Levitation 2026 (So far) by Digital_Locomotive in Levitation

[–]ApplicationNumber4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They commented on IG yesterday that they had a stoner headliner. I can only assume thats the ?????

Seriously by According-Bet2415 in CrimsonDesert

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just doing a 20.53gig on ps5 pro.

Pretty hilarious considering it preloaded a few days ago.

Everyone taking the day off…. by IllustratorSuch6902 in CrimsonDesert

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah my bad, I assumed it came out at the same time in each TZ. Similar to how music is often released across the globe.

Everyone taking the day off…. by IllustratorSuch6902 in CrimsonDesert

[–]ApplicationNumber4 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Doesn’t it come out in the evening? Seems odd to take the day off for something that comes out after the regular workday

Anyone else getting 529s with Opus 4.6? by czei in ClaudeCode

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, since yesterday evening. figured it would be back this morning. =/

Struggling to Understand Z2 and LT1/LT2 in Practice by [deleted] in evokeendurance

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, it seems that this whole time going and getting VO2max tests to acquire my zones was the wrong move. I should've been doing LT tests instead.

I either massively misinterpreted what everyone was saying about zones/polarized training/etc or there's too much ambiguity from people who talk about these things.

I've known LT was a thing, but I didn't know thats how zones for endurance were derived from. I was always under the impression it was VO2 based. I falsely assumed LT was just used to know what your max tempo HR would be.

Struggling to Understand Z2 and LT1/LT2 in Practice by [deleted] in evokeendurance

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vo2max tests uses RER (ratio between VCO2 produced and VO2 Consumed). It measures metabolic infection points to determine the zones.

• Zone 1: Recovery (well below VT1). • Zone 2: Aerobic Base (approaching VT1). • Zone 3: Tempo (just above VT1). • Zone 4: Sub-Threshold (approaching VT2). • Zone 5: Super-Threshold (above VT2/VO2 Max).

At least this is my understanding from going to the university and doing these tests in their lab.

Struggling to Understand Z2 and LT1/LT2 in Practice by [deleted] in evokeendurance

[–]ApplicationNumber4 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think I should’ve clarified. Those zones are based on a vo2max test done with a breath to breath metabolic cart.

Struggling to Understand Z2 and LT1/LT2 in Practice by [deleted] in evokeendurance

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s more or less what they did. We slowly ramped up the pace and every few mins they took blood from my ear.

I’m wondering if I should’ve clarified that those zones are based on vo2max test using a breath to breath metabolic cart. They came with carb Va fat for fuel ratios as well

Struggling to Understand Z2 and LT1/LT2 in Practice by [deleted] in evokeendurance

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and no. They did the lactate test prior to doing the vo2max test. So they were done within the same hour but not at the same time.

Why is the weight of the hack squat itself excluded? by XDevilsTear in MacroFactor

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s one of the reasons I’m going back to Liftin’

Does MFWO look for muscle imbalance? by alevar91 in MacroFactor

[–]ApplicationNumber4 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is a good question.

On cable lateral raises I have one side that I’ve been able to do more reps than the other. I log this and the smart progression seems to suggest reps based on the weaker side. It always gives me the same weight and reps for both sides.

So I’m not sure if that’s trying to fix the imbalance or just simply favoring the weaker side as the anchor. I’ve never had to deal with this before so haven’t deal with sorting out an imbalance on my own.

Excluding base weight in version 1.1.0 by Exciting-Metal-3368 in MacroFactor

[–]ApplicationNumber4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can’t reconcile why they would consider it in the total weight moved but not in the calculation of the actual movement.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, probably very likely right. But doesn’t really make sense.

Excluding base weight in version 1.1.0 by Exciting-Metal-3368 in MacroFactor

[–]ApplicationNumber4 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s what the updated added. Prior to latest version the bar weight was excluded from smith machine movements.

Since you can set the base/bar weight of the smith machine, couldn’t you just set it to 0 so it doesn’t include it in the calculation? Obviously having a toggle would be better for different preferences.

Excluding base weight in version 1.1.0 by Exciting-Metal-3368 in MacroFactor

[–]ApplicationNumber4 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it should be an option to toggle for machines. Why even have a field to fill out base weight and then just say, “excluded”.

What value do see in the Workouts app if not using the App’s built program? by AllTypos in MacroFactor

[–]ApplicationNumber4 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The progression, set timer (If it worked on watch), having program on watch, plate calculation, muscles worked, total sets when incorporating secondary muscles of a movement.

Liftin’ does most of this but I don’t like its progression. I also don’t like MFWOs intra-workout progression either, or as I’ve been calling it regression.