OrderInChaos wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:41 am
You're probably right, you think 405 dead to sub-6:00 is a more balanced aim? Something arbitrary like 530-5:30 seems to be very tough for both but is far more attainable than my silly number above.
I guess I'm around the wrong population but 25 seems like a really generic, oft attained number to me, where 45 is what the top 5% or so achieve in my cohort. But yeah that run was stupid.
"adamklink" on Instagram is going for 500 lb back squat with sub 5:00 mile and 50 unbroken pull-ups. He has the squat already, and he says the run is almost there. That's some crazy "all-around" numbers.
OrderInChaos wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:41 am
You're probably right, you think 405 dead to sub-6:00 is a more balanced aim? Something arbitrary like 530-5:30 seems to be very tough for both but is far more attainable than my silly number above.
I guess I'm around the wrong population but 25 seems like a really generic, oft attained number to me, where 45 is what the top 5% or so achieve in my cohort. But yeah that run was stupid.
"adamklink" on Instagram is going for 500 lb back squat with sub 5:00 mile and 50 unbroken pull-ups. He has the squat already, and he says the run is almost there. That's some crazy "all-around" numbers.
Damn
The guy in the video around the 9:30 mark kind of looks like the sub-5 minute beer mile guy:
1:57 in the Klink video, says he's Brent Nieter. Same last name.
Couple days early - figured I’d do it today and recover over the weekend for deadlift Monday
01:11:48
Seriously interested to know if anyone has heard of a slower time.
In junior peewee football, my nickname was slo-mo.
And yes, I've definitely seen slower times. When it first appeared on CrossFit's main page (in 2005), there were several people who posted times in excess of 90 minutes. It's a grind. Just completing the workout is an accomplishment.
Yeah, @augeleven, completing the workout should be seen as a victory.
My wife and I were just talking about all the unofficial benchmarks for named CrossFit wods. They list pretty impressive times for “beginner.” We thought just finishing a named workout and performing the movements as Rx’d should be an “intermediate” accomplishment- taking 6 months to a year of CF training.
I’m hitting Murph weighted this year, aiming for less than hour. Might die.
Intended to do a long trail run today and Murph on Monday, but woke up to rain, so decided to do Murph on a track rather than contend with mud on the trails.
Not bad, given that I've been focusing on weightlifting. Hit a snatch PR in a recent comp, and am cutting weight to drop into a lower class.
asdf wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 3:35 pm
48:21. No vest. Used 3-6-9 partitioning.
Nice. Were you able to pretty much stay moving with that partition?
I was slower than last year despite no vest; 59:23 and I ended up walking parts of the last mile. (first mile was 12:00 lol)
I use-
5 pull-ups
8 squats
10 pushups
7 squats
Because I feel like the squats are most metabolically taxing. And my heart and lungs are always the limiters for me.
I still needed to take short rests after each cycle, but I got the Cindy work done faster than I typically do.
I've used your partitioning as well, and like it better than 5-10-15, because squats have always been the crux for me.
This year my legs were smoked coming into the workout. I did a 7-mile trail run with a lot of climbing the day prior, plus a 6-mile hike with a lot of climbing in the morning before doing Murph about four hours later.
So I wanted to keep the squat sets short and get max rest between them.
Towards the end, I was still having to break the set of 9 into a 6-pause-3 because of leg pain. I thought about moving 6 squats before the push-ups and then doing just 3 after (similar to your scheme), but was worried I'd get confused and lose count. But I think that hybrid scheme might work really well for me, and I'm going to try it next time, regardless of the state of my legs:
3 pull-ups / 6 squats / 6 push-ups / 3 squats
** I never do pull-ups, actually. Always strict chin-ups.
