull up 1RM (male)35 lbs36 lbs
Pull up * 3 (male)105 lbs108 lbs
Pull up 1RM (female)8 lbs5 lbs
Pull up * 5 (female)40 lbs25 lbs
% UnloadedTBDTBD
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
BendingSorensen Max Hold1:351:44
Deadlift 1RM (male)298 lbs302 lbs
Deadlift / 1.25 (male)238 lbs242 lbs
Deadlift 1RM (female)193 lbs209 lbs
Deadlift * 1.0 (female)193 lbs209 lbs
Deadlift 1RM (gym ave.)275 lbs282 lbs
Deadlift / Back Squat122%119%
Power Clean 1RM128 lbs131 lbs
Power Clean / Back Squat56%55%
Power Snatch 1RM99 lbs103 lbs
Power Snatch / Back Squat44%43%
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
CoreSide Bridge Hold (to 90s)1:211:26
Tabata Sit-ups8.1 sit-ups8.8 sit-ups
ThemeMovement6/2/2014 (averages)7/14/2014 (averages)
Work CapacityAlactic (30s Row)143m149m
Lactic Power (400m Run)1:181:16
Lactic Endurance (4min AMRAP)29 burpees30 burpees
Aerobic (20min AMRAP)268 reps293 reps


All of this makes sense of course.  In fact, a number of readers emailed me as soon as I published the results in June suggesting that I modify the stats tabulation in just this way.  I hesitated because it adds some complication to the way I track results on my end, but the importance of this step is clear and thus all results moving forward will be tabulated in this fashion.

Those with a keen eye may have noticed that the corrected pushing and pulling numbers still decreased.  I’m not going to worry too much about this because my dataset was very small on that particular day of testing (due to those resting for the competition).  Sample size is an important statistical factor, so I’m thinking in future posts I’ll include that too.

Bob Dylan is a Bad Ass

Bob Dylan is a Bad Ass

In the June post I made some comments regarding minor training tweaks and trying to understand how those might influence the results.  Since the method for tabulation has changed though, it isn’t worthwhile attempting to compare the results above to those  from June and make inferences on training techniques.

It is a bummer to not be able to draw conclusions about the training, but this is all still highly experimental right now.  However, I’m optimistic that after a couple more testing blocks, we’ll have developed sufficient confidence in our statistics and at that point, be able to start using them to shape the program for the group classes.

This is all very exciting to me… hopefully there are others out there find it interesting too.  Certainly if you have any suggestions on improving the tabulation of results, please let me know in the comments below.