13.0% from the first estimate to the final tested single, not a directly measured strength gain.
The sessions behind the ideas.
This is the practical record: what I lifted, how hard it felt, what happened on the track, and the context that made one session different from another.
PERSONAL DATA STUDY · FALL 2025
Getting stronger and jumping higher.
I followed my school’s strength and conditioning program for 12 weeks. I kept my lifting records and tested my approach jump on Saturdays. I wanted to see whether getting stronger happened alongside jumping higher.
THE QUESTION
Did my back squat 1RM estimates and approach jump height rise during the same training block?
12-week block · approximate start: September 7, 2025
5.6% change; the final jump is post-deload.
Mean height in cm. This is a comparison of two windows, not a significance test.
1RM references across the block
Jump height across the block
How I recorded and measured this
Where the data came from
These are the numbers I supplied from my fall 2025 training. I originally kept paper records, but I cannot find them now, so I cannot show the original log for checking. I believe the submitted numbers are correct. The weekly back squat 1RM references were estimates based on working weight and RPE, not weekly max tests. The final 130 kg was a single rep I actually completed after the deload. I have not supplied the original RPE values or an estimation formula, so the earlier estimates cannot be reproduced from this table alone. Dates, completed reps, and deload session details are partly recalled. This is one athlete across 12 records, not 12 athletes.
I remember starting around September 7, 2025. A 12-week block from that point would finish around November 29. I have not confirmed the individual test dates, so the graphs use observation order rather than assigned calendar dates. Both final results—130 kg and 95 cm—came after one week of reduced training.
How I measured the jump
I used the same five-step approach for every jump test. I subtracted my standing reach from my highest touch on a jump-reach device and kept my best attempt each Saturday. These were approach jumps, not standing vertical jumps. The final 95 cm was measured after the deload. I have not confirmed the number of attempts or the device’s measurement increments.
What the lifting numbers mean
The normal schedule was front squat on Monday, quarter squat from safety pins on Wednesday, and back squat on Friday. The quarter squat started at roughly one-quarter depth, with an explosive upward movement. Its shorter range of motion means its load is not directly comparable with a full back squat. The table preserves the lifting loads as originally submitted; it is not a set-by-set volume record.
My log listed five-rep targets, but I did not always finish all three sets. I recall doing around three repetitions after increasing a load and returning toward five as I adapted. The recalled-reps column applies that rule to load increases; it is an approximate reconstruction, not a verified record of each set. The first record only has a five-rep target. No total training volume is calculated from these estimates.
Same direction, not proof of cause.
Pearson r = 0.95 across 12 paired records. Both measures generally increased. A shared upward trend over time can make this number high, even when strength is not the only reason the jump changed.
Excluding the final record: r = 0.94. This checks how much the final post-deload observation changes the descriptive association; it does not remove the other limitations.
Progress did not line up every time.
Correlation between consecutive strength changes and jump changes: 0.08 across 11 transitions. This describes short-term co-movement, not the whole-block improvement or a delayed training effect. Dates are unconfirmed, so these are record-to-record changes rather than verified seven-day intervals.
RECALLED SESSION DETAILS · NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE ORIGINAL TABLE
The final test came after a lighter week.
I felt fatigue building up and decided to take a lighter week. I kept squatting but reduced the working loads. I recall about 70 kg for front squat and 80 kg for back squat, with a 3 × 5 prescription. These are recalled session details, separate from the submitted weekly load table. After this lighter week, I completed a 130 kg back squat single and measured a 95 cm five-step approach jump. Both are post-deload results, not ordinary training-week estimates.
- Front squat
- ≈70 kg
- Back squat
- ≈80 kg
- Prescription
- 3 × 5 · recalled prescription; completed repetitions unconfirmed
THE SUBMITTED RECORDS
Download the data · CSV ↗Keep the numbers visible.
| Record | Mon · Front squat kg | Wed · Quarter squat kg | Fri · Back squat kg | Back squat 1RM reference kg · method below | Best five-step approach jump cm | Recalled reps ESTIMATES ONLY | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 75 | 120 | 95 | 115 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 90 | Five-rep target; completed reps unknown | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 2 | 75 | 122.5 | 95 | 115 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 90.5 | Rule estimate only: front ≈5; quarter ≈3; back ≈5 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 3 | 77.5 | 125 | 97.5 | 117.5 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 90 | Rule estimate only: front ≈3; quarter ≈3; back ≈3 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 4 | 80 | 127.5 | 100 | 120 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 91 | Rule estimate only: front ≈3; quarter ≈3; back ≈3 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 5 | 80 | 130 | 100 | 120 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 91.5 | Rule estimate only: front ≈5; quarter ≈3; back ≈5 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 6 | 82.5 | 130 | 102.5 | 122.5 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 91 | Rule estimate only: front ≈3; quarter ≈5; back ≈3 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 7 | 82.5 | 132.5 | 102.5 | 122.5 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 92 | Rule estimate only: front ≈5; quarter ≈3; back ≈5 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 8 | 85 | 135 | 105 | 125 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 93 | Rule estimate only: front ≈3; quarter ≈3; back ≈3 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 9 | 85 | 137.5 | 105 | 125 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 92.5 | Rule estimate only: front ≈5; quarter ≈3; back ≈5 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 10 | 87.5 | 140 | 107.5 | 127.5 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 93.5 | Rule estimate only: front ≈3; quarter ≈3; back ≈3 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 11 | 87.5 | 142.5 | 107.5 | 127.5 Estimated from working weight and RPE · original RPE not supplied | 94 | Rule estimate only: front ≈5; quarter ≈3; back ≈5 reps. Individual sets unverified. | Submitted load record; original paper unavailable. Completed reps not verified; five reps were listed as targets. |
| 12* | 90 | 145 | 110 | 130 Completed single · after deload | 95 | Rule estimate only: front ≈3; quarter ≈3; back ≈3 reps. Individual sets unverified. | 130 kg single and 95 cm jump: both after deload. Submitted weekly loads retained; deload loads listed separately. |
* Final 130 kg single and 95 cm jump recorded after the deload. Earlier 1RM references are estimates from working weight and RPE. Blank or nonnumeric values are excluded, not replaced with zero. Percentage change = (final − first) ÷ first × 100. Pearson r describes these supplied values; it is not a causal test or a validation of the estimates. No volume is reconstructed from incomplete set records.
What I take from this
My 1RM reference rose from an estimated 115 kg to a completed 130 kg single, while my best five-step approach jump rose from 90 to 95 cm. The jumps did not improve every week. Toward the end of the block, I felt fatigue building up, so I decided to take a lighter week. After the deload, I completed a 130 kg back squat single and reached 95 cm on my five-step approach jump. Looking back, I wonder whether fatigue had been keeping me from showing what I had built through training.
What I cannot conclude
This is a retrospective, single-athlete observational case. The original paper log is unavailable. The strength series mixes RPE-based estimates with one tested maximum, and the original RPE values and estimation method are missing. The numbers therefore do not show a directly measured 15 kg increase in maximum strength. Both series rise over time, which can produce a high correlation without a causal link. Other training and testing conditions were not controlled, and best jumps depend partly on attempt counts. One deload cannot isolate a recovery effect. Exact weekly dates are unconfirmed, and estimated repetitions are not measured workload. I do not use a p-value or claim causation.
What I would record next
Keep exact test dates and every jump attempt, record actual completed reps rather than only the plan, and use the same approach and test setup. A future block can then be compared with this one without filling gaps from memory.
Method note: NIST on time dependence and non-independent observations ↗. This helps explain why consecutive records should not be treated as independent athletes.
Back to Data & Statistics ↗WHAT I RECORD
Context turns training into useful information.
A weight on the bar is one observation. The details around it make sessions comparable.
Date
Places lifting, sprinting, jumping, and competition on the same timeline.
Exercise
Separates movement patterns instead of treating every lift as the same input.
Weight × sets × reps
Describes external load and allows total volume and estimated 1RM to be calculated.
RPE · 1–10
Adds perceived difficulty, because the same weight can feel different across days.
Bodyweight
Provides context for absolute and relative strength.
Sleep
Records one part of recovery that may help explain readiness.
Pain or limitation
Keeps difficult sessions visible instead of removing inconvenient information.
Sprint or jump result
Connects performance observations to the surrounding training block.
THE RECORDING STANDARD
Consistency before analysis.
A training log becomes misleading if I record only personal bests or change definitions whenever a result looks inconvenient. The discipline of collecting the data matters before any graph or statistical test.
- Record ordinary and difficult sessions—not only strong ones.
- Use the same units and consistent exercise names.
- Write observations before deciding what caused them.
- Leave an unknown value missing instead of inventing precision.
RECORDED SESSIONS
See the questions behind the data →The dataset grows one honest entry at a time.
DateExerciseLoadVolumeEst. 1RMContext
BW 68 kg · 8h sleep · Slight lower back soreness · 60m 7.7 · Legs are sore and kind of heavy.
BW 68 kg · 9h sleep · Shin Splints · 60m 7.6 · First workout after knee ligament tear
CALCULATIONS Volume = weight × sets × reps. Estimated 1RM uses the Epley formula: weight × (1 + reps ÷ 30). Both are descriptive estimates, not direct measurements of adaptation.