that method works fine for most numbers, but the google multiplication works for all. guarantee you can convert 185kg as fast as 100 or 125.

but it really fails when a lift ends in something other than a 0 or 5, which happens all the time in olympic lifting. 98kg is pretty got damn annoying your way.

wtf you gave me crap for recommending Google converter when someone was having a tough time with it.

I don't find this any more dificult to do in my head... subtract 10% and half the result.

You's are all right, doing sh*t like 57.5kg --> lbs is obv more dificult than 100kg --> lbs, but I still think I can do it quicker than typing into google.

ps. i admit when i am feeling lazy/braindead I do pull out windows calc and I still think this is way quicker than google (but I do have leet keypad skillz).

196+20=216lbs

It took perhaps 3 seconds.

What if you are somewhere with no google also?

ALT+D, tab, xxxKG to lb I am consistently getting 3-4 seconds.

Without google? (98)2.2

correct answer is to just write both sets of units in a nicely color-coded manner.

windows key + r, calc, enter. Use keypad. imo.

if i'm not online i'm practically never converting kg to lb. even so, i don't understand how the use of a tool is supposed to leave me helpless without it. i just choose to do things i do often in the quickest way, even if it means a difference of 1 or 2 seconds each time.

i also like this:

I fail to see your point


ctrl+k*, 87.5*2.2 = faster imo. YOU LOSE!!!

Also, are you still running Windows XP? Newb.

Friday 7 October 2011

squat
???x20
5x60
3x100
1x120
1x130
5x140
3x140
5x140

bench
8x20
5x60
3x80
3x90
Fx100
1x100

chinup
5,5,5,5,3 +5kg

2nd set of squats was ghey. wasn't feeling it. lost the wim. but wim'd it up for the last set and smashed it.

Decided since I accidentally benched 3x3x90 on Monday, I would take a crack at a heavy single. First attempt I think I probably would have got, but my spotter jumped on it as soon as things slowed down (fml). 2nd attempt actually had really good bar speed.

Chins for big-guns-friday obv.

ps. Even though it required more effort, I stripped off the little plates after for my squat warm-up and put on three wheels... strangly, I didn't do this when I benched 100 and I think this may be why I failed the first attempt at 100.

I don't understand your ps, after reading it like 12 times

Hrmmm... you're probably thinking about it in lbs instead of kgs (or JonFon trolling?)... also I was being sarcastic, which never comes across well in the interwebs.

For my squat, I loaded the plates in the following order.

Set 1: --- (that's the empty bar)
Set 2: [20]---
Set 3: [20][20]---
Set 4: [10][20][20]---
Set 5: [5][10][20][20]---
Set 6: [20][20][20]---

From set 5 to 6 I could have just put another [5] on... but instead I took off the existing [5] and [10] and replaced them with a [20].

Ohhhhh I see.

That's extremely standard.

Def the reason you failed 100 bench first try.

The weight is spread out significantly different

I understand, but it's not something I usually do. I am training for functional strength and in the real world you can't chose which denominations of heavy discs are loaded onto the 7' metal bar you need to move up and down without mechanical assistance.

In fact, in the past, I have been known to put the plates on with no regard for order of weight. I'll put a 20 on, then a 10, then another 20, then a 5, then a 10. You gotta confuse the plates, otherwise they get used to being loaded in the same order and start resisting gravity less and you are just cheating yourself.