100x pull-up + thruster debt
- each time you drop off of the bar, complete 10x thruster @ 65/45-lbs.
- if your head does does not clear the bar, complete 5x thruster @ 65/45-lbs. for each infraction when you finally let go
Thruster debts are to be paid immediately upon coming off of the bar. In the case of substituting bodyrows, your chest must make contact with the bar (if using rings, your chest must make contact with your hands) for each repetition to avoid the same 5x thruster @ 65/45-lbs. penalty above.
This workout is scored by both the time and total thrusters completed.
Tamra F.: 15:40, 30x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow)
Sidra C.: 23:02, 50x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow)
Michelle C.: 30:40, 60x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow)
Joe P.: 22:10, 60x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow)
Sakar P.: 28:56, 70x thruster (45-lbs.; sub: 2x bodyrow)
Rebekka E.: 28:68, 80x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow)
Jeff W.: 21:25, 90x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow)
Mayra C.: 27:47, 105x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow, 15-lb. db thruster)
Tod C.: 26:29, 130x thruster (sub: 50x pull-up)
Amy D.: 17:17, 105x thruster (sub: 2x bodyrow, pvc thruster)
12:20 (as Rx’d), 60x thrusters
A few thoughts on BMI form a statistical perspective. BMI is a “good” as an indicator of health risk for the “average” person. This of course is different from being a measure of healthy-ness. That logical inversion which a lot of people seem to make is (in my mind) a fallacy.
The reason the BMI is a decent tool to predict health risk is that there exists a HUGE sample to extrapolate from, and repeat scientific studies that have produced similar numbers. So the BMI is good in that it avoids two major pitfalls of many tools i. sample sizes that are not large enough for us to have confidence that the outcome can be generalized ii. Too few studies allow for aberrations (the findings of about 50% of published studies fail to be replicated by other researchers. But I’m not aware of anyone replicating the study that found that either… he he)
That being said, the BMI is a tool for the “average” person. I have not looked hard, so there might be is a good set of parameters to define average, but I doubt it. In any case, it’s not a valid predictor for an athlete because they are not of average body types.
So in short, if you are “average” and your BMI is on the high end, it means you are at a higher risk of developing complications such as high-blood pressure, cardiac problem etc. And if you are “average” and your BMI is low, you are at a lower risk of such complications. Taking it to mean anything more than that is a stretch.
Great job Mike! Jeff
Thanks, Jeff. How did it go for you? You looked pretty intense this morning.
Sorry. I thought I was going to do the pull-ups, but the bodyrows and thrusters were just as challenging. My hands needed the break. Jeff
Ted: 56:13 (as Rx’d), 160x thrusters + 5 infraction thrusters
Wow–way to stick it out!
Thank you for that perspective! I do agree that the validity of BMI testing has been replicated numerous times in American scientific literature, and this has enhanced its scientific value for some populations. These populations are: the extremely underweight and frail individual (BMI dangerously low), the “average” American (who lives in a de-conditioned, pathologically weak state), and the extremely obese individual (BMI of 50, indicating obesity).
For the population here at MPH (athletic individuals), however, BMI falls short of being the best indicator of health and fitness. We typically see our athletes come in on the “slightly above average” side with their BMI (24-27), and this is just fine.
54 min, 210 thrusters (started with 45 lb and dropped to 35 after about 100 thrusters)