A Way To Measure Your Skills

[Burizado]

I found this article a little while ago (I know it is from 2009), and have been keeping track of all the exercises I do to improve my overall abilities.

 

The article states that:

 

"The goals listed below are for young males in the age range of 15-35 at a starting body composition of under 20% body fat."

 

So I know that the numbers in the goals are for a very specific demographic.

 

Also I know that tracking your numbers, and trying to improve them is the way to know you are getting better/stronger/faster at a specified activity, but would this be a good evaluation, and goals, for overall athletic activities?

 

What do you use to set your goals on the activities you perform?

 

Instead of just saying "I want to do 5 pullups", then "I want to do 10 pullups."  This seems to have more of a way to give you a goal to work towards that is not just adding more to what you can already do.  Plus it seems that testing on all of the activities would tell you where you are lacking in abilities, so you knew what areas you need to work on.

 

One thing that made me question the numbers was this:

• Rowing (2000m)¹
  • Level one – 12:00
  • Level two – 9:00
  • Level three – 7:45
  • Level four – 6:50
  • Level five – 6:20
  • World Record – 5:36.6

I am 35, 282 lbs., and just started getting on the rowing machine for my warmups / cardio work around the beginning of March.  I did 2000m in 8:28.4 about 2 weeks after I started rowing.  Does this mean these numbers are too low, or that I am under estimating my rowing/cardio ability?

[csalvato]

Hi Burizado!  My name is Chris Salvato, and I actually wrote that article you linked to.  If you commented on our site, I could have answered you as well, but I just so happened to see your post flag up in my google analytics, so I decided to pop on here, create an account, and answer you.

 

Rowing numbers are heavily skewed and is one of the least accurate listings on that page.  It is still pretty solid though, when you fit into the demographic we outlined.

The reason why your time is so impressive for a complete novice is because you are big.  Rowing is one of the few endurance sports with a weight class because bigger people are able to row faster times due to their larger size.  In fact, the specification of the demographic was mostly because of the rowing numbers.

 

So, with that in mind, the numbers for rowing, as they relate to the levels, don't really apply to you - but you should note that as you lose weight it will negatively affect your rowing times!  Keep that in mind, because it may be discouraging to see yourself plateau (or actually decrease in performance) as you hit your weight loss goals.

 

Most of the other numbers should still apply.  The best measure of progress, though, is how you did today compared to yesterday that is specific to your goals.  In other words, if weight loss is your goal, then the only thing that matters is that at the end of the week your weight is down and you feel awesome.

 

I hope that helps.

[Barbarossa]

It's been my experience that performance gains become smaller and smaller as you progress in an activity--there's definitely a point of diminishing returns.  If you can make your first goal easily, that's fantastic. The second goal, though, will be harder.  The third will be harder still.

 

So on and so forth.

 

For cycling, as an example, anyone can go around a velodrome track in an hour, but it takes a special kind of determination to hit a world record, like Russo's one hour.

[Waldo]

Relative numbers are always tough.

Some of the jumps between levels are gigantic, and everybody is going to vary.

Just going through that with my known values, stuff I practice:

Sprints 100M - Level 3

5K Run - Level 1 (PR is just off level 2)

Pushups - Level 2 (WTF, jumps from 20 ring pushups to 5 tuck planche pushups)

Dips - Level 2 (WTF, 10 PB dips to 30 ring dips is a massive chasm)

Planche - Level 1 (very close to level 2)

Pullups - Level 3ish (never go to 20 reps unweighted, dunno, level 2 is no problem though, and I do pull to the chest)

Back Lever - Level 4

Front Lever - Level 2

Handstand - Level 1 (could probably do level 2, never tried to hold it that long)

HSPU - Level 2

Handstand Press - Level 1

L-Sit - Level 3

Broad - Level 2 (very, very close to level 3, jumping in the high 8's, haven't jumped 9' yet tho)

Vert - Dunno, but there is a terrible vert-broad relationship in this chart, NFL athletes at the combine realiably jump in the neighborhood of vert(in)= 3.5*broad(ft) (from the skinnies on up to the fatties). A level 3 broad jumper should be close to a level 5 vert jumper.

Pistols - Level 3 (depends on how weighted, I could do level 4 suitcase style, not on my shoulders)

Natural Leg Curls - Level 4 (very close to level 5, few more reps)

Muscle-Up - Level 1

Weighted Dip - Level 2

Weighted Pullup - Level 2

After about 18 months of training.

[Waldo]

csalvato, on 08 May 2013 - 16:10, said:

Hi Burizado! My name is Chris Salvato, and I actually wrote that article you linked to. If you commented on our site, I could have answered you as well, but I just so happened to see your post flag up in my google analytics, so I decided to pop on here, create an account, and answer you.

Rowing numbers are heavily skewed and is one of the least accurate listings on that page. It is still pretty solid though, when you fit into the demographic we outlined.

The reason why your time is so impressive for a complete novice is because you are big. Rowing is one of the few endurance sports with a weight class because bigger people are able to row faster times due to their larger size. In fact, the specification of the demographic was mostly because of the rowing numbers.

