2017 Strength and Conditioning Report

Above everything else, we value the results that our clients get as a result of our careful exercise selection and programming. We keep ourselves accountable by ensuring accurate testing of those who participate in our coaching programs and by being as transparent as possible about the data. To this end, here are the results from 2017.


Regardless of our clients specific goals, everyone who participates in our coaching program are in pursuit of a higher version of physicality for themselves. One undeniable fact is that the vast majority are seeking aesthetic results. And this year, we well and truly delivered. 2017 trumped all previous years when looking at the skinfold losses.

The figure below demonstrates total skinfolds from year starting to year ending. To ensure complete reliability, we do not measure our guys in January. Every gym will capitalise by taking photos and measuring everyone as soon as they get back from the Christmas holidays where most of us are at our worst. It’s pretty easy to look like a hero in January. Matt reckons the walk up his driveway can facilitate results post-Christmas. That doesn’t make you a good coach. We always allow our guys to get in and train for 3 – 4 weeks in January before any skinfold testing is done in order to get some reliability for our clients and for our programming.

Keeping in mind, the year ending result is after a year of up and downs, drinking and bad eating mixed with good eating and no drinking. It consists of the year, with normal people being normal without eating just celery sticks and Isogenix powders (we condone neither).

The figure below reveals the total loss in mm then the percentage difference. Following that is the total average drop in mm of fat and the total percentage change as a group from start to finish.

Note: In order to protect our clients privacy names are omitted.

*note that % change is not %fat. It is a relative term for that subject highlighting there drop in fat mm in a percentage value.

Subject Total lost yr ending % change yr ending
1 -28 26%
2 -19.5 25%
3 -29 26%
4 -12 12%
5 -3 7%
6 11.5 -16%
7 -18 19%
8 -56 40%
9 -22 17%
10 0 0%
11 -13.5 20%
12 -9 14%
13 -12 15%
14 -10 12%
15 -39 28%
16 -52 41%
17 -40 29%
18 -35 33%
19 -14 14%
20 -1 1%
21 11 -13%
22 -35.5 22%
23 -71 46%
24 -18 20%
25 -17 20%
26 -31 24%
27 -14.5 15%
28 -14 15%
29 -10 10%
30 -19 14%
31 -22.5 16%
32 6 -5%
33 -23 16%
34 -3.5 6%
35 -0.5 0%
36 3 -3%
Total average -18.36111111 16%

The font is green where there has been a loss, the font is red where there has been a gain and the font is black where there is no change.

There are some amazing results here. Only 3 in red that suggested those guys didn’t get to where we hoped. However, these guys did join late in the mix or had some time away from Hammer.

Maximum Strength

This year we only had 3 absolute 1RM testing periods. We used velocity-based values throughout the year to see if our guys were benefiting in real time in order to maximise training time and reduce risk of injury.

Our first Maximum Testing came in our Athlete Development program which was a competition where points were given based on relative strength. So, it was comparable to no starting figure. Meaning not great to use for statistical significance.

Nevertheless, we did do a before and after 1RM (Strength) testing period at the end of the year in our Summer preseason clinic. This went for 12 weeks that went through a variety of strength, power and aerobic focuses/phases. Our results were staggering.

The figure below represents our client’s results from the summer preseason Squat 1RM performance. We have added the pre-and post lifts in the 1st two columns and then the percentage change, the relative strength and their best result for the year (includes ADP results from earlier in year). Relative strength is the most important value, where it is how much they have lifted compared to there body weight.

For the Squat if you are at 130% your body you are well above average for the general public, if you are 150% you are borderline advance to very experienced and anything over 175-180% you are elite. As you can see below we have a bunch of guys throughout this spectrum as coaches, this is our most rewarding statistic. This is just so hard to achieve and any coaches reading this will understand that this is a phenomenal result for strength over a population of general public just ripping in. The bottom row is the total increase in averages and the total group percentage change. So overall our guys went up 8kg in their squat performance and a 7% positive change.

Leg Strength (1RM Squat)
TEST 1 (SP) TEST 2 (SP) % Change (SP) Relative Strength
90 90 0% 113%
85 90 6% 117%
120 112.5 -6% 134%
60 65 8% 135%
125 130 4% 190%
125 135 8% 180%
150 160 7% 117%
90 85 -6% 131%
110 110 0% 180%
105 112.5 7% 150%
105 112.5 7% 176%
200 215 8% 181%
165 170 3% 148%
120 146 22% 175%
70 86 23% 73%
125 130 4% 128%
85 87 2% 140%
110 95 -14% 107%
67.5 67.5 0% 114%
110.9210526 118.4166667 7%  

In this next figure is our Bench press results. Again, another fantastic increase seen here across the board. We are having roughly a 6kg increase across mean values. Also meaning an increase of 7% percentage change for our bench press performance. The relative percentage for bench are never as good as squat performance as there is a more muscle mass in the legs, therefore demanding a higher relative strength percentage. So, for Bench press if we are benching 120% you are well above average but even anywhere near 100% is a good result. If you are averaging 150% your bodyweight then you are on your way to be an elite lifter.

