PDA

View Full Version : Some Thoughts on "Kool-Aid"...



Sensei
05-06-2009, 11:37 AM
I made a blog post about "Kool-Aid". It's not meant to be a criticism of CrossFit - it applies to just about any training approach and tool.

If you have time please read and share your thoughts: http://squatrx.blogspot.com/2009/04/kool-aid-part-ii.html

Mike G
05-06-2009, 01:43 PM
I made a blog post about "Kool-Aid". It's not meant to be a criticism of CrossFit - it applies to just about any training approach and tool.

If you have time please read and share your thoughts: http://squatrx.blogspot.com/2009/04/kool-aid-part-ii.html

Good post. I believe there are plenty of Kool Aid Evangelists and while you reference the CF workouts, your post definitely applies to anyone who falls into your description.

Sensei
05-06-2009, 02:35 PM
Thank you Mike. The reference was the best example I could come up with and I remembered it from a post I made here. I put the "dynamax" ball in there more or less just so the post had a visual. I could have just as easily used a kettlebell.

KingJustin
05-06-2009, 04:12 PM
I guess I have to respond, right? Have fun reading 8 pages of my garbage!

(I'm focusing this post less on the theory that "SSP is more important as you get more advanced" (which I agree with, mostly) and focusing more on the CF bit since I am taking this as being largely devoted to calling out that "system.")

A couple minor factual matters: (1) I don't believe CFF ever prescribed 100 air squats. (2) 100 ring push-ups for a lot of people involved 3-6 sets of push-ups. This is not something CFF does often (maybe 1/4 as often as heavy bench work), but it is clear that John wants to develop muscle endurance in horizontal pressing movements. I don't know enough about football, but I don't see the idea as completely idiotic, since both lines are doing a pretty similar movement hundreds of times a game. And it's not like John isn't training max/dynamic strength much more frequently. This isn't a staple in the routine.

As far as the general idea that sport-specific athletes need to do more sport-specific work ... yeah, I agree with that, but I think you need to be clear with what sport-specific means. i.e. are football players doing squats, bench, and cleans on the field? No. But they better train them. Is that considered GPP and not SSP (I've always called it sport-specific preparation... I am assuming this is synonymous)?
Also, doing an over-abundance of SSP work might result in muscle imbalances. For example, if your sport requires a lot of pressing-type movements, but hardly any pulling type movements, you should probably still work in some rows and pull-ups.

There's some stuff that CF really likes that I don't really agree with. And, sometimes CF advocates will act like there's only one method that works. That said, I think the training theory is extremely effective and adaptable to a very wide range of athletes. I don't mean that I think football players and tennis players alike can/should follow the same training, or should do the main site WODs (I don't think advanced athletes, of any sport, should do the main site WODs as prescribed, pretty much ever). I think the training for a football player and a tennis player should probably be exceptionally different. But, aside from pure strength athletes and pure endurance athletes, CF's training protocol is very effective for just about any athlete.

As I said earlier, imo CrossFit's training protocol is (a) 1-5 reps on strength or dynamic work, using compound movements + (b) rep work done in cardio circuits, done with high intensity, as heavy or light as is necessary + (c) injury prevention and weak point work as needed + (d) sport-specific training as needed + (e) endurance and/or sprint-repeat type work as needed. This should all be conjugated according to the CF model (note: the level of this is something that both you and I, along with other CF'ers, are skeptical about). Every individual needs to pick the right proportions of each for his own sport/fitness goal. That's not such a broad description that everybody trains that way, and it's not so narrow that it doesn't encompass CF. Any athlete can use (a), (b), (c) and (d) to focus primarily on movements that are important in his sport. In that sense, they are doing SSP and not GPP (I am guessing your answer to the kinda-rhetorical question above).
The only argument that I really buy as to why this won't work for football or powerlifting is that you simply need more rep work to gain the necessary level of strength, and you can't get enough quality rep work in a circuit once you reach a certain level. That said, I don't think many of the people that feel this way have actually tried CrossFit or worked with someone who uses this protocol primarily for strength. Both Chubrock and I have trained with a lot of people that made very good strength gains using this protocol (I currently train with someone that won Collegiate Nationals in olympic weightlifting, and improved his strength while following this; several people in Chubrock's gym/my old gym have made enormous strength and cardio jumps in the past year after being far from a beginning athlete).

I feel pretty much the same way about conjugated periodization. Does every MMA athlete or tennis player need to be doing 8x2 squats at 45-75% 1rm with bands every Tuesday? No, of course not. They will have to individualize the program. But both athletes will benefit from enhanced strength and power. And using, to some extent, dynamic work, to some extent max strength work, and to some extent rep work will definitely develop that. Then, aside from that, the athletes need to do GPP and SSP as needed. So, in that sense, the Westside protocol is also extremely adaptable.
More broadly, even endurance athletes can (imo) benefit from the theories of conjugated periodization -- instead of moving very linearly through strength/hills to endurance to sprint repeats to speed work, they can conjugate their training.

As a practical note, a lot of more average CrossFit athletes don't greatly individualize the program (aside from the fact that pretty much everyone does weak point work) because they are simply training to improve their overall fitness level, which CrossFit is already doing. By not scaling the WODs, cardio athletes just end up getting hit harder on the strength, and strength athletes just end up getting hit harder on the cardio. Thus, yeah, the WODs just push everyone to the theoretical CF ideal proportion between strength/cardio. If you want more cardio, there's crossfit endurance, and if you want more strength, there's crossfit football. If you want to take it a step further one way or the other, then you can make your own program using the same protocol with a different proportion of each of the protocols. Thinking of this in an economic-type perspective, if you gain utils for every bit that your strength goes up, and you gain equivalent utils for every bit that your cardio goes up, imo, the CF training protocol will be the best way to maximize utility, imo.

But, if you still need to get stronger/better cardio than this protocol will let you (which, again, it would surprise me if you couldn't use these methods to develop a lot of strength/cardio), see Westside or whatever-the-equivalent-endurance-training is, but in doing this, I think overall you will see at least a slight drop in overall fitness gain (although you probably will see an overall increase in either strength or cardio individually). Thus, imo, your sport should require very high levels of strength and very low levels of cardio (or vice versa) to make that switch.
I hope that theory makes sense.

(Also, in terms of endurance, I don't follow this overly closely, but I believe CF has produced a lot of great endurance athletes, so maybe I'm being too harsh)

One other thing -- A lot of the time CF'ers do the same workouts, together, despite the importance of addressing individual weaknesses. AFAIK, this is similar to a lot of elite runners, powerlifters, and athletes. Intensity is a hugely important part to CF (intensity trumping overall work is probably an important factor I should have been more clear about, I guess), and it just really helps to do the workouts with several other people to help reach that intensity. That said, again, after the "meat" of the program (or before), you address weak points.

BTW, you should link Anthony to this conversation. I think he has a much different view of CF than I do. He's also much more involved with the journal, Glassman's theories, etc. I base most of my opinions on my own training, the other people I see train, and my interpretation of the WODs.

icnelly
05-06-2009, 05:54 PM
As I said earlier, imo CrossFit's training protocol is (a) 1-5 reps on strength or dynamic work, using compound movements + (b) rep work done in cardio circuits, done with high intensity, as heavy or light as is necessary + (c) injury prevention and weak point work as needed + (d) sport-specific training as needed + (e) endurance and/or sprint-repeat type work as needed. This should all be conjugated according to the CF model.

Making this easy to find for other people wanting to ruminate over some of the variables at play here.

Interesting post and topic.

Mike G
05-06-2009, 06:37 PM
Justin, I think in the future you should clarify what you mean when you say CF. Your post above does a much better job detailing what CF actually is. Many people see CF mentioned and think of the WOD's on the main site. While that is a large part of CF, there is much more to it, but people get caught up in the WOD's and seeing circuits and high rep bodyweight exercises, so it's easy to dismiss. While I am nowhere near the CF supporter that you are, I definitely see positive aspects within the principles.

At the same time, Sensei's blog post may reference a CF workout and I can understand why it would be easy to see it as an attack on CF, but the post applies to anyone who thinks they have the answer. We (hopefully) all know there are many answers and the key is in finding your answer. Your post even touches on the fact that you aren't a blind CF follower since there are parts you don't agree with.

Again Sensei, I think it's a great post and hopefully some of the people who advocate one way and dismiss other ways will read it and get something from it. I know the amount of recommendations for certain programs and the complete dismissal of anything that isn't SS or some 5x5 variation on the BB forum has become ridiculous.

Sensei
05-06-2009, 07:42 PM
Mike,
Thank you.

King,
I've had conversations with Anthony about methodology, programming, etc. I think we will probably never agree on some details (which is fine). As I've said before, the post was not an attack on CF, just the "all or nothing" thinking that a lot of people have about training, and misunderstandings about what GPP is and is not.

You've brought up so many different things that I don't know where to begin and I don't want to pick a strawman argument and, honestly, I don't know what points I've already made to you in these forums either (I'm getting old and "fuzzy"). If you would like my opinion on any specific point, I'd be happy to if you point out which one(s).

Let me just make these points crystal clear to you and there will be no arguing (with me at least) about them:
*Squats, unless you are a PLer, are GPP
*Elite athletes don't need balance and an elite athlete is always pushing the envelope. Injury prevention is a concern, but "imbalances" are not. Elite athletes, while often "natural athletes", are elite precisely because they are not "balanced".

KingJustin
05-06-2009, 08:01 PM
Let me just make these points crystal clear to you and there will be no arguing (with me at least) about them:
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. If you were saying that you don't want to discuss this, then you probably should ignore the rest of my post!

I was speaking about imbalances solely as it relates to injury prevention. Honestly, you know a lot more about this than I do. I am really basing this off reading stuff from you, Anthony, and Mike Boyle. I don't want to overstate things, but my point was that even elite athletes are going to need to work points that are (in a direct sense) mostly useless to them in order to avoid injury (i.e. your bench probably shouldn't be 500lbs when you can only row 205 -- that could lead to an injury).

As far as the comment: Squats (etc), unless you are a PLer, are GPP .... If that is your stance (which, by definition, I guess it should be), then I am not sure if I agree with your point that "as you get more advanced, you have more of a need for SSP and less of a need for GPP." Correct me if I am strawmanning you here.

These points would suggest that an NFL lineman or an Olympic Shotputter should do very little weightlifting. I definitely disagree with this point.

Maybe this would help clarify things: Could you make clear where you draw the line between SSP and GPP?

Sensei
05-06-2009, 08:32 PM
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. If you were saying that you don't want to discuss this, then you probably should ignore the rest of my post!I have no problem clarifying, but I won't argue the points.


I was speaking about imbalances solely as it relates to injury prevention. Honestly, you know a lot more about this than I do. I am really basing this off reading stuff from you, Anthony, and Mike Boyle. I don't want to overstate things, but my point was that even elite athletes are going to need to work points that are (in a direct sense) mostly useless to them in order to avoid injury.If that is your position, then we are, more or less, in agreement. However, most people talk about "chinks in the armor" as if a PLer needs to be doing long-distance running to shore up his "weaknesses". Again, misplaced effort.


As far as the comment: Squats (etc), unless you are a PLer, are GPP .... If that is your stance (which, by definition, I guess it should be), then I am not sure if I agree with your point that "as you get more advanced, you have more of a need for SSP and less of a need for GPP." Correct me if I am strawmanning you here.

These points would suggest that an NFL lineman or an Olympic Shotputter should do very little weightlifting. I definitely disagree with this point.

Maybe this would help clarify things: Could you make clear where you draw the line between SSP and GPP?
I don't know if you are intending to strawman me here or not, but you could think this out on your own... SPP is, for an athlete, the sport and sport-specific drills & exercises. For Joe Average, SPP is specific to what he wants to accomplish. GPP is the stuff he needs to do before he can start going full-bore balls to the wall on SPP without hurting himself.

I know I've made this point before: there's GPP and then there's "GPP" - some GPP is going to be crucial and fundamental, others are, again misplaced effort. Heavy lifting for a lineman or a shotputter is NOT misplaced effort - it is essential preparatory training.
There are diminishing returns with absolute strength. Ever seen an OLer really pound himself with squats and do a lot of heavy, gut-busting singles for more than just ego boost? Me neither. It doesn't mean that a OLer can get away with no squatting, but as they become more advanced, the returns they'll get from the squat racks will be less and less and correlations between their squat strength and their lifts will be less direct. Where that point of greatly diminished returns comes will depend on the sport - some sports, like shotputting, it's not uncommon to see an average bench press of 4-500lbs among elite athletes, others, like tennis, probably not as high.

I'm probably leaving something out crucial that will make it all understandable, but this is the best I can do right now - it's been a long day (work and internet).

KingJustin
05-06-2009, 09:14 PM
If that is your position, then we are, more or less, in agreement. However, most people talk about "chinks in the armor" as if a PLer needs to be doing long-distance running to shore up his "weaknesses". Again, misplaced effort.
Then I am pretty sure we are in agreement on this point. The only thing I would say is that it might be beneficial for a PLer to do some cardio (I like the style Westside uses, at least for their system) so that they do not miss reps IN TRAINING due to their lack of cardio. i.e. I'm sure 5x5 squats with 500lbs are pretty damn exhausting, and if you want to keep progressing on something like that, then you probably need some cardio ability.


As far as the second point, now, as I understand your stance...
"GPP" (more attenuated) is progressively less important as you become a more advanced athlete.

GPP (much less attenuated) is important for all levels, however on any specific individual GPP "ability," the better you get at it, the more diminished the returns will be. Is that a fair summary?


Using these terms, though, I think I still disagree with you. We can avoid discussing it, but I think my stance is that SSP should be a greater % of a beginning athlete's overall work, and a progressively lower % of overall work as an athlete becomes more advanced -- however advanced athletes should do a lot more GPP (no quotes ... the non-attenuated kind). That said, advanced athletes need to train more often in general, and so the overall amount of SSP might actually go up.
I hope that's clear.
Example: (Imo) Beginning powerlifters would be wise to bench/squat/deadlift a lot; advanced powerlifters are going to have to do a lot more variations and start doing things like glute-ham raises, good mornings, etc.
Is it fair to say that you disagree with me, or am I misunderstanding something?

Also, I'm not positive this is my stance! It's helpful for a beginner to do a lot of "GPP" to build a base, but at the same time, "GPP" won't have much of a carry-over for awhile. Beginning athletes will very quickly, however, make improvements in their sport with SSP. "GPP" is definitely important to build a base for a "pyramid," though.

icnelly
05-06-2009, 09:43 PM
the post was not an attack on CF, just the "all or nothing" thinking that a lot of people have about training, and misunderstandings about what GPP is and is not.


