![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Tonight was triceps at the gym. 260 lbs on the pushdowns. Not a personal record, but the best I have been able to do in awhile. Next week, 270, assuming I can figure out how to put more weight on the stack without it falling.
What you're seeing is a stack of 200lbs, with 2 25lb plates standing free on the top of the stack, and stuck on the pin is another 10lb plate.
This is why my arms are big. Eat your spinach, kids.

What you're seeing is a stack of 200lbs, with 2 25lb plates standing free on the top of the stack, and stuck on the pin is another 10lb plate.
This is why my arms are big. Eat your spinach, kids.

no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 04:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 05:50 am (UTC)What machine did you use? It's one of the troubles with machines vs. freeweights. They're all different. For example, in SOMA Gold's, they have a triceps pushdown machine where you're sitting. The stack goes up to 300. I can do those all day, so clearly it's not the same actual weight being lifted (it's a belt system, with a nautilus-arc take-up plate) .
I'd actually like to calculate the real weight lifted, once all the pulleys are taken into account. They're all the same size, but if you notice, there is one that is attached to the stack, and not the frame itself. I'm trying to remember my physics 101, and as I recall, we've got a movable pulley (the one affixed to the stack), and multiple fixed pulleys. The pulleys are all the same diameter, so that simplifies calculation. I *believe* because the other pulleys are fixed, and of the same diameter (basically just changing direction of the pull, not advantage), I believe the advantage is still 2, so we're actually talking about 260/2, or 130. A less impressive number, but still not bad.
Here's where it gets more interesting. There is a direct-lift triceps pushdown machine in the gym as well (no movable pulley, only 1 pulley changing the direction of the rope). The stack goes to I believe 150. When I am "fresh", I can *easily* do the entire stack, making me think my above calculations are wrong, or, I am just not seeing the big picture (ok, both are possible).
Any ideas?
no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 09:45 pm (UTC)However, I weight 220 now and I can do unassisted shoulder dips. So, this time my fatness comes to my lifting advantage :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-23 12:58 am (UTC)Congrats!
no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 04:32 am (UTC)PS Someday I want to see (and touch) those arms in person ;)
And why not post them for all of us to see =)
no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 02:57 pm (UTC)I DO like spinach, but I'm afraid that weight like that is not in my future any longer. After two repairs of an abdominal hernia, I'm wise enough to follow the admonition of my physical therapist and stick to lightweight dumbells for toning. I did the big weight stuff in my youth. I'll just have to work with what I built before I broke part of it. :-(
no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 04:59 pm (UTC)I've seen a video of an extreme version of one of those anal hernias - not fun and rather scary!
no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-27 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-12 07:21 pm (UTC)