So, with that in mind, the numbers for rowing, as they relate to the levels, don't really apply to you - but you should note that as you lose weight it will negatively affect your rowing times! Keep that in mind, because it may be discouraging to see yourself plateau (or actually decrease in performance) as you hit your weight loss goals.

Most of the other numbers should still apply. The best measure of progress, though, is how you did today compared to yesterday that is specific to your goals. In other words, if weight loss is your goal, then the only thing that matters is that at the end of the week your weight is down and you feel awesome.

I hope that helps.

Have you noticed the vert-broad discrepency? A level 4 broad jumper (10') almost surely a level 5 vert jumper (34").

I have a huge database of NFL combine results, vert (in) = 3.5*broad (ft) is a very strong relationship, they are very similar activities. A 10 ft broad jumper should be able to jump 35", if not technique is likely an issue, not explosion.

Edit, just calculated the overall average relationship, 3.42 mean, 0.27 std dev. The spread varies with no real preference for body type.

[csalvato]

Have you noticed the vert-broad discrepency? A level 4 broad jumper (10') almost surely a level 5 vert jumper (34").

I have a huge database of NFL combine results, vert (in) = 3.5*broad (ft) is a very strong relationship, they are very similar activities. A 10 ft broad jumper should be able to jump 35", if not technique is likely an issue, not explosion.

 

Hi Renegade.  Well you are the first to bring up this issue and this is actually the first I am hearing of that formula.  Makes me kind of happy to see that our analysis isn't too far off of the formula you present, which means its mostly accurage.

 

If you look at level 5 of broad jump, thats 10.5 ft.  If we apply your formula, thats 36.75 inches (vs. 34 in the skill charts).  The only real discrepancy is Level 4 broad vs. Level 4 vert.  In our experience training traceurs who do a lot of jumping, we have seen discrepencies in performance which must be more related to superior technique when compared to the football players in your analysis.

 

It sounds like each is looking at a different specialized cohort.  Would you agree?

 

In the end, the article/charts seem to be doing their job because they people see a list of skills they can work towards, and an idea of what a "real goal" entails, even if the numbers aren't perfect here and there.  That makes me happy.

[Burizado]

Wow, thanks for the great replies and discussion!  I figured Waldo would chime in on a topic discussing numbers and calculations.

 

Chris, do you have additional data for other demographics? (age? BF%? etc.)

[csalvato]

We do have a ton of data as the people who created it all have a lot of experience training people of different shapes and sizes.  (For full disclosure, I wrote a book on handstands, Steve wrote the book on bodyweight strength training and Ryan owns several parkour gyms throughout the Western US.)

 

We wrote the article for most people we encountered - and very few were women, and very few were completely sedentary.  Doing the same for different "weight classes" and different gender proved to be too demanding and wasn't worth the time, unfortunately.  That said, most men who start to get into shape and lose weight find the charts become relevant as they hit their target weight.

 

If it means anything to you, we always found that people who were "fit" and relatively good traceurs and athletes fell into level 3 across nearly all of the categories with a well rounded training program.  Those who were level 4-5 were always specialized or had a "natural strength" in that area and tended to play to those strengths (as smart people tend to do).  For example, my dips were always much better and more fun for me than my bench presses

 

I am not sure if I answered your question, but I hope I did

[Burizado]

Yes.  I was just wondering if I had missed something since the article is from 2009.

 

Plus this quote "In future editions of this article, we will include more demographics." from the article, I wasn't sure if there was more that I had missed.

 

Thanks for the info.

[Waldo]

 

We do have a ton of data as the people who created it all have a lot of experience training people of different shapes and sizes.  (For full disclosure, I wrote a book on handstands, Steve wrote the book on bodyweight strength training and Ryan owns several parkour gyms throughout the Western US.)

How did you weight the pistol squats?

Where the weight is added has a huge influence on how difficult it makes them.

[csalvato]

 

How did you weight the pistol squats?

Where the weight is added has a huge influence on how difficult it makes them.

 

Weight over the leg, in the form of a front-squat position barbell/kettlebell or overhead barbell/kettlebell (KB would be in the same leg as the pistol ... or weight vest.

 

Puttin 25%+ of your bodyweight at 185 lbs is 46 lbs.  Holding that weight straight out in front of you is incredibly difficult alone, without the pistol, let along 75% which is 139 lbs... Good luck holding that anywhere but on your shoulders or overhead  

[Waldo]

Weight over the leg, in the form of a front-squat position barbell/kettlebell or overhead barbell/kettlebell (KB would be in the same leg as the pistol ... or weight vest.

 

Puttin 25%+ of your bodyweight at 185 lbs is 46 lbs.  Holding that weight straight out in front of you is incredibly difficult alone, without the pistol, let along 75% which is 139 lbs... Good luck holding that anywhere but on your shoulders or overhead

50% isn't all that tough to hold in curl position with DB's. The pistol itself is significantly easier with the weight there vs. on the shoulders. Has the same effect as weight held straight in front of you; you don't need as long of a lever arm with a higher mass.

[I-Jo]

shit just got real around here