I liked your seperation of what GPP is and is not, and your treatment of it runs in line with what I'm currently thinking of. However, your post may seem more like criticism than it really is. Your basic warning against dogma is fine and definitely applicable to CF, BUT there is no solution provided. Any criticism/or problematic interpretation should provide something. This is exactly where Kingjustin's post comes in:


As I said earlier, imo CrossFit's training protocol is (a) 1-5 reps on strength or dynamic work, using compound movements + (b) rep work done in cardio circuits, done with high intensity, as heavy or light as is necessary + (c) injury prevention and weak point work as needed + (d) sport-specific training as needed + (e) endurance and/or sprint-repeat type work as needed. This should all be conjugated according to the CF model.

He provides a way to prevent this:


"If you 'drink the Kool-Aid' does that render you completely incapable of seeing a programís possible limitations?"

The answer to this is obviously.

By isolating the parts of CF, he's given people an entrance into critical review of the components and the whole without the membership or baggage.

That Maslow qoute is interesting, but for me it should read:

"If the only tool you SEE is a hammer, every problem WILL BE a nail."

Mike G
05-07-2009, 07:30 AM
Using these terms, though, I think I still disagree with you. We can avoid discussing it, but I think my stance is that SSP should be a greater % of a beginning athlete's overall work, and a progressively lower % of overall work as an athlete becomes more advanced -- however advanced athletes should do a lot more GPP (no quotes ... the non-attenuated kind). That said, advanced athletes need to train more often in general, and so the overall amount of SSP might actually go up.
I hope that's clear.
Example: (Imo) Beginning powerlifters would be wise to bench/squat/deadlift a lot; advanced powerlifters are going to have to do a lot more variations and start doing things like glute-ham raises, good mornings, etc.
Is it fair to say that you disagree with me, or am I misunderstanding something?


You're splitting up exercises into GPP and SPP, I don't think that's a good example or a good way to make an argument. The goal of power lifting is to get stronger, GHR's, GM's... are needed for that to happen. I believe an argument could be made they are SPP, but I generally believe it is a bad sport to use to make a point.

Considering you have given advice in the past following what Sensei is saying, I'm not really sure what your stance is either.


Are you trying to improve your speed, or improve your cardio as it relates to basketball and flag football?

If you're trying to improve your speed, you want to be doing things like 20-100m sprints, box jumps (don't go overboard), DE Squat + box jumps together, running sprints with a ~15lb vest, some plyometrics (don't go overboard), (max effort and dynamic effort) squats, (ME and DE) deadlifts (use snatch grip sometimes), cleans, snatches and glute-ham raises. It might be worth strengthening your calves and doing calf plyos. With this kind of time frame, I would do a mix of a conjugate/linear program. The whole time, you want to be doing all of that together, but early on you probably want more strength work and less plyo/speed work. As the time gets closer, you want more speed/plyo work and less strength work. But, the whole time you are doing some of everything.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 08:45 AM
Mike G - I think your post helped me finally understand MY stance! Haha, thanks


You're splitting up exercises into GPP and SPP, I don't think that's a good example or a good way to make an argument. The goal of power lifting is to get stronger, GHR's, GM's... are needed for that to happen. I believe an argument could be made they are SPP, but I generally believe it is a bad sport to use to make a point.

I used powerlifting because it's a point that I thought would be very simple and all of us know a good bit about it. But, let's change the sport, then.

Again, the dichotomy is:
SSP - Basically doing the actual sport (i.e. the snatch for an oly lifter)
GPP - Training that has a clear and direct carry-over (i.e. squats for an Oly lifter)
"GPP" - Background training (i.e. cardio for an olympic lifter)

Let's change it to football. If a beginning football player wants to improve at football, he's going to need to be playing a lot of football, and he's going to need to really practice his sport and the movements extremely close to what he's doing on the field. I don't know if Sensei would count driving the sled or doing plyos as SSP, but those are probably the movements that would have the fastest carry-over. Running sprints would have more of an increase on speed than would snatch-grip deadlifts.
This is all assuming the player wants to be able to be in his best football shape ASAP.

BUT, if he is five years out from the time he wants to peak, then I would start him off doing a lot of "GPP" -- basically starting with CrossFit metcons and building a base in both conditioning and general strength. As time got closer to competition, I would move more and more toward SSP. (That said, if the athlete is really advanced, I think a lot of varied GPP is probably almost always going to be prescribed).

So, in regard to the other thread, the dude had basically 4+ months to build up his speed. I told him to basically do a mix of conjugate/linear training since he's not playing flag football "ASAP."

Sensei
05-07-2009, 09:24 AM
Mike G - I think your post helped me finally understand MY stance! Haha, thanks



I used powerlifting because it's a point that I thought would be very simple and all of us know a good bit about it. But, let's change the sport, then.

Again, the dichotomy is:
SSP - Basically doing the actual sport (i.e. the snatch for an oly lifter)
GPP - Training that has a clear and direct carry-over (i.e. squats for an Oly lifter)
"GPP" - Background training (i.e. cardio for an olympic lifter)

Let's change it to football. If a beginning football player wants to improve at football, he's going to need to be playing a lot of football, and he's going to need to really practice his sport and the movements extremely close to what he's doing on the field. I don't know if Sensei would count driving the sled or doing plyos as SSP, but those are probably the movements that would have the fastest carry-over. Running sprints would have more of an increase on speed than would snatch-grip deadlifts.
This is all assuming the player wants to be able to be in his best football shape ASAP.

BUT, if he is five years out from the time he wants to peak, then I would start him off doing a lot of "GPP" -- basically starting with CrossFit metcons and building a base in both conditioning and general strength. As time got closer to competition, I would move more and more toward SSP. (That said, if the athlete is really advanced, I think a lot of varied GPP is probably almost always going to be prescribed).

So, in regard to the other thread, the dude had basically 4+ months to build up his speed. I told him to basically do a mix of conjugate/linear training since he's not playing flag football "ASAP."
Again, I'm getting lost in what you are questioning. You are still trying to think in black and white absolutes and they don't exist. SPP (not SSP) - GPP (and what I call "GPP") are not dichotomies - it's a continuum.

The part I bolded... you are so way off that I don't know where to go. Look at any athlete's training and you will see the continuum in training. This is the essence of periodization. It is the same for PLers and it is the same for FB players. A PLer approaching a meet will be doing more work in gear. A FB player will be doing more scrimmages, running plays, etc. A boxer will be doing more bag work and light sparring.

King, reread Greg Everett's Plandomization article. I think he does a great job of saying many of the same things. He doesn't cross the line of saying that there's poor programming in CF and he doesn't focus on the SPP and GPP thing, but it's not so different. I actually almost didn't make the blog post because I felt that what I had written was essentially repeating his article - I posted it anyway because I thought my points about GPP and SPP were important.

http://www.cathletics.com/articles/index.php?show=shorty&shortyID=53

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:05 AM
SPP (not SSP) - GPP (and what I call "GPP") are not dichotomies - it's a continuum.
Ok, that works for me. Dumbness on my part.



Me: If the athlete is really advanced, I think a lot of varied GPP is probably almost always going to be prescribed
Sensei: you are so way off that I don't know where to go.
I'm going to just base this off Westside and powerlifting. Beginning powerlifters need to do a lot of bench, squat and deadlifts. Maybe some "GPP" but not much GPP. Advanced powerlifters need to mix in a lot of movements and keep them varied in order to build strength. Maybe this is somewhere between GPP (no quotes) and SPP, but WSB lifters for example do a lot of 1-5 board presses in/out of shirts, close grip work, band/reverse band work, floor press work, etc.

I think that if we can't agree on this point then it's going to be hard to discuss the rest.


I'm reading the Plandomization article now.

Brad08
05-07-2009, 10:13 AM
Again, the dichotomy is:
SSP - Basically doing the actual sport (i.e. the snatch for an oly lifter)
GPP - Training that has a clear and direct carry-over (i.e. squats for an Oly lifter)
"GPP" - Background training (i.e. cardio for an olympic lifter)



This is not how these concepts are understood in training literature. There is Specialized Physical Practice, which is exactly what the name implies: practice specialized to a particular endeavor. ONLY in Olympic Weightlifting and Powerlifting are those specialized physical practices' done with a barbell. For EVERY other athlete, barbell training is not an end in and of itself but is, rather, a form of GPP.

GPP is general physical preparedness. And it means exactly what it says: GENERAL preparedness. By definition, as you become more advanced , you need more SPECIFIC work and less GENERAL work. You are a specialist, not a generalist. This may get confusing because, again, in weightlifting and powerlifting, the barbell lifts themselves are SPP.

This is why Crossfit goes so completely off the rails when it starts talking about "elite" anything. The last thing any elite athlete needs is more GENERAL training. They need to continue to hone their sport specific movemetns and qualities. Even a small adjustment to their schedule can hurt their preparedness for their particular sport. This is pretty basic, well understood sports science. I'm not sure why Crossfit gets it so completely wrong. Perhaps because its inventor is clueless about basic training concepts.

Additionally, there is no "subset" of GPP such as "background training" as you call it, although I understand what you're getting at.

No offense, but this is one reason why Cultfitters are often, and accurately, labeled as Kool-Aid drinkers. They know very little about actual training concepts, but that doesn't stop them from running their mouths incessantly about the superiority of their "system." No offense.


(That said, if the athlete is really advanced, I think a lot of varied GPP is probably almost always going to be prescribed).



Absolutely wrong. See above.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:24 AM
That article was actually really, really good. I agree with almost all of it.

The 2 things I disagree with slightly are
(a) I don't think CF programming for the most part is purely random -- i.e. generally following the main site you are deadlifting heavy once every 7-14 days (almost all the top guys deadlift once every ten days or so). It's more like they take a microcycle, they know what they are going to train during it, and then they randomly assign when to train everything in the microcycle. (that's what I gather, anyway). To be honest, I don't completely understand the value of this and I have generally followed planned strength work followed by random metcon work, which is basically what Everett prescribes. CFF does basically the same thing as I've been doing.
(b) I think Everett ignores the potential for metcon work to have a big carry-over to strength work. This is something that my buddy Tony at crossfitwilmington has seriously capitalized on, and it's something that CFF takes advantage of.

Everything else I completely agree with. I train to be good at fitness in general. That said,I have always liked to conjugate my training, but nevertheless have a focus on a specific area (although, I may focus more broadly than he is prescribing). I've always felt like that lets me progress faster than someone that trains everything together.
I can't remember if it was Will or Isaac (somehow I can't remember their WBB names), but I think they disagree with this stance. I wouldn't be hijacking your thread by sending them a PM to argue through it, would I?

Brad08
05-07-2009, 10:26 AM
Maybe this will help clarify a bit. Using your football example, who would most improve their speed off the line by doing barbell squats, a beginner or an elite NFL player?

Answer: the beginner.

The beginner can improve at the sport of football simply by training his muscles b/c his muscles are likely untrained, and almost any stimulation will trigger improvements that translate into improved sports performance.

On the other hand, the elite NFL player needs very specific practice at getting off the line if he is to improve. In fact, throwing barbell squats at him may even decrease his performance b/c he it is very unlikely that he needs basic strength training; he needs to continue refining his technique and speed through specific practice.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:33 AM
Brad: Sensei broke everything up into those 3 terms. I wanted to be clear we were discussing things with the same terminology. You're not really arguing with me if you are arguing what the terms are, because I didn't come up with them. (You are arguing with me on your last point)

As far as your argument with CrossFit, you are again arguing based on your pre-conceived notions of what CF is. Because I had exams, I just walked away from the other thread because absolutely nobody was listening to what I was saying and to be honest I didn't want to be disrespectful to some much more accomplished athletes that I admit know more than me... Either way, it's like saying that conjugated periodization is ONLY training ME bench on Monday, DE squat on Tuesday, DE Bench on Thursday and ME squat on Friday. Just like WSB, CF is greatly adaptable.

Look at how I define CF's protocol. There is nothing in that protocol that prevents an elite athlete from largely focusing on Sport-Specific movements.

Brad08
05-07-2009, 10:35 AM
Look at how I define CF's protocol. There is nothing in that protocol that prevents an elite athlete from largely focusing on Sport-Specific movements.

Your definition is irrelevant. Crossfit's founder defines Crossfit differently. This is clear from his statements, repeated often and loudly that, "Specialization is for insects."

Eschewing specialization IS Crossfit.

But hopefully you're like Bruce Lee: taking what's good, leaving the rest.

:strong:

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:36 AM
Maybe this will help clarify a bit. Using your football example, who would most improve their speed off the line by doing barbell squats, a beginner or an elite NFL player?

Answer: the beginner.

The beginner can improve at the sport of football simply by training his muscles b/c his muscles are likely untrained, and almost any stimulation will trigger improvements that translate into improved sports performance.

On the other hand, the elite NFL player needs very specific practice at getting off the line if he is to improve. In fact, throwing barbell squats at him may even decrease his performance b/c he it is very unlikely that he needs basic strength training; he needs to continue refining his technique and speed through specific practice.

Wouldn't the beginner improve just as much with SPP in that case? By doing sprints off the line?

Do you think that powerlifting/Oly Lifting are distinct from other sports in how SPP, GPP, and "GPP" relate to one's ability?

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:39 AM
Your definition is irrelevant. Crossfit's founder defines Crossfit differently. This is clear from his statements, repeated often and loudly that, "Specialization is for insects."

Eschewing specialization IS Crossfit.

But hopefully you're like Bruce Lee: taking what's good, leaving the rest.

:strong:

I remember that quote, but I don't remember the context. Can you link an article?

I definitely don't agree with it.

As an aside, CFF and CrossFit Endurance definitely "specialize" to a significant extent, which makes me think that the quote is out of context. (You dudes here have convinced me that it nevertheless probably doesn't specialize enough -- and I think you did that without ever even looking at the site!)

Brad08
05-07-2009, 10:42 AM
I remember that quote, but I don't remember the context. Can you link an article?

I definitely don't agree with it.



From the "What is Crossfit?" section of the Crossfit website:


Our program delivers a fitness that is, by design, broad, general, and inclusive. Our specialty is not specializing.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:45 AM
Well, that is a point that I disagree with (see my first point in this thread), and so do a lot of other CFers. It is something I'd like to discuss if anyone wants to defend it. BUT, I think that quote is talking about how to improve fitness generally.

I don't think CF takes that stance when working with athletes of a specific sport. (Although, it seems like they don't specialize as much as you guys think they should ... but it's much more a matter of degree)

If you can show me otherwise, fair enough. Otherwise, I think you should start arguing with my summary of CF's protocol.


Oh, also, I'm not positive what CF's stance is on the very general point that "As an athlete progresses, he should move more and more from "GPP" to SPP." What I said was my own, personal, stance. But, again, this largely depends on when someone wants to peak imo.