TEST 1 (SP) TEST 2 (SP) Percentage change of Summer Preseason  Relative Strength
70 67.5 -4% 84%
62 65 5% 84%
90 95 6% 113%
32.5 35 8% 73%
75 80 7% 117%
93.5 93.5 0% 125%
105 110 5% 80%
57.5 61 6% 94%
112.5 120 7% 92%
87.5 90 3% 148%
65 72.5 12% 97%
57.5 62.5 9% 98%
155 152.5 -2% 128%
140 152.5 9% 133%
117.5 122.5 4%  114%
98 105 8% 126%
73 70 -4% 59%
107.5 112.5 5% 110%
85 87.5 3% 97%
56 57 2% 84%
67.5 65 -4% 73%
37.5 41 9% 69%
83.84090909 89.35714286 7%  

We also have a vertical pull test or Pull up/ Chin up test depending on your proficiency.  Here we grade our clients by adding weight to their Pull up/ Chin Up. To qualify for this level, they must perform 6 overhand strict Pull ups before they go for 1RM efforts (adding external weights).

The progression of our guys from going unweighted to weighted pull ups has made it quite hard to show statistical significance, however our guys have come along way with this, so you will just have to take our word for it. Two notable mentions are Jakey Glyde who Pulled up 37.5kg for 1RM and Izzie Vidot who Pulled Up 20kg for 1RM. So many of our clients have gone from unweighted to weighted 1RMs this year which is an awesome effort.

Aerobic Fitness

The above figure is a representation of aerobic fitness. Here we perform the O’Neill test on the Rower. It is a 4mins test where we get our clients to go all out for 4mins and we measure distance covered. This test can be inconsistent if the subjects are unfamiliar with rowing technique. To alleviate this all our participants who perform this test are educated correct form and given time to orientate themselves on the apparatus prior to doing it. If the subjects still struggle to get the technique down pat, we usually waive there first test until they get the hang of it.

These results don’t suggest we killed it all year-round. In our defence because we change our focus throughout the year we will always have conflicting aerobic capacities due to the different focuses we go through. I was hoping for a better finish to the year than we had but that is something we will work on more this year.

On a positive note, the start of every year is where we always start off with a massive aerobic (conditioning) component. This is reflected significantly in the graph below with the better results at the start of the year and a cheeky fade away toward the end. Not unusual to see in elite sporting teams. The likely result is the change in focus (lack of time on the rower) and the fact that these guys have endured a year of training bloody hard and motivation and effort levels might be down.


To get the most accurate result, we have used the injury rates from our clinics throughout the year. This is because it is very hard to get the reasons of participation or failure of participation of the everyone throughout the year as there are a variety of reasons why clients pop in and out of their training. So, we will use the stats from our clinics, because during our clinics we have better participation and commitment, making it easier to get some statistical significance. At the same time during these clinics our clients are training at higher intensities, frequencies and durations thus transferring in to higher risk. So an injury rate from these clinics will display are better affliction of how we did as a facility when it comes to injury rates and time out of training.

German Volume = 37 participants (4 WEEKS)

  • 6 modifications due to previous injury – lost time = 0.
  • Injury during clinic – 2 injuries = 7 days total lost – underwent altered program due to accumulative load issues.

ADP = 38 participants (6 WEEKS)

  • 13 modifications due to previous injuries
  • Injuries during clinic – 4 injuries = 15 days total lost – still were able to perform testing battery at full capacity.

Summer Preseason = 36 participants (12 WEEKS)

  • 8 modifications due to previous injuries
  • Injuries during clinic – 6 injuries = 21 days total lost – participated till end of clinic – no one finished clinic with an injury resulting in lost time or further modification.

Overreaching = 39 participants (10 DAYS)

  • 0 injuries
  • 0 lost time

So, we had 4 clinics that extended for 22 weeks = 150 participants = 43 days of time out.

12/150 = 8% injury rate. We class injuries that required time off training. This is an unbelievable result when you think about the people we train are your average joes who slug it out at work for 8-12 hours a day and have a variety of other focuses and yet still turn up and train. An acceptable injury rate for a facility the size of mine 10-15%. So, we are wrapped that our injury rate is this. We understand other coaches may have other parameters to which they determine injury rates but as explained earlier this statistic is always a tricky one. Also, because we haven’t incorporated the everyday gym involvement in this statistic it may skew our results. But we feel this is a sound way of looking at our effectiveness as a facility because our clinics are usually the highest in risk to our clients as they ask more of them in difficulty, participation and intensity.

On the negative side of this, is the fact that collectively our clients lost 43 days due to injury. Of course, in a perfect world we would have no days off but it isn’t and this is a reality. Hopefully we can get this down this year through the lessons we have learnt last year.

Wrap up

All in all, we are just so proud of our guys for constantly bettering themselves throughout the year. We don’t always get better with each test due to a plethora of issues we encounter throughout the year. But the success for the majority year ending is brilliant. It just signifies our mantra here at Hammer where consistency on the gym floor and grinding away is the only way for continued success. I would like to thank our coaches as well for nailing most of our programming which allows our clients to consistently get on the floor without injury or change.

Bravo Hammer Athletic good year and this year another beckons stay tuned for some big achievements and changes that hopefully take us to another level again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *