PDA

View Full Version : sandbag carry


Steve Kaspar
05-09-2009, 06:49 PM
per my last post, i did my first sandbag carry a few days ago.
liked it.. just want some opinions on if i did this a few days a week, whats the best way to go at it.
i did 16 minutes for 1 mile carrying a 50# sandbag.
should i go for a faster time? go a greater distance? add more weight?
just like doing this and will add this on to some of my other exercises.
just wanna stay in shape and challenge myself.
i am 6' and weigh 145#
thanks for any input.
steve kaspar

Patrick Donnelly
05-09-2009, 07:34 PM
should i go for a faster time? go a greater distance? add more weight?

i am 6' and weigh 145#

You should add more weight, definitely.

(Hint: Not to the sandbag.)

Derek Simonds
05-09-2009, 08:23 PM
Yes Patrick is right.... but in context of what you asked just keep adding weight to the sandbag. I worked up to 90 LB's for a mile and that is where I bagged it. There is a high level of suck in that realm.


I don't know if I saw your last post but the ultimate goal with this is the Rutman mile. I have not been able to complete that yet. Truly a toughy.

glennpendlay
05-10-2009, 12:20 AM
Sandbag carrying... is work. I've been paid good money for that shit. I'm sure its good for you, but hell. I griped about that sort of shit when getting paid $10 bucks an hour as a teenager. I sure as hell dont want to do it now.

For those of you who do it, God love you.

glenn

Dave Van Skike
05-10-2009, 11:35 AM
was bs'ing with a couple old guys at the gym yesterday about the perversity of setting up a SM medley with keg carry, sled push and farmers walk...and we weren't even getting paid for it.

maybe I should market a strongman summer camp for city kids...send the poor saps down to farm for a couple months.

Dave Van Skike
05-10-2009, 11:36 AM
You should add more weight, definitely.

(Hint: Not to the sandbag.)


he's a bike racer, so 6' 145# is kind of the sweet spot.

Patrick Donnelly
05-10-2009, 06:24 PM
he's a bike racer, so 6' 145# is kind of the sweet spot.
Ah. I didn't catch that part. Unless it's making money though...




As for actually achieving the Rutman Mile, the task is a 15:00 mile is a 1.0x BW sandbag (even 0.75x would be good), with a 15 second penalty for every time you drop the bag. (Hell knows why they penalize you for dropping it. I'd say having to pick it up again is enough punishment, but that's the way the challenge goes.) I've often seen it recommended that you shoot for the pace first, then slowly up the weight. This makes sense to me for two reasons:
1. Most people can't even shoulder a BW sandbag initially, let alone walk with it.
2. Doing a slow, but heavy, sandbag walk with a lot of breaks will give you a very limited cardiovascular, so it'll take you a long time to get not only the pace you want, but the ability to maintain it.

If you agree with the above reasons, go for the pace first. At 16:00, you're not far off anyway. Did you have any drops in your first attempt?

Dave Van Skike
05-10-2009, 06:28 PM
maybe he likes winning. do you plan on applying your ideal body comp standards to to some random bloated superheavy oly lifter who's never going to see a dime out of his efforts?

you shouldn't...it's silly.

FWIW: the only time I ever "made money" in sports was bike racing, which, while in general is a total money suck, does payout about 5 deep at nearly every local race.

Allen Yeh
05-10-2009, 06:38 PM
Ah. I didn't catch that part. Unless it's making money though...


Huh? If he's not making money then he should gain weight?

Steve Kaspar
05-10-2009, 06:54 PM
patrick
i used a sandbag about 2' high and 10" wide. kinda like a tube shape. just picked it up and put it on my shoulder and walked probably 100 steps then switched shoulders for 100 steps.. etc... no drops.. i'll shoot for time, then i'll ad a bit of weight.
steve

thanks dave..

Patrick Donnelly
05-10-2009, 09:02 PM
Huh? If he's not making money then he should gain weight?
Sort of, but not exactly. Hm. I attempted to type out an explanation here, but wasn't able to come out with anything too coherent. (Sleepy.) My belief here is sort of along the lines of CrossFit's "general fitness is better than specialization," except:
1. In the case of elite athletes, specialization is obviously better, because it provides you with a job.
2. I don't like the recent CrossFit definition of "fitness," and would prefer to use the term "physical health."
3. It seems to me that it's easier to semi-specialize in strength without harming overall fitness/physical health, then it is to semi-specialize in endurance.
4. If you're not elite, you can still compete in your sport for the fun of it, obviously, but winning on a local/regional level shouldn't necessarily be a high priority if it could interfere with overall fitness/physical health, since generally, a decrease in physical health leads to a decrease in overall health (where that includes physical, social, mental, and spiritual components). Of course, for those people would see that prioritization of physical health as seriously interfering with with their enjoyment of life (which is part of overall health), then ignore what I'm saying and do what you want, since I'm not one of those people, and what I'm saying doesn't apply to you. (Well, it does in the way that overall health should be put first, but not in the way that I see physical health as playing into overall health.)

So, it's possible for an elite athlete to train in a way that wrecks is body in the long run, but still be healthy, because health encompasses more than just physical stuff. For example, he might have been very regretful for the rest of his life had he not gone for the opportunity to go pro in whatever sport he was in. It's also possible for a recreational athlete to feel the same way, but not as common, I don't think, because people don't generally take recreational sports as seriously, because, well... They're recreational. It seems to be that most of the ones who take it seriously are either elite, or at least trying to get there.

Bah, crap. I just typed out another long explanation. At least these one is semi-coherent.

Does anyone else ever find themselves spending upwards of 30 minutes on a single post (or email, or paragraph in an essay, or topic of mediation, etc.), or am I an oddball in this regard?

Dave Van Skike
05-10-2009, 09:25 PM
Patrick, I might be out of line but I take this kind of stuff a littel more seriously than I should so apologies up front.

I think you're bassackwards on several fronts.

first, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about being a gracile endurance athlete, certainly you can go too far but that's hardly seems the case here. The fact is, Steve is a master's athlete competing at a high level, He's comfortable with the sacrifices, No place of mine or yours to judge. Truth be told, the 200 pound plus guys are probably gonna die first anyway.

second..SFW?

If you want to pursue a goal, you gotta make some sacrifices. I support anybody who wants to do that. choosing to be "well rounded" is choosing to fail.

you want to be an ultra marathoner?
A huge fat PL squatting in triple ply gear?
Wrestle into your fifties with nasty cauliflower ear?
Take the required supplements to compete in bodybuilding or SM, PL or OL?
Get lasiks to improve your golf game?
Pre-emptive wrist surgery to reduce arm pump for motocross?

I support all of that. More power to em. I've had a couple shots a highish level athletics and after much sacrifice, several surgeries, and years of rehab, I realize I prefer to be a hack who likes to drink on the weekends, hang with my kids and stay employed. Those are the choices I've made and I've got nothing but HUGE respect for anyone else who's got the balls to make the choice to go after what they want..regardless of the sacrifice.

Patrick Donnelly
05-11-2009, 07:01 AM
Patrick, I might be out of line but I take this kind of stuff a littel more seriously than I should so apologies up front.

No, not at all. Your post was fine. If anything, my original comment was out of line, somewhat ignorant of the situation, and unnecessary, and I apologize for that.

Frank Needham
05-11-2009, 07:36 AM
I've had a couple shots a highish level athletics and after much sacrifice, several surgeries, and years of rehab, I realize I prefer to be a hack who likes to drink on the weekends, hang with my kids and stay employed. Those are the choices I've made and I've got nothing but HUGE respect for anyone else who's got the balls to make the choice to go after what they want..regardless of the sacrifice.

Life experience, no equal for it.

Steve Kaspar
05-11-2009, 02:38 PM
well, i did my second sandbag carry today. i measured out 1 mile with my bike computer thats super accurate. i started from my garage, went down the street 1/4 mile, turned around and repeated till i got my mile in.
did 14:02. so i bettered my first time by 2 minutes.
another plus, is i weighed the sandbag, and it weighs 60#, not 50# like i thought..
on the negative side, my left calf was hurting, and gave me no push off power.
i have a problem with my calf, and it just wont get any better. i was a runner before i started bike racing, and had to give up running because of a foot injury that effected the calf. since 1990, i have a hard time walking more than a mile or so. it feels like someone stabs me in the calf with a knife. it knots up and i have to stop.
that wasnt the case last time or today, but there is no pushoff power.
an injury that requires sugery that a few dr.'s told me... but i sure aint getting cut on.
bottom line, not sure if i should keep trying to better my time in the mile with my 60#, or add weight and dont worry about the time, just cover the distance. i tried jogging a few times since 1990, and build up to a mile and the calf gives out.
funny how the body is. i was running 4:19 when for the mile when i was 34 , now i cant even walk a mile without problems..
injuries suck..
but if i do this exercise 1 day a week, i have 6 days to recover..

opinions?
thanks
steve kaspar