Sensei
05-07-2009, 11:28 AM
I'm going to just base this off Westside and powerlifting. Beginning powerlifters need to do a lot of bench, squat and deadlifts. Maybe some "GPP" but not much GPP. Advanced powerlifters need to mix in a lot of movements and keep them varied in order to build strength. Maybe this is somewhere between GPP (no quotes) and SPP, but WSB lifters for example do a lot of 1-5 board presses in/out of shirts, close grip work, band/reverse band work, floor press work, etc.

I think that if we can't agree on this point then it's going to be hard to discuss the rest.
King,
Again, there are some walls in your thinking and part of it is that you are getting stuck in thinking GPP = exercise ABC. A novice PLer is building GPP by using higher reps, staying "raw", being a stickler for form, activating glutes, developing flexibility and posterior chain strength, etc.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 11:32 AM
Ok. That's fair then. I was considering something like a 3x10 bench workout SSP for a novice PLer. If you're calling that GPP, then I think we are in agreement.

That said, I think a lot of this still comes back to when an athlete wants to peak. My recommendations for a beginner that wants to ultimately reach as close to his genetic potential as possible (but doesn't care when he reaches that point) would be wildly different from my recommendations for a beginner that wants to get as good as possible for next month's game. In the former situation, I definitely gree that he would move across the continuum from "GPP" to SPP as he gets more and more advanced, using your definitions. (Although, I think that GPP will almost always be a staple in his training, but will become much more varied as he progresses -- i.e. a PLer doing varied ME exercises instead of only shirted bench all the time)

I hope we agree, because I really want to talk about the theory that:

"Even if you are training for something very general (i.e. Fitness as a whole is as general as you can get), then you are better to conjugate, but focus your training rather than conjugate without a focus."

I hope someone will argue against that point.

Sensei
05-07-2009, 11:36 AM
That article was actually really, really good. I agree with almost all of it.

The 2 things I disagree with slightly are
(a) I don't think CF programming for the most part is purely random -- i.e. generally following the main site you are deadlifting heavy once every 7-14 days (almost all the top guys deadlift once every ten days or so). It's more like they take a microcycle, they know what they are going to train during it, and then they randomly assign when to train everything in the microcycle. (that's what I gather, anyway). To be honest, I don't completely understand the value of this and I have generally followed planned strength work followed by random metcon work, which is basically what Everett prescribes. CFF does basically the same thing as I've been doing.
(b) I think Everett ignores the potential for metcon work to have a big carry-over to strength work. This is something that my buddy Tony at crossfitwilmington has seriously capitalized on, and it's something that CFF takes advantage of.
a)It is my understanding that in no small part because of Greg Everett that CF does a lot more heavy work than it used to. He is very familiar w. the programming of CF.
If you visit many affiliate sites at all, you will examples of what he's talking about. I don't follow the main site enough to know if it is indeed cyclic - I would imagine that you could map out a few weeks and pretty easily show a pattern (planned or not).



I can't remember if it was Will or Isaac (somehow I can't remember their WBB names), but I think they disagree with this stance. I wouldn't be hijacking your thread by sending them a PM to argue through it, would I?
I don't how Will and Isaac feel on the matter - PM whomever you'd like.

Mike G
05-07-2009, 11:37 AM
Let's change it to football. If a beginning football player wants to improve at football, he's going to need to be playing a lot of football, and he's going to need to really practice his sport and the movements extremely close to what he's doing on the field. I don't know if Sensei would count driving the sled or doing plyos as SSP, but those are probably the movements that would have the fastest carry-over. Running sprints would have more of an increase on speed than would snatch-grip deadlifts.
This is all assuming the player wants to be able to be in his best football shape ASAP.


Since I coach football, I can tell you from experience that beginning football players need to worry much more about building a base than perfecting the skills. Both are (should) be done, but I would rather an inexperienced athlete focus on building their base through GPP work. That includes lifting, running, plyo... the general work. Once they have a strong base, I prefer them to focus on their SPP. This includes running routes, hand positions on blocking, footwork.... I believe having a strong base through a focus on GPP allows an athlete to improve technique at a greater rate. Again, both are being done and both are important at all times, but as a kid becomes stronger and more advanced, their technique becomes more important. As you progress, it becomes more and more important to have great technique, because physical attributes start to even out within the competition.

Again, both are being done and both are always important. It's just a matter of what aspect is more important at that time. I also think it is hard to see because of off seasons and the ability to focus on GPP for a long period and then return to practice and team settings to focus on SPP. Still, as an athlete becomes more advanced, I think it's much more important to focus on ones sport than it is to be generally prepared.

Sensei
05-07-2009, 11:42 AM
That said, I think a lot of this still comes back to when an athlete wants to peak. My recommendations for a beginner that wants to ultimately reach as close to his genetic potential as possible (but doesn't care when he reaches that point) would be wildly different from my recommendations for a beginner that wants to get as good as possible for next month's game. In the former situation, I definitely gree that he would move across the continuum from "GPP" to SPP as he gets more and more advanced, using your definitions. (Although, I think that GPP will almost always be a staple in his training, but will become much more varied as he progresses -- i.e. a PLer doing varied ME exercises instead of only shirted bench all the time)Peaking for something is ALWAYS going to be about SPP. Period.
I don't think I've ever made the case that GPP should be dropped entirely at a specific point in a given training cycle...


I hope we agree, because I really want to talk about the theory that:

"Even if you are training for something very general (i.e. Fitness as a whole is as general as you can get), then you are better to conjugate, but focus your training rather than conjugate without a focus."

I hope someone will argue against that point.
I don't get the point.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 11:48 AM
I PM/E-mailed HomeYield and Anthony. Anthony has a much better understanding of pure CF programming than I do.


a)It is my understanding that in no small part because of Greg Everett that CF does a lot more heavy work than it used to. He is very familiar w. the programming of CF.
If you visit many affiliate sites at all, you will examples of what he's talking about. I don't follow the main site enough to know if it is indeed cyclic - I would imagine that you could map out a few weeks and pretty easily show a pattern (planned or not).

Here is the deadlifting from January 1 - April 22.
1-3rm Deadlifts (mostly 1rm): April 22, March 10, March 2, February 10, January 24, January 4
Deadlifts in metcon: April 14 (155), March 21 (225), January 20 (250)

I feel like that fits what I was saying. They put, pretty much, the same stuff in each microcycle and then they pretty much randomly throw it all together. I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another. I've never done the main site WODs and CFF doesn't really take this approach, so I can't give any first-hand experience.

Sensei
05-07-2009, 11:54 AM
Here is the deadlifting from January 1 - April 22.
1-3rm Deadlifts (mostly 1rm): April 22, March 10, March 2, February 10, January 24, January 4
Deadlifts in metcon: April 14 (155), March 21 (225), January 20 (250)

I appreciate the effort King, but I can't look at programming like that (disconnected pieces). You have to consider the whole as well. I don't expect you to give me a rundown of every WoD from the past 3 months, but that's what I'd like to see.

btw, I'm signing off until tonight.

Reko
05-07-2009, 11:55 AM
Ok. That's fair then. I was considering something like a 3x10 bench workout SSP for a novice PLer. If you're calling that GPP, then I think we are in agreement.

This is definately not SPP.



That said, I think a lot of this still comes back to when an athlete wants to peak. My recommendations for a beginner that wants to ultimately reach as close to his genetic potential as possible (but doesn't care when he reaches that point) would be wildly different from my recommendations for a beginner that wants to get as good as possible for next month's game. In the former situation, I definitely gree that he would move across the continuum from "GPP" to SPP as he gets more and more advanced, using your definitions. (Although, I think that GPP will almost always be a staple in his training, but will become much more varied as he progresses -- i.e. a PLer doing varied ME exercises instead of only shirted bench all the time)
I would say these follow more along the lines of SPP. Benching in a shirt, targeting weak points with boards, etc is very specific to the athlete and is geared to get them to peak with the most strength/carryover for the meet possible. When we are in 'meet training' mode, we have our program very regimented with waving bands, chains, box heights, bars, exercises so that when we get to meet day, we are peaking. We are priming our bodies and CNS to handle the most weight possible on meet day. That is SPP. After the meet is over, we drop out of the gear (for the most part) and back off the crazy stuff and "rehab" or "rebuild" the raw strength and allow our CNS to recover. That would be the GPP aspect of it.

As a result, I completely agree with Sensai's comment that SPP has everything to do with when an athelte peaks.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 12:00 PM
Peaking for something is ALWAYS going to be about SPP. Period.
I don't think I've ever made the case that GPP should be dropped entirely at a specific point in a given training cycle...


Ok, I think we are in agreement on this point then (we probably have different opinions only as to a matter of degree).
Edit: Thanks for the clarification, Reko. Now that I'm understanding your terminology clearly, I am in agreement.
We all agree on this, I think: As an athlete becomes more advanced and/or closer to competition, he should move increasingly away from "GPP" and increasingly toward SPP.
Note: This discussion doesn't have much to do (directly) with CF or any of the CF-specific points that have been made.

The quote (which isn't actually a quote) was in reference to Everett's article. I think there are 3 points to Everett's explanation, ranging from more general to more specific that (imo) are interesting to discuss. More broadly, he shares my view (and I think your view):
(1) Even if your ultimate goal is to be good at a broad range of things (i.e. be good at fitness in general), your training should nevertheless focus on a more specific goal each mesocycle.
(From what I remember, either HomeYield or Isaac disagrees with this. I may be wrong.)

(2) Keeping in mind that the total amount of work that you can do in a given period is limited, Everett's opinion seems to be that the work toward the specific focus should be as high as you can make it without regressing your other abilities (and implicitly without overtraining). (I also agree with this)

The final point he doesn't make overly clear in his article, so I'm working off some context and I might be wrong on his opinion.
(3) It seems like he thinks the specific focus should be pretty damn specific. i.e. instead of improving strength, generally, it seems like he would work on really improving the snatch for a few weeks. Then, he would really improve the clean. Then the front squat. (maybe in reverse order). And, once a certain ability is improved, your later training should be sufficient to not let it regress.
I generally feel compelled to agree with everything he says, however this is definitely more specific than what I usually do.

As one side note: He also basically says that strength training takes a long time to build, and cardio can be picked up pretty quickly. I agree with this, although I'm guessing that, again, we disagree as to the degree of how long it takes to get good at cardio. For example, his brother(?) Josh Everett is notably bad at runs over 1000m. Although part of it is probably that endurance events are not a genetic gift of his, I would guess that another part is probably that he is underestimating the amount of work required to get good at endurance events.
(I am assuming Josh trains using the same approach as Greg)

WillNoble
05-07-2009, 12:46 PM
Ok. That's fair then. I was considering something like a 3x10 bench workout SSP for a novice PLer. If you're calling that GPP, then I think we are in agreement.



I hope someone will argue against that point.

we did...


http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123298


why are you rehashing issues you have already made repeatedly that have be responded to in kind

Travis Bell
05-07-2009, 01:29 PM
we did...


http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123298


why are you rehashing issues you have already made repeatedly that have be responded to in kind

Agreed. King, we've discussed that whole althlete thing quite in depth, this thread is more about Sensi's blog post so try and keep things on topic.

I don't have a problem though should you have a NEW question or piece of information, but going round and round again on the same debate will probably just degrade the discussion since the major factual points have already been stated.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 02:53 PM
we did...


http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123298


why are you rehashing issues you have already made repeatedly that have be responded to in kind

Uhh... Is this a joke or something?

You took the beginning of my post, which has nothing to do with most the rest of it.

Then you deleted the middle.

Then you took my last statement, which referred to the middle of my post, apparently interpreted it to be in response to the first sentence you quoted, and then replied to it. Do you see why that is ridiculous?

We didn't discuss this stuff already, unless you count "stuff mildly related to CF" as all being exactly the same.


I wanted to discuss the article that Greg Everett wrote, which Sensei linked to, and which Sensei said was the point behind his article/post.

We already agree on the GPP/SPP point, which Sensei doesn't want to argue.

Reko
05-07-2009, 03:33 PM
I hope we agree, because I really want to talk about the theory that:

"Even if you are training for something very general (i.e. Fitness as a whole is as general as you can get), then you are better to conjugate, but focus your training rather than conjugate without a focus."

I hope someone will argue against that point.

I'm confused, where di this come up and what does it have to do with GPP/SPP?

WillNoble
05-07-2009, 03:34 PM
Uhh... Is this a joke or something?



No its not a joke,

I chopped up your message to prove a point, you are continuing to rail away on CF and SPP for no really good reason, if you want CF discussion, start a CF thread or better yet, go to a CF site where you can join in with the other kool-aid drinkers.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 03:50 PM
I guess I need to recap the thread?


I'm confused, where di this come up and what does it have to do with GPP/SPP?

Referring to when I said: "Even if you are training for something very general (i.e. Fitness as a whole is as general as you can get), then you are better to conjugate, but focus your training rather than conjugate without a focus."

I hope someone will argue against that point.



There are 3 broad things that Sensei's article highlights.
The first is basically highlighting the general message(s) of Everett's article.
(1) "Many people take the idea of being "ready for anything at anytime" too far, suggesting that adaptation is somehow a bad thing and that being "ready for anything" requires a large corpus of exercises and training modes. The reality is that most of us need to focus harder on less."
(I agree with this, but I think it is a debatable point and would be interested in seeing someone take the opposing side -- and I think a couple senior members here disagree)
(This is the point I was referring to in the part you quoted -- and I break it down in a later post)
(Sensei put this point in the context of GPP/SPP)

Then there's 2 additional points that are not in Everett's article (what you are quoting has nothing to do with these points)
(2) People that train one way shouldn't think that other methods are necessarily ineffective.
(I don't think anyone disagrees with this point)

(3) No program's guidelines/principles can be an answer to every fitness goal.
(I don't disagree with this statement, but I do think that the CF principles I gave earlier can work for a very, very wide array of fitness/athletic goals)
(This was "discussed" in a previous thread, however basically it was "discussed" by you dudes saying 'CF won't work for football because there's not enough SPP and too much damn cardio!!" ... I think Brad's original post in this thread highlights the fact that nobody actually read my summary of CF's training protocols and just relied on preconceived notions of what CF actually is. I would guess that for whatever reason most all of you will continue to continue considering the main site WODs as prescribed the same as the broad principles of CF)
(Similar note: I think that conjugate periodization works for almost all athletes, including distance runners)


Sensei linked Everett's article, referred to it several times, and said "I felt that what I had written was essentially repeating his article." So, yeah, I don't see how you people don't think I'm on-topic, especially because both articles apply very strongly to CF.
http://www.cathletics.com/articles/i...ty&shortyID=53

Reko
05-07-2009, 04:06 PM
There are 3 broad things that Sensei's article highlights.
The first is basically highlighting the general message(s) of Everett's article.
(1) "Many people take the idea of being "ready for anything at anytime" too far, suggesting that adaptation is somehow a bad thing and that being "ready for anything" requires a large corpus of exercises and training modes. The reality is that most of us need to focus harder on less."
(I agree with this, but I think it is a debatable point and would be interested in seeing someone take the opposing side -- and I think a couple senior members here disagree)
(This is the point I was referring to in the part you quoted -- and I break it down in a later post)
(Sensei put this point in the context of GPP/SPP)


It depends on who you are talking about. The people (in the article) who have no general goals would do fine to have a (too) wide of a variety. Those who have specific goals will absolutely need to narrow it down and focus. Otherwise they will be leaving something on the table.



Then there's 2 more additional points (not in Everett's article)
(2) People that train one way shouldn't think that other methods are necessarily ineffective.
(I don't think anyone disagrees with this point)

ineffective - no.
not optimal depending on the goals - absolutely.

Sure, everyone responds differently, but depending on the goals there are generally optimal (efficient) ways to get there, and then there are other ways.



(3) No program's guidelines/principles can be an answer to every fitness goal.
(I don't disagree with this statement, but I do think that the CF principles I gave earlier can work for a very, very wide array of fitness/athletic goals. (Similarly, I think that conjugate periodization works for almost all athletes)

That is why there are many different styles of training. Each has their own place in the fitness spectrum of goals and people. What is debatable (in some instances) is which of these programs is optimal for each persons goal.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 04:11 PM
I'm going to the gym to workout, but just to be clear, those were (my best summaries of) Sensei's points. So, any disagreement you have with the points, you are disagreeing with Sensei (assuming, again, that I properly summarized the points).

That said, I do agree with some of what he said, and I do disagree with some of what you said. I'll respond later on.

Reko
05-07-2009, 04:13 PM
I'm going to the gym to workout, but just to be clear, those were (my best summaries of) Sensei's points. So, any disagreement you have with the points, you are disagreeing with Sensei (assuming, again, that I properly summarized the points).


Fine by me. I stand by what I said unless I read into it wrong.

WillKuenzel
05-07-2009, 06:29 PM
Justin, I still feel that on certain terms you are mis-understanding.

Getting more sport specific as an athlete develops is natural and necessary. Unless I'm missing something, and I may very well be, think of it in this regard. As a football player moves from high to college to NFL, he will specifically start to get more specific. As time progresses, he wouldn't want to be broaden his training. He would want to narrow it down. Most really good guys in high school play both ways. They do offense, defense and sometimes even special teams. In college they get more specific. Lets take a wide receiver for instance. As he makes the move from high school to college, his programming becomes much more specific for that position. Will he still do other stuff with the team? Yeah. But he will start to drill specifically more for wide receiving. He'll do less special teams work and maybe even cut out corner back all together. When he makes the move from college to NFL then it's even more specific. But you get the idea. As an athlete grows, they can only start to concentrate on one area if they want to improve on it. Jack of all trades but master of none.

If your goal is general fitness as defined by whoever, then you have to plan for the worse but hope for the best. At that point though you don't have anything like sport specific training. Everything is GPP because nothing is very specific.

Powerlifters for example as someone else stated, get progressively more specific. Bands, chains, etc. are all aimed at fixing weak points. Just like running routes for a receiver. If a receiver is good at the quick slant, but needs work on the turn and go, that's what you do to make him a better receiver. He doesn't do less focused work, he does more sport specific. If he's bad at the turn and go, figure out why. Is it foot speed, timing, what? Those things used to help fix it are an offset of the specific work but are still geared towards being specific. In order to be a better football player you don't stop playing football, you do more of it.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 06:52 PM
Yeah, HY, as far as the SPP and GPP argument goes, I think we all agree on the point now. I was not defining the terms the same way as you guys and substantively I agreed with everyone the whole time (albeit I thought an important variable was how close the athlete is to competition).

The point that I think that you disagree with Greg Everett, Sensei and myself about is that, from what I remember, your view is that if an athlete wants to be good at X Y and Z, he should train X Y and Z all together in roughly equal proportions every mesocycle and improve them together for the most part. (It seems like Reko shares the stance, and this also happens to be the traditional CF stance).

It's a totally debatable subject. My view is that it's generally better to do Y and Z just enough to not let them regress as you train X. Then switch to Y, then to Z, and repeat.


Everett's stance on this, according to the article, is that if you focus on something you can make great gains really quickly. You get neural adaptations, you can improve form significantly, and (I'm implying this) you train it enough to actually progress.
i.e. If I train bench less than every ~10 days, I stay about the same (depending on volume and lots of other stuff; this is highly simplified). If I train it less often then every 10 days, I regress. If I train it every 5 days, I progress exponentially better (overtraining will be a limiting factor in this). So, if you never specialize, it's hard to do much more than stagnate because, practically, you can't fit enough training in for every ability to keep progressing.

Reko
05-07-2009, 06:56 PM
(It seems like Reko shares the stance, and this also happens to be the traditional CF stance). It's a totally debatable subject. My view is that it's generally better to do Y and Z just enough to not let them regress as you train X. Then switch to Y, then to Z, and repeat.

No, I am more a believe of that latter.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 06:59 PM
No, I am more a believe of that latter.
Haha, ok, but what did you mean by this?


The people (in the article) who have no general goals would do fine to have a (too) wide of a variety.

Reko
05-07-2009, 06:59 PM
edit, this was to 2 posts above:
as an example, I am currently (after htis weekend) going to try to drop some bodyfat before bulking again. This entitles some extra workouts, cleaner diets, and very possibly a hit to my PL numbers. I won't expect to hit huge PRs, but as long as I don't go down (or not down a whole lot) I'll view it as a success. Once the bulk train leaves the station, then progress/trianing will resume as normal. I would like to hit PRs as I lose weight, but in terms of recovery and leverage I know it is not as likely if it were the opposite case.

Reko
05-07-2009, 07:00 PM
Haha, ok, but what did you mean by this?

Ok, for the people who say, "I want to get in shape" and can't give more of a reason, be it they don't know or don't care, have no real goal to strive towards. Therefor, there is no way to track and to increase a better "general feeling of well being" (which is what I think most people mean by that). Then doing a broad mix of things all the time will allow them to be exposed to all aspects of trianing; suck as swimming, biking, weight lifting, aerobic, anarobic, etc.


Now, for the people who can take it further (reduce blood pressure, trim fat, lower resting hear rate, not get winded going up a flight of steps, etC) more "specific," compared to the above paragraph, programs or templates can be used to get them closer to a more measurable goal. In this case, I would agree with sensai's/your idea (whomevers it may be).


...in my opinion.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 07:16 PM
Ok hopefully last post on background and then we can get to the meat of the arguments.

Well, Everett was talking broadly about CF athletes (the people you are referring to as people-without-goals). The goal of CF competitions is (supposed to be) to determine the person with the highest overall fitness level. They define fitness as work capacity over a broad range of time and modal domains. So, basically, the CrossFit main-site WODs generally don't have a focus. They train all aspects of fitness with about the same proportions every mesocycle -- strength, endurance, lactic threshold, power, etc. Everett is saying that's dumb and they should focus mostly on strength in one mesocycle, while still doing some endurance/power/lactic threshold training, then switch the focus, etc. (Technically, he seems to say that the focus should be much more specific, I think -- i.e. focus on cleans for 4 weeks, then squats for 4 weeks, etc).

So is your stance that when you deal with someone with very broad and varied goals (CrossFitter), they should focus on everything in equal proportion, but as someone has more and more specific goals (powerlifter; endurance runner), they should tend to have more of a focus?
Note: Having more specific goals has nothing to do with being a more advanced athlete; MMA athletes have very broad goals; golfers have much more specific goals (from what I know about golf, anyway).

Reko
05-07-2009, 07:46 PM
Ok hopefully last post on background and then we can get to the meat of the arguments.

Well, Everett was talking broadly about CF athletes (the people you are referring to as people-without-goals). The goal of CF competitions is (supposed to be) to determine the person with the highest overall fitness level. They define fitness as work capacity over a broad range of time and modal domains. So, basically, the CrossFit main-site WODs generally don't have a focus. They train all aspects of fitness with about the same proportions every mesocycle -- strength, endurance, lactic threshold, power, etc. Everett is saying that's dumb and they should focus mostly on strength in one mesocycle, while still doing some endurance/power/lactic threshold training, then switch the focus, etc. (Technically, he seems to say that the focus should be much more specific, I think -- i.e. focus on cleans for 4 weeks, then squats for 4 weeks, etc).

OK, going by this paragraph, and the one I last said, about trying to increase one skillset vs maintaining others, I agree with Everett (based on my experiences). It may not be as important for a beginner to do it this way (go newbie gains!), but as one progresses it becomes more and more important to focus while not neglecting, IMO.



So is your stance that when you deal with someone with very broad and varied goals (CrossFitter), they should focus on everything in equal proportion, but as someone has more and more specific goals (powerlifter; endurance runner), they should tend to have more of a focus?
Note: Having more specific goals has nothing to do with being a more advanced athlete; MMA athletes have very broad goals; golfers have much more specific goals (from what I know about golf, anyway).
Well, im not a personal trainer, but when people ask me about training and stuff I try to get them to get something out of them in terms of more specific goals. If they don't have anything, I generally try to stay out of it as that is a clue to me that there isn't much on a motivational standpoint (as they have nothing to aim for).

I understand that having specific goals has not much to do with a level of an athlete, what I am trying to say is that the more specific the goal, the better training program (CF, west side, 5x5, whatever) we can find for that person's need. That is the purpose of having a goal to me. Find out where you want to get, and how can we get them there. If they have 1 goal, ie 3 lift total, then something geared towards power lifting will be the best bet. If it is something else, then a PL routine would probably not be their first choice, or at least the most effective one. That is all I am trying to get at, regardless of the skill level.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 08:01 PM
Damn, then we all agree on that point. Maybe HomeYield can take the opposite view.


"People that train one way shouldn't think that other methods are necessarily ineffective."
ineffective - no.
not optimal depending on the goals - absolutely.

Sure, everyone responds differently, but depending on the goals there are generally optimal (efficient) ways to get there, and then there are other ways.


Ok, I agree with you in theory here. There is always a very, very specific approach that is optimal and better than any other approach. The issue here, which you recognize, is that people respond differently to different approaches. It's pretty damn hard to know how someone will respond. A lot of the good programs have a lot of similarities. If someone wants to increase their Bench, and one person says do Metal Militia, I don't think it's necessarily wrong for someone else to suggest following WSB instead. Both are great programs that have worked well for people and it's really hard to say which will work better.



No program's guidelines/principles can be an answer to every fitness goal.
That is why there are many different styles of training. Each has their own place in the fitness spectrum of goals and people. What is debatable (in some instances) is which of these programs is optimal for each persons goal.

I disagree with Sensei on this point, sorta. Even though I think it's a great program, I don't think following Bob Young's (did I get the name right?) 9 week powerlifting program is a great idea for a pro golfter. But, I do think that following the principles of Westside are great for just about any athlete that I can think of. The idea of Conjugating training is a principle and not a program. Conjugate periodization, as a principle, is wildly adaptable to nearly all athletes, imo. Are there alternatives (see above)? Yes. But conjugate periodization can almost always be used.
The principles from successful training systems are generally very adaptable.

We "know" that lifting explosively is almost always effective. We "know" that athletes should avoid overtraining. We "know" that strength is developed when lifting weights. Principles can be extraordinarily broad, and can apply to (very close to) every athletic goal.

I outlined CrossFit's principles in my first post in this thread. Imo, these principles are extremely adaptable and can meet just about any fitness goal. Using these principles, CF has produced elite athletes that train for very broad goals and very specific goals; CF has produced high-level Oly lifters and (AFAIK -- I don't actually know anyone since both CF gyms I've trained at are notorious for their strength emphasis) high-level endurance athletes.
Likewise, conjugate periodization can be used for powerlifters and endurance athletes...
Possible responses: "wtf dude we told you cf sux in the other thread"
Preemptive reply: You never actually responded to what I wrote, for several pages, which was seriously unbelievable. This is, again, illustrated by Brad's first response in this thread.
(Recap: Me: CF uses these principles. Brad: No it doesn't, look at this quote -- CF doesn't ever train SPP!. Me: You clearly took the quote completely out of context. Also, refer to the first video I posted, where John from CFF makes very clear how important SPP is. Brad: ::Left before I actually responded but implicitly accepts what I said::)

WillKuenzel
05-07-2009, 08:40 PM
Well, im not a personal trainer, but when people ask me about training and stuff I try to get them to get something out of them in terms of more specific goals. If they don't have anything, I generally try to stay out of it as that is a clue to me that there isn't much on a motivational standpoint (as they have nothing to aim for).

I understand that having specific goals has not much to do with a level of an athlete, what I am trying to say is that the more specific the goal, the better training program (CF, west side, 5x5, whatever) we can find for that person's need. That is the purpose of having a goal to me. Find out where you want to get, and how can we get them there. If they have 1 goal, ie 3 lift total, then something geared towards power lifting will be the best bet. If it is something else, then a PL routine would probably not be their first choice, or at least the most effective one. That is all I am trying to get at, regardless of the skill level.I'm a personal trainer and my first question to all clients or prospective clients, "what are your goals?" If they can't answer that, then they're not ready. In order to head home you have to know what road to take. If you don't know where home is then how do you know how to get there.

No, I agree on most points. But to play devil's advocate for fun:

The point that I think that you disagree with Greg Everett, Sensei and myself about is that, from what I remember, your view is that if an athlete wants to be good at X Y and Z, he should train X Y and Z all together in roughly equal proportions every mesocycle and improve them together for the most part. (It seems like Reko shares the stance, and this also happens to be the traditional CF stance).

It's a totally debatable subject. My view is that it's generally better to do Y and Z just enough to not let them regress as you train X. Then switch to Y, then to Z, and repeat.Basically it's all the same but a manner of semantics. I can say this on some occasions, yes. It's going to depend. Take the most simplistic view. If X, Y, and Z might all have correlation, then, yeah, you can train them roughly together. But let's say you have a oly lifter that also wants to run a sub 5' mile. What takes priority? Then you build the routine based around that. Which needs to come first?

For average Joe without any competitveness, yeah, training X, Y, and Z together won't hurt anything because he isn't losing anything. But for Mr. Specific, then it's going to depend. Do X, Y, and Z correlate? If not, he needs to pick one. IMO, even to the point of letting the other 2 regress, because if they don't correlate then 2 are going to hold the one (if it's the priority) back.

Simplest answer, it depends.

Sensei
05-07-2009, 09:39 PM
This thread has grown well beyond the scope of my blog post and I'm not able to keep up w. the quotes and discussion.

King, I think you are backtracking a little on your SPP-GPP stances. It's okay to say you've softened your opinion on the matter, but to say "we were really just agreeing the whole time" is not accurate. Disconfirmation bias is the technical term for it, I think...

I don't think you are being open to the ideas I've presented. My only suggestion for you would be to do some reading on concurrent vs. conjugate sequencing - they are very different. Vincent's recent post saying something like "Less reading, more training" is a good one. I know you traing hard, but experience is going to soften your views a bit when you hit a wall with your squat and decide that it's more important than your Fran time. When that happens, let me know.

WillNoble
05-07-2009, 09:41 PM
I love that my posts get deleted just because they are anti-CF...


you may want to delete this one too, as it says ANTI and CF in the same breath...

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:07 PM
This thread has grown well beyond the scope of my blog post and I'm not able to keep up w. the quotes and discussion.
Haha, come on, almost everything has to do with either your blog post or the Plandomization article.


King, I think you are backtracking a little on your SPP-GPP stances. It's okay to say you've softened your opinion on the matter, but to say "we were really just agreeing the whole time" is not accurate. Disconfirmation bias is the technical term for it, I think...
I'm not exactly in this for pride. I agree with all your points on GPP/SPP, now (I think). At first, I didn't think to make it a bi-variable analysis, and I was not arguing on the same terms (I thought of 3x10 bench as SPP, for example). Either way, if you want to say I was wrong, I don't care much.



My only suggestion for you would be to do some reading on concurrent vs. conjugate sequencing - they are very different. Vincent's recent post saying something like "Less reading, more training" is a good one. I know you traing hard, but experience is going to soften your views a bit when you hit a wall with your squat and decide that it's more important than your Fran time. When that happens, let me know.
I'll read over the concurrent vs. conjugate sequencing. It sounds like I may be messing up terms again. I haven't really read anything in the last 3 years and I pretty much just base what I say on my training and my workout partners' training. Usually when I start reading stuff I start wanting to keep changing my training routine and get away from my plan (this is dumb).

That said, I'm not positive on what you think we disagree about ... I am a very big fan of Greg Everett and Mike Burgener. Almost all my Oly lifting buddies follow their advice in some way, and almost all my CF buddies do as well. (And I do)
The idea that, in every mesocycle, you should have a Focus to your training that is more specific than your overall goal is an opinion I've had for a very long time. What is it that you think I am arguing with you about?

The only contention I have with your article is that I think you are branding things like CF (or WSB, or whatever) the same way that you brand Rippetoe's 5x5 program. CF is a system of principles and not a routine. R's 5x5 is a routine (hah, I think ... if it's not then sub in whatever). I agree that a routine can't be adapted to just anyone. Principles, largely, can.

WillNoble
05-07-2009, 10:09 PM
CF is a system of principles and not a routine. R's 5x5 is a routine. I agree that a routine can't be adapted to just anyone. Principles, largely, can.


you should really nut swing some more...


You constantly speak of CF's superiority to all, but when confronted on its superiority to sports specific or goal specific programming, you lose...

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 10:24 PM
You STILL haven't realized that CrossFit can be highly sport-specific?!?!

I am seriously proud of the amount of restraint that I've been able to show toward you. I have repeated a few points about eight times without being condescending up to this point, and you have not argued with the points at all. It's like you're wearing blinders.

Here are some reasonable arguments you could make:
(a) Brad's argument: You could argue that I got the principles wrong and CF does not actually believe in SPP. This would require you to show where CF says that athletes with specific goals should not focus on SPP.
Side note: CrossFit has been very clear that athletes with specific fitness goals should do SPP to a very significant extent. See: http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFitFootball_Origins.wmv )

(b) You could argue that the principles that I listed are not optimal for gaining strength because xxx (give reason here).
(A reasonable argument, although one that I don't think I agree with, is that pure-strength athletes need to work in the 6-10 rep range, and that work needs to be very heavy, and it's much more effective to not do that kind of training in a circuit with probably-slightly-less-heavy weight)
Side note: If you are going to make an argument using (b), you will have to actually read the principles that I have now outlined eight times.

Commonly used responses that have absolutely no merit regardless of who you get to agree with you:
(1) "CF sux 4 athletes!! SPP is king!!"
Note: Just because I don't want you to misinterpret this, I AM NOT SAYING THAT SPP IS UNIMPORTANT. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. SO DOES CF. Do you see why saying this has no merit?

(2) "CF dus 2 much cardio!! football players need 2 b strong!!"
Note: The point here is not that football players need tons of conditioning and little strength work. See the principles that I outlined on page 1. You can do very little cardio and still follow the CF system.

(3) Quoting unrelated parts -- INEFFECTIVE in argument

(4) Attempting to comment on a post (or a group of posts) as a whole, while not actually commenting on anything I actually said; OR taking things wildly out of context -- Again, very INEFFECTIVE.

Again, I'm not trying to "win" on any of this ****. If CF does something that I don't agree with it, I'm happy to say I disagree. (For example, I agree with Greg Everett and disagree with CF on a big point, as outlined above)

WillNoble
05-07-2009, 10:47 PM
Awww its so cute, you even misspelled it to make it look like real trolling...


Explain to me one thing that CF trains for....Oh that's right, they don't!!!

there arent CF contests out there to train for (well unless you count the Burpee/Mountain climber contests you and your CF groupies have with each other)


CF is as far from SPP as Barack Obama is from Democracy...They just dont go together.


Here is some SPP (obviously football biased)

3fH7of_2Fh8

g_qJEV7tHUo

BJ25ikfZy20

46veN24X6bk




And here is CF... Notice the difference? (I doubt you will as you are a kool-aid addict, but that's o.k., my point has been proven)

rWdZFGjRrdo

ku-eOGXScOQ

ouZFwzABvw4

5hK7lBeXXps

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 11:06 PM
That post falls mostly into (4). Do you see why it's ineffective? Hint: You either ignored or failed to understand everything I said.

CrossFit hosts competitions ("The CF Games") to determine who has the highest level of fitness.

It's kinda like World's strongest man, but with more variables.

The events are (generally) never known (and sometimes ****ty, imo), so you can't really train specifically for them. (As a matter of semantics, you are specifically training for them by training very broadly)

The CrossFit "system" is distinct from both the main site WODs and the CF games, although the main site WODs do use the CF system, but only to prepare for the CF games. The main site WODs do not aim to prepare athletes for their sport.
This is a key point, and understanding the distinction here is critical.

If CF wanted to prepare a powerlifter for a powerlifting competition, the use of the system would be COMPLETELY different.


You are familiar with Westside. Let's make an analogy.
Louie Simmons likes the idea of conjugated periodization.
WSB is very well known for training powerlifters. WSB (basically) has powerlifters do DE squat/bench each once/week, ME lower/upper once a week, etc. It utilizes conjugated periodization when it trains powerlifters.

But would Louie Simmons use the exact same plan for a mixed-martial artist? No. But he could still use his system of conjugated periodization.

So, if I didn't understand this point after it was explained to me eight times, I could post a few videos of fighters hitting the heavy/speed bag, sparring, etc. And then I could say this is SPP. And then I could post videos of powerlifters working on their shirted 5-board and say this is not SPP at all and won't have much of a carry-over for fighters if that's all they do.

KingJustin
05-07-2009, 11:53 PM
Sensei, I couldn't find the periodization article you referred to, but I found this one:
http://www.elitefts.com/documents/resistance_training.htm

Being equipped with correct terminology makes description easier.
CrossFit uses the "Ordinary Concurrent Method."
Everett, you, and I are all on the same page in saying that the ordinary concurrent method is not ideal.
I think Everett prescribes the Long Conjugate Sequence.

I have been saying for a long time that I like "conjugate training with a changing focus." I guess this is redundant. This article gives tons of angles on the point I wanted to discuss. Cool.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 06:24 AM
CrossFit hosts competitions ("The CF Games") to determine who has the highest level of fitness.



Again, is this a recognized sport, no

Again, is CF good for sports specific training, no

Get off the kool-aid kid

Sensei
05-08-2009, 06:47 AM
You STILL haven't realized that CrossFit can be highly sport-specific?!?!

I am seriously proud of the amount of restraint that I've been able to show toward you. I have repeated a few points about eight times without being condescending up to this point, and you have not argued with the points at all. It's like you're wearing blinders.King... most people are thinking the same about you.

(2) "CF dus 2 much cardio!! football players need 2 b strong!!"
Note: The point here is not that football players need tons of conditioning and little strength work. See the principles that I outlined on page 1. You can do very little cardio and still follow the CF system.The "principles" you have outlined on page one could be used to describe just about any training routine, system, template, macrocycle. They are not exclusive to CF. It seems that the definition of what CF is and what CF "could be" or "is in some situations" is fuzzy enough that you can apply it whenever and where ever you want.

Believe it or not, I have ZERO interest in the whole anti-CF thing and I'm not trying to establish myself as a "guru" or "guru slayer". What I AM against is blanket recommendations to do SS or CF or BGB or WS for everyone and everything under the sun, and the dogma that comes with them.

Brad08
05-08-2009, 07:48 AM
I outlined CrossFit's principles in my first post in this thread. Imo, these principles are extremely adaptable and can meet just about any fitness goal. Using these principles, CF has produced elite athletes that train for very broad goals and very specific goals; CF has produced high-level Oly lifters and (AFAIK -- I don't actually know anyone since both CF gyms I've trained at are notorious for their strength emphasis) high-level endurance athletes.

This is flatly false. Name the elite athletes that Crossfit has produced and by "produced," I do NOT mean "takes credit for," I mean PRODUCED THROUGH CROSSFIT'S TRAINING MEANS. Tell me who they are and what national and international titles they've won using Crossfit as their primary training program.

There is not one.


(Recap: Me: CF uses these principles. Brad: No it doesn't, look at this quote -- CF doesn't ever train SPP!. Me: You clearly took the quote completely out of context. Also, refer to the first video I posted, where John from CFF makes very clear how important SPP is. Brad: ::Left before I actually responded but implicitly accepts what I said::)

Incorrect. How on earth could I take a quote about Crossfit "out of context" when it comes from an article on the Crossfit main website entitled, "What is Crossfit?"

And nobody's "relying on preconceived notions of Crossfit." I'm looking at the Crossfit website and reading quotes by the system's founder . These statements ABOUT THE SYSTEM are in the public arena. They can be found in the foundational documents explaining the system, published in 2001. They can be found on the message board, posted since at least 2003. They can be found in Glassman's articles and speeches, being posted as recently as last week. That these statements about the system are "news to you" is not my problem.

In short, the only way you reach your conclusions about Crossfit is by failing to understand the foundational premises of Crossfit and ignoring explicit statements about the system made by the system's "inventor" Greg Glassman.

If you're saying that Crossfit is now completely changing its model to focus on SPP, and admitting that it's overly broad focus on, and prescription of, GPP was fundamentally flawed, I can accept that.

To get back on track, I will say that I think Sensei's blog post is very useful and informative. This is something we all would benefit from remembering:


NO TOOL IS THE BEST FOR EVERYTHING.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 07:50 AM
If you're saying that Crossfit is now completely changing its model to focus on SPP, and admitting that it's overly broad focus on, and prescription of, GPP was fundamentally flawed, I can accept that.



this

=Travis=
05-08-2009, 08:21 AM
CrossFit hosts competitions ("The CF Games") to determine who has the highest level of fitness.

It's kinda like World's strongest man, but with more variables.



WTF?

Dude, just stop. You are so high on the kool-aid that you are making stuff up.

Brad08
05-08-2009, 08:33 AM
CrossFit hosts competitions ("The CF Games") to determine who is the best at Crossfit.

Fixed.

Here's a link to a Windows Media video (http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/JT_OnTheGames_Part1.wmv) of the guy who placed 3d in last years Games. Do his "thrusters" and "burpees" look like quality athletic movements with excellent form, or more like the sloppy, cutting corners movemetns of a guy trying to lower his times as much as possible??

He's "training" to win the Games, pure and simple. This is specialization in the "sport" of Crossfit.


It's kinda like World's strongest man, but with more variables.


Kinda.

http://zentofitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/chris-stroud-at-2008-crossfit-games.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/263304299_808f770518.jpg

Sensei
05-08-2009, 09:01 AM
Brad,
I'm an occasional reader at IG, but I'm not big on lugging all of their hate over here. Not that the organization doesn't deserve a critical eye, just that I don't see the point of doing that here.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 09:09 AM
Kinda.

http://zentofitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/chris-stroud-at-2008-crossfit-games.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/263304299_808f770518.jpg

hahaha... nice

Brad08
05-08-2009, 09:10 AM
Fair enough. I'll bow out, I just don't like reading misinformation.

Sensei
05-08-2009, 09:15 AM
Brad,
I don't know that any of us (not singling you out) has added anything substantive in the last two pages.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 09:38 AM
Ok I'm only going ot respond to the points that actually say something. This is seriously unbelievable.


This is flatly false. Name the elite athletes that Crossfit has produced and by "produced," I do NOT mean "takes credit for," I mean PRODUCED THROUGH CROSSFIT'S TRAINING MEANS.
We're going to have to agree on what CrossFit "is" first I guess.



If you're saying that Crossfit is now completely changing its model to focus on SPP, and admitting that it's overly broad focus on, and prescription of, GPP was fundamentally flawed, I can accept that.
I don't think that's what they're doing, but I don't really care. Sure.
They used to think GPP was the only way to go. (This would be an UNBELIEVABLY stupid view to have).
Now they very clearly do not (see the video I posted twice now).

I am 100% agreement that athletes that are training for a sport should utilize SPP.
CrossFit is too. Whether they changed to hold this view or not I really don't care. The quote you are using is out-of-context because it is talking about how to train for total fitness. To be good at everything. The theory is that they should therefore not specialize to achieve that. Athletes with less broad goals need more specific training.

If CF doesn't accept this view, then why do they have CrossFit Endurance? Under your theory, a CrossFit coach would just tell every endurance athlete to follow the main site WOD because all they need is GPP.


Here's a link to a Windows Media video of the guy who placed 3d in last years Games. Do his "thrusters" and "burpees" look like quality athletic movements with excellent form, or more like the sloppy, cutting corners movemetns of a guy trying to lower his times as much as possible??
I'm actually pretty vocal in saying that the competitions CF hosts are pretty ****ty at acheiving their goal (determining the most fit athlete). I won't argue this point since I agree with you. This has nothing to do with the system I described.


He's "training" to win the Games, pure and simple. This is specialization in the "sport" of Crossfit.
Yeah, I noted that in my post.



WTF?

Dude, just stop. You are so high on the kool-aid that you are making stuff up.
(This is in response to me explaining what the CF Games are)

The reason I feel absolutely not stupid when continuing to post when 4 people disagree with me is that people make posts like this that show they are just blind. Travis, could you articulate exactly what I made up?

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 10:13 AM
The "principles" you have outlined on page one could be used to describe just about any training routine, system, template, macrocycle. They are not exclusive to CF. It seems that the definition of what CF is and what CF "could be" or "is in some situations" is fuzzy enough that you can apply it whenever and where ever you want.
This is simply factually wrong.

Just off the top of my head:
No Westside program on elitefts could be considered "CrossFit" based on the principles I outlined.
SS is not CF.
No bodybuilding program that I've seen.
No even-semi-traditional triathlon system.
Mike Burgener's Oly lifting system (http://www.mikesgym.org) is not CF (despite the fact that he says CF 5x in his main-page intro, and is coach of "team CF."
That said, I would consider CAthletics by Greg Everett (http://www.cathletics.com) to be CF. (Although he admittedly rejects ordinary concurrent periodization in favor of long conjugate sequencing; but just about all the top CF gyms do, too). Side note to Brad: If you accept that people that follow CAthletics are training CF, then there's 2 "elite" athletes that I train with that got stronger by doing it.

The principles I listed are not very fuzzy at all. They are pretty damn black and white. I am going further than Anthony and Glassman and still accurately describing every implementation of CF that is publicized.

I guess you could argue that CF doesn't embrace certain parts of what I said, but I really don't think that's accurate at all. (i.e. Brad is focusing on the fact that CF only prescribes GPP all the time, which would suggest that CF trains marathoners and football players the same exact way ... but the CrossFit Football prescribed workouts are very very very different from the CrossFit Endurance prescribed workouts, so this has to be factually wrong.)


Just in response to the Strongman pics..
Here are some vids of people just from CF-Wilmington. The gym has about 30 members that have been there for a full year. These videos cover about 1/3 of the top guys/girls. In other words, a good bit over half the people that have trained there for at least a year are at this level. The starting level of all of these guys/girls was much much lower.
Also, almost all of these people have very high levels of cardio ability.

Girl flips 520lb tire 8(?) times Rk2-qOp0Kzw
275lb OHS 5HxRAYdmx10
Girl OHS 220lbs TPhnJUScKmc
Last dude in the vid went from 225lb C&J to 300lb in 3 months 5GseuINVIaQ
515 DL bQA3t1H2nI0
Very small girl flipping the 520lb tire cQ4lzZmHH6A
30 snatches 135lbs 2:20 X-pyHFhpa3k
Old guy goes up about 100 lbs in a year to a 265lb push pres
6cyKnhTz6bc

The top 3 guys have also jumped up an unbelievable amount the past 3 months (someone went from a 275 FS to 410lbs @ about 190lbs), but unfortunately I don't have any videos yet.

Sensei
05-08-2009, 10:49 AM
This is simply factually wrong.

Just off the top of my head:
No Westside program on elitefts could be considered "CrossFit" based on the principles I outlined.
SS is not CF.
No bodybuilding program that I've seen.
No even-semi-traditional triathlon system.
Mike Burgener's Oly lifting system (http://www.mikesgym.org) is not CF (despite the fact that he says CF 5x in his main-page intro, and is coach of "team CF."
That said, I would consider CAthletics by Greg Everett (http://www.cathletics.com) to be CF. (Although he admittedly rejects ordinary concurrent periodization in favor of long conjugate sequencing; but just about all the top CF gyms do, too). Side note to Brad: If you accept that people that follow CAthletics are training CF, then there's 2 "elite" athletes that I train with that got stronger by doing it.

The principles I listed are not very fuzzy at all. They are pretty damn black and white. I am going further than Anthony and Glassman and still accurately describing every implementation of CF that is publicized.


As I said earlier, imo CrossFit's training protocol is (a) 1-5 reps on strength or dynamic work, using compound movements + (b) rep work done in cardio circuits, done with high intensity, as heavy or light as is necessary + (c) injury prevention and weak point work as needed + (d) sport-specific training as needed + (e) endurance and/or sprint-repeat type work as needed. This should all be conjugated according to the CF model (note: the level of this is something that both you and I, along with other CF'ers, are skeptical about). Every individual needs to pick the right proportions of each for his own sport/fitness goal.
If this doesn't describe just about ANY S&C program, then I guess I just don't know a thing about the subject...

I am not saying that WS is CF... You are turning into an argumentative brat who's upset that no one listens to him. Typing more is not going to help your arguments, nor is trying to "preemptive strike" points that will likely be made.

I give up - all points have been made. I could probably rephrase some of them to be less argumentative (and less CF-focused), but I think I'd just be wasting my time.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 10:56 AM
The "principles" you have outlined on page one could be used to describe just about any training routine, system, template, macrocycle.
This. Mostly contradicts this:

I am not saying that WS is CF

You can say stuff like "I'll be wasting my time" but the fact is that you are not right. And it's not even a matter of semantics. It's not even close. Not that anything CF does is "new," but the principles I outlined are distinct from the way that almost everyone trains. I would guess that if you went through the journals, nobody would be doing CF according to those principles.

The fact is that almost all S&C routines focus on rep work in the 6-10 rep phase without doing cardio circuits for it. That's simply very different.
(And, there's less of an emphasis on intensity in most training systems.)

You can argue the merits of this system, but you can't argue that it's the same as all the others. It's not.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 11:01 AM
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images/kool-aid-man.jpg

Ben Moore
05-08-2009, 11:04 AM
Trying to see vids...


This is simply factually wrong.

Just off the top of my head:
No Westside program on elitefts could be considered "CrossFit" based on the principles I outlined.
SS is not CF.
No bodybuilding program that I've seen.
No even-semi-traditional triathlon system.
Mike Burgener's Oly lifting system (http://www.mikesgym.org) is not CF (despite the fact that he says CF 5x in his main-page intro, and is coach of "team CF."
That said, I would consider CAthletics by Greg Everett (http://www.cathletics.com) to be CF. (Although he admittedly rejects ordinary concurrent periodization in favor of long conjugate sequencing; but just about all the top CF gyms do, too). Side note to Brad: If you accept that people that follow CAthletics are training CF, then there's 2 "elite" athletes that I train with that got stronger by doing it.

The principles I listed are not very fuzzy at all. They are pretty damn black and white. I am going further than Anthony and Glassman and still accurately describing every implementation of CF that is publicized.

I guess you could argue that CF doesn't embrace certain parts of what I said, but I really don't think that's accurate at all. (i.e. Brad is focusing on the fact that CF only prescribes GPP all the time, which would suggest that CF trains marathoners and football players the same exact way ... but the CrossFit Football prescribed workouts are very very very different from the CrossFit Endurance prescribed workouts, so this has to be factually wrong.)


Just in response to the Strongman pics..
I go to CrossFit Atlanta now and posted a vid earlier of one of the guys I workout with, Chandler, finishing first in collegiate nationals (after following what I think is fair to call CrossFit), but here's a video of someone from my old gym, CrossFit Wilmington. She was nowhere near this strong starting off.

Rk2-qOp0Kzw

Just lifters from CrossFit Wilmington:
Girl multiple 520lb tire flips http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk2-qOp0Kzw
275lb OHS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HxRAYdmx10
girl OHS 220lbs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPhnJUScKmc
Last dude in the vid went from 225lb C&J to 300lb in 3 months http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GseuINVIaQ
515 DL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQA3t1H2nI0
very small girl flipping the 520lb tire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ4lzZmHH6A
30 snatches 135lbs 2:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-pyHFhpa3k
Old guy goes up about 100 lbs in a year to a 265lb push pres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cyKnhTz6bc

These are all from different people, and almost all of them have are very talented across the board (cardio, strength etc). The gym doesn't have a whole lot of members or anything, but almost all the members have made tremendous progress. The gym accepts people of all abilities. None of the people in the videos started off close to this, and within the last 1.5 years they've made incredible increases. The top 3 guys have also jumped up an unbelievable amount the past 3 months (someone went from a 275 FS to 410lbs @ about 190lbs), but unfortunately I don't have any videos yet.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 11:08 AM
Side note: Of the people that do CF, I am about as far off from drinking the Kool-Aid as anyone.
I think my diet is better than their paleo stuff, I think the ordinary concurrent method is dumb, I have always focused on strength more than main site (and I think you have to if you want to be competitive in overall fitness), I think they have messed up pretty badly in picking exercises the last 2 years, I don't buy all of their exercise opinions (i.e. I don't know wtf they don't like sumo deadlifts), and I think they need some additional equipment in their various gyms. (almost all the top cf dudes agree on the first 2 points)

Oh, and that made me remember: In response to the bad form deal (I'm missing whatever codec is required to view that video correctly), after a lot of bitching by people like me, I am pretty sure that the CF Games this year will involve much less lifting of weights/body weight, and a lot more "moving things from point A to point B," which makes form much less important.

Reko
05-08-2009, 11:08 AM
Trying to see vids...

I think its a link to a WMV as opposed to a youtube. try just copy/paste it into a browser or something.

Sensei
05-08-2009, 11:10 AM
You can argue the merits of this system, but you can't argue that it's the same as all the others. It's not.I'm not arguing that CF is like anything else.



You can say stuff like "I'll be wasting my time" but the fact is that you are not right. And it's not even a matter of semantics. It's not even close. Not that anything CF does is "new," but the principles I outlined are distinct from the way that almost everyone trains. I would guess that if you went through the journals, nobody would be doing CF according to those principles.

The fact is that almost all S&C routines focus on rep work in the 6-10 rep phase without doing cardio circuits for it. That's simply very different.
(And, there's less of an emphasis on intensity in most training systems.)That you say this, after this entire thread, demonstrates that, for whatever reason, I have been ineffective in communicating my points and that you don't know much about S&C. I am TRULY done now. I promise.

Ben Moore
05-08-2009, 11:12 AM
I think its a link to a WMV as opposed to a youtube. try just copy/paste it into a browser or something.

Yeah - I deleted the address in my quote.

KJ - where is the vid for Chandler? I searched and came up with nothing.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 11:13 AM
129kg snatch @ 77kg BW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqKYy6O7Yk
170kg c&J @77kg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ORd5kJL4Y
kg to lbs
129 = 283
170 = 374
77 = 169

Dumb: how do you youtube these? I am doing something wrong I think

Ben Moore
05-08-2009, 11:21 AM
129kg snatch @ 77kg BW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqKYy6O7Yk
170kg c&J @77kg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ORd5kJL4Y
kg to lbs
129 = 283
170 = 374
77 = 169

Dumb: how do you youtube these? I am doing something wrong I think

After knowing several guys that have competed in Oly Weightlifting, I'd have to say that there was a certain amount of specificity that went into his training prior to that meet. I'd be willing to bet the conditioning aspect of CF was probably dialed back a bit or dropped the last phase of training.

Reko
05-08-2009, 11:22 AM
The fact is that almost all S&C routines focus on rep work in the 6-10 rep phase without doing cardio circuits for it. That's simply very different.
(And, there's less of an emphasis on intensity in most training systems.)

What would you consider a S&C routine? How would you define intensity?




But, aside from pure strength athletes and pure endurance athletes, CF's training protocol is very effective for just about any athlete.

As I said earlier, imo CrossFit's training protocol is (a) 1-5 reps on strength or dynamic work, using compound movements + (b) rep work done in cardio circuits, done with high intensity, as heavy or light as is necessary + (c) injury prevention and weak point work as needed + (d) sport-specific training as needed + (e) endurance and/or sprint-repeat type work as needed. This should all be conjugated according to the CF model (note: the level of this is something that both you and I, along with other CF'ers, are skeptical about). Every individual needs to pick the right proportions of each for his own sport/fitness goal. That's not such a broad description that everybody trains that way, and it's not so narrow that it doesn't encompass CF. Any athlete can use (a), (b), (c) and (d) to focus primarily on movements that are important in his sport.


At what point does it NOT become CF?



Not that anything CF does is "new," but the principles I outlined are distinct from the way that almost everyone trains.

A rose by any other name...

Reko
05-08-2009, 11:24 AM
129kg snatch @ 77kg BW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqKYy6O7Yk


Dumb: how do you youtube these? I am doing something wrong I think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqKYy6O7Yk

put the bold parts inbetween the "youtube" tags. Basically everything after the =

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 11:25 AM
After knowing several guys that have competed in Oly Weightlifting, I'd have to say that there was a certain amount of specificity that went into his training prior to that meet. I'd be willing to bet the conditioning aspect of CF was probably dialed back a bit or dropped the last phase of training.

100% agree with you. There was a LOT of specificity.

This goes back to the "how do you define CrossFit" question.

=Travis=
05-08-2009, 11:29 AM
100% agree with you. There was a LOT of specificity.

This goes back to the "how do you define CrossFit" question.

But then that goes back to the comment Brad brought up and CROSSFIT itself touts Specificity is for Insects. Thus, the specificity involved in OL IS NOT CROSSFIT.





From the CF home page and describing what CF is http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/what-crossfit.html


Our specialty is not specializing.

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 11:41 AM
This goes back to the "how do you define CrossFit" question.

I believe the CrossFit inventors have defined it already. If you don't follow their definition it's not crossfit. You might as well call it aerobics.

This is where the discussion is causing it to go on and on, you believe you are sticking purely to crossfit, but what you are saying/typing doesn't always match up with what CrossFit says is all.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 11:47 AM
Travis, again, if that is CrossFit's stance, then why do they have wildly different programs for Endurance athletes (http://www.crossfitendurance.com) and Football players (http://www.crossfitfootball.com) (I strongly encourage clicking the latter link just one time!!)?

What you're quoting is basically lame marketing. They say that they "scale" workouts differently for Oly lifters, football players, and endurance athletes. Well, what they are scaling is the amount of work on each thing. Olympic lifters will do very little work on conditioning (it's scaled out). Endurance athletes will do very little work on strength (scaled out). But, they scale up what is needed. In that sense, CF doesn't "specialize" in that they use the same system (the one I listed) for everyone.

Note: I will agree with one knock that you guys implicitly made on the football program. John (the site "administrator" for CFF) mentioned this to me in a PM. CF gyms, even though they generally have better equipment than commercial gyms, don't have enough equipment to do every great football movement. When lifters go to John's gym, CrossFit Balboa, they do have access to a prowler, chains, etc and the movements are more sport-specific. His program is for the ~90% of people in commercial or CF gyms that just don't have that equipment and still want to get as much of an advantage in football as possible. Given that he wants to make a routine that can be used by high school football coaches that don't have access to a lot of sport-specific equipment, his program include as many sport-specific movements as possible.

Reko -- Thank you. I was expecting someone to make these arguments 3 pages ago.


What would you consider a S&C routine? How would you define intensity?
Any plan to get an athlete ready for a specific physical competition, I guess?



At what point does it NOT become CF?
Ok, so yeah, I agree this is a totally legit critique.

(1) The "as necessary/needed" points -- Yeah, you're going to take everything and use them in different proportions. But I would say something is not CF if it doesn't utilize at least to some extent each of those elements. A PLer is obviously not going to be doing any endurance running, but as a beginner or if a meet is months out, CF would advocate him doing a little circuit training with relatively hard runs + some rep work + push-ups or something.
(2) Using sport-specific movements -- I think this is WillNoble's biggest beef. He doesn't think CF advocates using sport-specific movements. It DOES. The main-site isn't going to post up these movements because it's not going to be beneficial for its goal (to produce athletes with very broad abilities).
(3) Going off of what I labeled as (b) -- doing rep work in a circuit... I would say that if a routine does more ~10% of its work in the 6-10+ rep range outside of a cardio circuit, then it's not CrossFit. That eliminates the vast majority of programs.
(4) I would also say that a workout plan is not CF if it uses more than ~10% isometric-ish movements. i.e. lots of tricep extensions, barbell curls, etc.

Imo, this isn't making CF enormously broad. But, it is making it much much broader than what most of you guys had as your pre-conceived notions on what CF is. (But, we're having this discussion because maybe you can show me that my definition is flawed!)

=Travis=
05-08-2009, 12:12 PM
Travis, again, if that is CrossFit's stance, then why do they have wildly different programs for Endurance athletes (http://www.crossfitendurance.com) and Football players (http://www.crossfitfootball.com) (I strongly encourage clicking the latter link just one time!!)?

What you're quoting is basically lame marketing.


Look, I'm not making this **** up. You are trying to defend Crossfit. THIS IS CROSSFIT's words, not mine. This came from THEIR website, I am not imagining this crap. You cannot claim crossfit is one way when THEY say they are this. END OF EFFING STORY


Weíve used our same routines for elderly individuals with heart disease and cage fighters one month out from televised bouts. We scale load and intensity; we donít change programs.

The needs of Olympic athletes and our grandparents differ by degree not kind. Our terrorist hunters, skiers, mountain bike riders and housewives have found their best fitness from the same regimen.

Brad08
05-08-2009, 12:13 PM
LOL.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 12:23 PM
/thread

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 12:35 PM
I already explained this.

Can you explain to me why CrossFit endurance and CrossFit Football are wildly different? Why do you think there are so many Olympic lifters that train in CF gyms, under CF coaches, that are exceedingly specialized, if CF's philosophy is that everyone should just do the exact same stuff (just loads and loads of GPP)?

This issue came up because I recommended CrossFit Football in the other thread, not because I thought everyone should be doing enormous amounts of very attenuated GPP. (CFF is a strength-based program that uses the principles I outlined; Look at it! (http://www.crossfitfootball.com)

=Travis=
05-08-2009, 12:41 PM
I don't have to explain ****, I'm not the one putting that description out there. I am not the one labeling crossfit. I am merely using CROSSFIT'S own descriptors for itself.


You're like those little pestering dog-pecker gnats that are annoying as hell, you just wont give up and admit you're full of ****.

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 12:53 PM
I already explained this.

Can you explain to me why CrossFit endurance and CrossFit Football are wildly different? Why do you think there are so many Olympic lifters that train in CF gyms, under CF coaches, that are exceedingly specialized, if CF's philosophy is that everyone should just do the exact same stuff (just loads and loads of GPP)?

This issue came up because I recommended CrossFit Football in the other thread, not because I thought everyone should be doing enormous amounts of very attenuated GPP. (CFF is a strength-based program that uses the principles I outlined; Look at it! (http://www.crossfitfootball.com)

Yes yes we've all seen the website. I went to it in the other thread and read over it.

I am a little curious as to why those of us who disagree with you are supposed to explain the differences between CF and CFF,

but here's my guess

they realized it doesn't work.

You simply can't use the same program for all athletes and expect top level results.

Why they contradict themselves is beyond me though.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 12:54 PM
-=Travis=- ---
Well, yeah, I guess you just can't admit you're wrong. Obviously if you were right CrossFit Football would like exactly like CrossFit Endurance. haha, it doesn't. Just admit you're wrong and we can move on.




You simply can't use the same program for all athletes and expect top level results.

Why they contradict themselves is beyond me though.
Ok, well then they were absolutely 100% dead wrong before (and very very stupid) when they didn't think SPP was crucial.
Now, they do think SPP is absolutely crucial and they use the principles that I laid out in the first page. Recall: In the context that I recommended CrossFit Football first, and continue to recommend CrossFit, it was based on the principles that I outlined. CFF uses theses principles. Again, I have never said Football players should be following the same routine as Housewives.

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 12:57 PM
Well, yeah, I guess you just can't admit you're wrong. Obviously if you were right CrossFit Football would like exactly like CrossFit Endurance. haha, it doesn't. Just admit you're wrong and we can move on.

LOL Justin, explain to me what I'm wrong about?

They use one statement and then contradict it with another, how does that make me the one in the wrong?

it'd make a lot more sense if they put somewhere in there "we use the same program all the time, except in cases of endurance and football and ____ and ____ and ____ and ___"

Then it wouldn't be contradictory

Reko
05-08-2009, 12:58 PM
I don't even know what the hell we are arguing about anymore

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 12:59 PM
LOL Justin, explain to me what I'm wrong about?

They use one statement and then contradict it with another, how does that make me the one in the wrong?

it'd make a lot more sense if they put somewhere in there "we use the same program all the time, except in cases of endurance and football and ____ and ____ and ____ and ___"

Then it wouldn't be contradictory

Haha, your timing is so bad. You keep posting right after -=Travis=-! That was in response to him.

There are no (very few?) CF trainers that will have a very sport-specific athlete (assuming military/police/maybe-MMA fighters very far out from a fight) train the same way as the main site WODs.

=Travis=
05-08-2009, 01:03 PM
Haha, your timing is so bad. You keep posting right after -=Travis=-! That was in response to him.

No matter, as Travis' response still fits the bill.

I CANNOT be wrong using Crossfit's own words. It is not my opinion, not my assessment, not my description. It is CROSSFIT's description about themselves. I'm wrong somehow for qouting the group's own terms? I serioously fail to see how you made it this far in life.

God you're a ****ing idiot.

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 01:03 PM
There are no (very few?) CF trainers that will have a very sport-specific athlete (assuming military/police/maybe-MMA fighters very far out from a fight) train the same way as the main site WODs.

So then my question would be how is it CrossFit then if they don't train that way? Reason for asking is because on the website they are very clear on their definition of what CrossFit is.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 01:04 PM
BTW, in response to Brad's earlier post, "who trains CF?"

Chuck Liddel's team, for one, using whatever definition of CF you desire.
http://www.thepitmma.com/fightTeam.html
http://www.thepit.tv/exercises-techniques/

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 01:08 PM
So then my question would be how is it CrossFit then if they don't train that way? Reason for asking is because on the website they are very clear on their definition of what CrossFit is.

Hah, I'll ask this one on the CF discussion board, because there is a very obvious contradiction I guess (although, again, I think you can interpret the words differently than you guys are interpreting them). That is why I use my definition of CF -- it encompasses the way that people actually train.

Key to whole point: Under your definition of CrossFit, CrossFit Football is NOT a CrossFit routine. With that in mind, pretty much 100% of the posts that bad mouthed CrossFit have 0% to do with CrossFit Football.
Using my definition of CrossFit, the CrossFit Football is covered as a CrossFit routine (which makes sense, right?)

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 01:09 PM
BTW, in response to Brad's earlier post, "who trains CF?"

Chuck Liddel's team, for one, using whatever definition of CF you desire.
http://www.thepitmma.com/fightTeam.html
http://www.thepit.tv/exercises-techniques/


You can't just use whatever definition you desire. There has to be some sort of constant defintion otherwise it becomes an all encompassing term.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 01:10 PM
You can't just use whatever definition you desire. There has to be some sort of constant defintion otherwise it becomes an all encompassing term.


Thats what he's interested in, because he refuses to believe that he's wrong

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 01:10 PM
Yeah, I know, but my definition covers all the CrossFit systems (endurance, strength-base, football, etc.). But, it does not include pretty much all other training systems (westside, starting strength, any bodybuilding routine, etc).

(In response to "There has to be some sort of constant defintion otherwise it becomes an all encompassing term.")

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Hah, I'll ask this one on the CF discussion board, because there is a very obvious contradiction I guess (although, again, I think you can interpret the words differently than you guys are interpreting them). That is why I use my definition of CF -- it encompasses the way that people actually train.

Key to whole point: Under your definition of CrossFit, CrossFit Football is NOT a CrossFit routine. With that in mind, pretty much 100% of the posts that bad mouthed CrossFit have 0% to do with CrossFit Football.
Using my definition of CrossFit, the CrossFit Football is covered as a CrossFit routine (which makes sense, right?)

Agreed. Now we're getting somewhere! LOL

Now, I still feel that CFF is NOT a good football routine (see previous thread) but yes, one of my contentions is that it doesn't fit within the previous definitions of what CrossFit is exactly.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 01:12 PM
You can't just use whatever definition you desire. There has to be some sort of constant defintion otherwise it becomes an all encompassing term.

Oh and what I meant in that post is that even if you buy the "CrossFit is a GPP 100% of the time routine" deal, then Chuck Liddel still trains CrossFit. So does his whole fight team, and at lease some of them rose to become elite athletes because of it.

Reko
05-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Oh and what I meant in that post is that even if you buy the "CrossFit is a GPP 100% of the time routine" deal, then Chuck Liddel still trains CrossFit. So does his whole fight team, and at lease some of them rose to become elite athletes because of it.

Because they did CF, or becuase they did lots of GPP?

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 01:30 PM
Because they did CF, or becuase they did lots of GPP?

Haha, let me be clear.

Chuck Liddel does, basically, the main site CF workouts with increased volume.

Ben Moore
05-08-2009, 01:44 PM
Haha, let me be clear.

Chuck Liddel does, basically, the main site CF workouts with increased volume.

And got smoked in his last 2 fights...

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 01:49 PM
And got smoked in his last 2 fights...
Haha, these are elite athletes he's fighting. S&C can only take you so far.

Hell, I guess I could say BJ Penn, the current UFC Lightweight Champ is an example of a CF athlete, but his S&C is sub-par and he doesn't ever try in the gym. And he eats ****ty. But his training on the mat is damn good.

A lot of the top MMA athletes do something relatively similar to the CF main site WODs, so nobody is getting a serious edge one way or another in the S&C aspect -- the only difference is their intensity.
I don't think it's a big secret anymore that high-intensity cardio that utilizes a wide range of resistance is more beneficial for fighters than long distance running. And I don't think fighters are ignoring the importance of heavy lifting and dynamic effort anymore. If everyone is doing that, then nobody is going to get a huge edge in the S&C area unless they are just training harder.

Keep in mind that for a long time, fighters were getting their conditioning the long distance runs.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 02:03 PM
Follow-up: I asked the question on the boards. This is halfway to a concession I guess?

The general stance is that CrossFit was started as a GPP program that will basically work for athletes that can benefit from high, broad levels of general strength & conditioning. The plan was to follow that for as long as is necessary (not very long for strength/endurance athletes), and then do progressively more and more SPP yourself. Military/law enforcement/fighters could generally benefit from sticking to the same programming for awhile without adding much. Pure strength/endurance athletes needed to do a lot of their own training from the start, and move to do progressively more and more SPP as they got more advanced and near competition. I guess you could call this "narrow CrossFit."

Now, as of the past year or so, CF broadened its programming. It took the principles that it knows (thinks?) work at developing strength & conditioning, and applied them in a SPP context for athletes with specific focuses -- because CF always knew that SPP was crucial (if you don't agree with this, look up Anthony's posts from 4 years ago). So, we have CrossFit Football, PMenu (CAthletics/what-Gregg-Everett-Does-for-Oly-Lifting), CrossFit Endurance, etc. These programs try to tailor as much to specific athletes as possible (i.e. CFF's programming changes for in-season athletes, and beginner/intermediate/advanced athletes follow different programming from day 1). I would call this "broad CrossFit."

Note: At no point have I ever recommended "narrow CrossFit" for Football players. It's worth using for people that want to compete at CF, mixed martial artists (who also need some SPP), and military/law enforcement. Outside of that, very few athletes should use narrow CF.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 02:27 PM
WOW, so based on everything you told us so far, it seems that CF is the most wonderous tool out there...

Makes runners faster,

PL'ers Stronger,

BB'ers leaner,

Fighters hit harder,

Policemen more effective at catching bad guys,

Football players better at EVERY position... actually for that matter the same can be said for all the recognized sports according to you...



Gimme a ****ing break...



you need to go find another board with more CF kool-aid drinkers like yourself and quit soiling ours with this nonsense

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 02:34 PM
I'm confused. So now CrossFit is calling SPP work "CrossFit"?

If I'm reading that right, crossfit=gpp work with spp throw in there

That's a massively broad training definition.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 02:34 PM
Using "broad CrossFit" my buddy Chandler won collegiate nationals in olympic weightlifting. There's several lifters at the same level as him using the same programming. I think PMenu (uses broad CF) is as effective as any other routine for oly lifters.
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of elite triathletes that train using "broad CrossFit."

I also think conjugated periodization is effective for almost all athletes.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 02:37 PM
I'm confused. So now CrossFit is calling SPP work "CrossFit"?

If I'm reading that right, crossfit=gpp work with spp throw in there

That's a massively broad training definition.

I am calling broad CF the utilization of these principles:

(a) 1-5 reps on strength or dynamic work, using compound movements +
(b) rep work done in cardio circuits, done with high intensity, as heavy or light as is necessary +
(c) injury prevention and weak point work as needed +
(d) sport-specific training as needed +
(e) endurance and/or sprint-repeat type work as needed, potentially paired with weights/bodyweight exercises. This should all be conjugated according to the CF model (note: the level of this is something that both you and I, along with other CF'ers, are skeptical about). Every individual needs to pick the right proportions of each for his own sport/fitness goal. Every athlete can utilize these principles for sport-specific movements.
With very little work in the 6-10 rep range outside of circuits and very little work on isometric movements.
At least some work has to be done in a-e to be called CF.

BTW, I don't think this would work as well for PLers as it does for Oly lifters.

Again, this does not encompass Mike Burgener's olympic lifting routines, any WSB plan I've ever seen, Starting Strength, any bodybuilding plan I've ever seen, and probably every single person on this site's journal.
But, it does include CrossFit Football, CrossFit Endurance, PMenu, CrossFit Strength Base, etc.

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 02:52 PM
(a)Westside does work between 1-5 reps. Work up to a single for ME work and 3-5 reps for DE work
(b)depends on what you call cardio circuits I guess, but we do heavy and light sled work
(c)Westside includes weak point training and injury prevention
(d)SPP work is definately included - just varies between the particular athlete or sport
(e)longer sled drags and sprints with the prowler are done on a Westside template

See what I mean? If you go by that definition, everything is CrossFit.

That is a huge definition.

Now inside that definition it's missing some key points that differentiate Westside from other programs, but if we just defined Westside as your points above, everything would be Westside too.

If this is how CrossFit as a whole is defining their system now it's pretty weak

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 02:55 PM
Westside differs because every template I've seen they do a comparatively high amount of work in the 6-10 rep range outside of cardio circuits.

This is what I think differentiates CF from most systems. Whether this is stupid for developing strength or not is certainly debatable. That said, if someone hasn't been doing CF, they probably haven't done a ton of high-intensity-cardio circuits using heavy weights. I wouldn't have expected much of a carry-over from that originally, but I've seen it work very successfully.

i.e. Westside does like 2 accessory exercises a day in the 8-12 rep range. And they use a lot more isolation work (JM Presses, etc).

Reko
05-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Westside differs because every template I've seen they do a comparatively high amount of work in the 6-10 rep range outside of cardio circuits.
Wat?



This is what I think differentiates CF from most systems. Whether this is stupid for developing strength or not is certainly debatable.

i.e. Westside does like 2 accessory exercises a day in the 8-12 rep range. And they use a lot more isolation work (JM Presses, etc).

and they also so DE/ME/RE work in the lower rep ranges.

I recall you posting once where you said the bulk of S&C programs work in the 6-10 range and that is what differs.
Periodization, Sheiko, Westside, and heck even BSF have their accessory work in a higher rep rangs, but the meat and potatoes is in the lower range. both in gear and out of it.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 03:03 PM
comparatively = compared to crossfit; not high rep work compared to low rep work.

Yeah, but compared to CF, there's a LOT more work in the 6+ rep range outside of a cardio circuit. I'd guess somewhere around 1/5+ of a typical WSB program is in the 6+ rep range. I don't ever train in the 6+ rep range outside of cardio, and I would say if you want to call a routine CF, no more than 1/10 of it can be in there, and all of it should be injury prevention type stuff.

The point is that the repetition method work over 6 reps is done in a cardio circuit and not by itself the vast majority of the time (any time outside injury prevention).

That said, CF does utilize a lot of the principles that WSB founded. Again, CF has a lot of respect for the system.

Reko
05-08-2009, 03:18 PM
I would say if you want to call a routine CF, no more than 1/10 of it can be in there, and all of it should be injury prevention type stuff.

The point is that the repetition method work over 6 reps is done in a cardio circuit and not by itself the vast majority of the time (any time outside injury prevention).

That said, CF does utilize a lot of the principles that WSB founded. Again, CF has a lot of respect for the system.


Ok then, how would you define injury prevention then?

Balancing out muscluar imbalances?

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 04:45 PM
I am calling broad CF the utilization of these principles:

(a) 1-5 reps on strength or dynamic work, using compound movements +
(b) rep work done in cardio circuits, done with high intensity, as heavy or light as is necessary +
(c) injury prevention and weak point work as needed +
(d) sport-specific training as needed +
(e) endurance and/or sprint-repeat type work as needed, potentially paired with weights/bodyweight exercises. This should all be conjugated according to the CF model (note: the level of this is something that both you and I, along with other CF'ers, are skeptical about). Every individual needs to pick the right proportions of each for his own sport/fitness goal. Every athlete can utilize these principles for sport-specific movements.
With very little work in the 6-10 rep range outside of circuits and very little work on isometric movements.
At least some work has to be done in a-e to be called CF.

BTW, I don't think this would work as well for PLers as it does for Oly lifters.

Again, this does not encompass Mike Burgener's olympic lifting routines, any WSB plan I've ever seen, Starting Strength, any bodybuilding plan I've ever seen, and probably every single person on this site's journal.
But, it does include CrossFit Football, CrossFit Endurance, PMenu, CrossFit Strength Base, etc.


Westside differs because every template I've seen they do a comparatively high amount of work in the 6-10 rep range outside of cardio circuits.

This is what I think differentiates CF from most systems. Whether this is stupid for developing strength or not is certainly debatable. That said, if someone hasn't been doing CF, they probably haven't done a ton of high-intensity-cardio circuits using heavy weights. I wouldn't have expected much of a carry-over from that originally, but I've seen it work very successfully.

i.e. Westside does like 2 accessory exercises a day in the 8-12 rep range. And they use a lot more isolation work (JM Presses, etc).


The ascessory exercises would fall under the "weak point training" that you defined above.

You're picking and choosing in an attempt to say that your definition of CF is different from Westside. I pretty clearly pointed out how Westside too could fit under your definition.

Now, going on the bolded part, your definition of CF turns more towards the GPP side of things. You need to stick to a definition. If it's simply that CF is a format for GPP work that's fine, but you've gotta choose which it is, either the definition above or that it's a GPP outline.

I'm not trying to bust your balls Justin, but you have to pick one or the other for this discussion to be able to go anywhere. I'm even willing to look past CF's own definition of itself and just focus on what you feel that it is, but you have got to be concrete or it doesn't work

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 06:57 PM
Ok then, how would you define injury prevention then?

Balancing out muscluar imbalances?

Haha, solid argument. But, that's not what I mean by injury prevention. My main point was to pre-emptively note that CF recognizes that weak point work and injury prevention is very important.

I guess this is broken down into 2 parts.
(1) The one time anyone that trains CF will work in over 6 reps (other than when they are first learning an exercise I guess), is when doing like 1 or 2 sets of something like muscle snatches, cuban presses, external rotator work, etc. with very light weight and high reps for injury prevention at the end of a workout.
This will pretty much never exceed 5-10% of the total volume (and actually, it'll probably be less than that).
(2) Weak points - If you have a hamstring/quad imbalance, for example, then you add some volume to your hamstring training and train it the same way you train everything else: 1-5 reps for strength work + work in hamstring exercises in the metcon.

That said, RDLs and glute-ham raises are about as isolated as I would ever get for "weak point work" (maybe reverse hypers for just light injury prevention type stuff); comparatively, for upper body, dips and strict presses are as isolated as I'd ever get.

So, take a typical WSB program (http://www.elitefts.com/documents/9week-training-program.htm). This is the first one that came up on google.
Day 1: Glute ham raises = 3x10, reverse hypers = 3x8, pull down abs = 5x10-15, straight leg raises = 5x15
This is NOT CrossFit, by my definition. (Not that it's a bad routine -- I didn't read over all of it, but I'm sure it's excellent)
I did use nice numbers so you couldn't call bull ****. If over 10% of the volume (and this is more than I've ever done) is in the 6+ rep range and not done in a highly intense cardio circuit, then it's not CrossFit.

Reko
05-08-2009, 07:01 PM
That said, RDLs and glute-ham raises are about as isolated as I would ever get for "weak point work" (maybe reverse hypers for just light injury prevention type stuff); comparatively, for upper body, dips and strict presses are as isolated as I'd ever get.

So, take a typical WSB program (http://www.elitefts.com/documents/9week-training-program.htm). This is the first one that came up on google.
Day 1: Glute ham raises = 3x10, reverse hypers = 3x8, pull down abs = 5x10-15, straight leg raises = 5x15
This is NOT CrossFit, by my definition. (Not that it's a bad routine -- I didn't read over all of it, but I'm sure it's excellent) I did use nice numbers so you couldn't call bull ****. If over 10% of the volume (and this is more than I've ever done) is in the 6+ rep range and not done in a highly intense cardio circuit, then it's not CrossFit.
So far this seems to be the only thing that separates CF from other templates. Especially given your other post about what you think CF (or a good training program, cant remember) encompasses.


Also - you forgot the good mornings, and the fact that this is Tate, as opposed to Louie. Not quite the same but close enough for the example I suppose.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 07:08 PM
Also - you forgot the good mornings, and the fact that this is Tate, as opposed to Louie. Not quite the same but close enough for the example I suppose.
I didn't mean to be dishonest by leaving out the good mornings, I just wanted to make sure I was clear. The good mornings for a max triple would be something that would fall into a CF template. But, that's the only exercise that would. And the other 4 exercises wouldn't.

Feel free to post up anything Louie's written out, or have me go through anyone's journal on here. I just picked the first example I saw.


So far this seems to be the only thing that separates CF from other templates. Especially given your other post about what you think CF (or a good training program, cant remember) encompasses.
What CF encompasses using the broad definition. I think great training programs (take, Westside, or MikeB's gym) can be found outside the CF principles.

And, yeah, I don't think it's wildly different programming. CF uses pretty much the same principles that a lot of quality training programs use. There are things in the S&C industry that we now know work. Westside was probably its biggest influence.

That said, look back 15(?) years and you'd see a lot of low intensity, long distance cardio, linear periodization, lots of isolated work, etc.
(If I forgot to mention it, the vast majority of the movements in any CF program will be compound)

WillKuenzel
05-08-2009, 07:27 PM
LMAO! I do tire flips so I must train Crossfit. Damn, and I didn't even know it.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 07:31 PM
HY, we are making serious progress here. Reko has actually taken the time to read what I'm saying and I think he's now accepting what I'm saying. CrossFit Football, CrossFit Strength Base, CrossFit Endurance, CrossFit Main-Site, and PMenu are all forms of CrossFit (along with the hundreds of utilizations across the country).
Nobody on this site (assuming they are not following one of those routines) trains CrossFit.

The differences might sound relatively minor, but the fact is that most great S&C approaches don't have amazingly different plans.

So lol you don't do cf just bc u do tire flips lmao

Also, we've almost reached the point where Sensei realizes the difference between a set of principles and a set-in-stone training routine, and sees that a principle can be broadly applicable.

Reko
05-08-2009, 07:36 PM
CrossFit Football, CrossFit Strength Base, CrossFit Endurance, CrossFit Main-Site, and PMenu are all forms of CrossFit (along with the hundreds of utilizations across the country).
Nobody on this site (assuming they are not following one of those routines) trains CrossFit.

And what I am trying to figure out, is if you were to read someone's log (who may or may not be doing the things above), what would tip you off as to weather or not it was a CF or CF variant routine or not?

Especially considering this:


The differences might sound relatively minor, but the fact is that most great S&C approaches don't have amazingly different plans.

which I will completely agree with.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 07:51 PM
And what I am trying to figure out, is if you were to read someone's log (who may or may not be doing the things above), what would tip you off as to weather or not it was a CF or CF variant routine or not?

I am pretty sure I noted this either in the other thread or this thread that the difference is almost always the rep work.

CF basically uses the WSB model, but it puts the rep work in cardio circuits. So, let's say your max jerk is 300lbs and you can do +150 on Pull-ups..

You might do your normal workout, then do 3 rounds of:
205lb jerks, 10 reps
+45lb chins, 10 reps
run 400m
And try to finish it as fast as you can. I guess you could bash it and say that it's just HIT and it doesn't work, but I've seen a lot of people make huge progress this way -- the key is that they have to conjugate their training.


Oh, and also, now that we are actually looking at it...
I think I can continue down this path without changing my summary of the system and still not find anyone on this site that trains CF, and I think I can still encompass all the CF site training, but I think I can make it a little more specific:

(1) Cardio circuits should be done with a focus on intensity -- i.e. being seriously gasping for air.
(2) Cardio circuits should, at least sometimes, utilize (a) bodyweight movements with real concentric/eccentric phases, (b) typical cardio work (I don't know what to call this -- running, swimming, biking, rowing), and (c) external resistance/weight movements .. all in the same cardio circuit.
(3) The reps on the cardio can be high or low, and the weight high or low (all depends on what you're trying to accomplish), but in the end you're coming close to "fully taxing" yourself on the exercise (i.e. almost hitting failure -- see: WSB repetition method)
(4) There is almost always a focus on explosive lifting. see: chad waterbury BS
(5) The vast majority of the lifting should be at 100% effort for your work sets, or for the totality of your work sets (i.e. if your 1rm clean is 275lbs, then 1x275 is max effort, and so is 245x5 and so is 235x5x5); exceptions: form work and when you are trying to peak.
(6) There is almost always a focus on compound movements.
(7) The training should not be linear. It should be somewhere between Ordinary Concurrent Periodization and Long Conjugate Periodization.
(8) I don't know enough about endurance training, but something about the fact that although you need to train every aspect of your competition (i.e. you do have to run miles, sometimes), intensity trumps long-slow ****
(9) Something about changing exercise selection consistently

All these principles can still be used for the vast majority of athletes. The one exception is that I don't think it's ideal for most all powerlifters.

Reko
05-08-2009, 07:58 PM
To me, then, the key difference is that it adds the element of training density as an accessory. That is what I was trying to figure out.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 08:03 PM
Yeah, definitely that, and I think something about being in oxygen debt when exerting yourself for the movements. That's what differentiates CF circuits from EDT type training.

This in mind, you can get strength gains here without doing high rep work. i.e. workouts like "King Kong"

YYay78n1dgE

WillKuenzel
05-08-2009, 08:07 PM
HY, we are making serious progress here. Reko has actually taken the time to read what I'm saying and I think he's now accepting what I'm saying. CrossFit Football, CrossFit Strength Base, CrossFit Endurance, CrossFit Main-Site, and PMenu are all forms of CrossFit (along with the hundreds of utilizations across the country).
Nobody on this site (assuming they are not following one of those routines) trains CrossFit.But do you not see how funny it is that, you take what people have been doing for years and "modify" just slightly and all of the sudden it's "Crossfit"? Where's Crossfit Westside?

It's like saying that conjugate periodization is westside and not the other way around. Or that any type of kettlebell work is Russian. You can't lump a program under something. Crossfit has done an amazing job at marketing itself. There are aspects of Crossfit I like, so don't take this that I'm negative against it. I just don't think that you can take so many different aspects of training and still think that it fits nicely under an umbrella of something else.

Not all running is endurance based. Not all football specific work is for linemen. Trying to specify the specific is just asinine.

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 08:31 PM
These modifications are "slight" but they are not insignificant. A CF implementation of powerlifting (again, this is the one sport I wouldn't recommend CF for) would be more different from Westside than Metal Militia. It's as different from Starting Strength as Wetside is, etc.

Are the principles very broad? Yes. I have said this from the start.
Does everyone use all the princples? No. Almost nobody does outside of people that know/intend to do it.

(Imo) The principles work really well together. You can take separate parts of them and they'll still be very effective, but it's kinda like Lyle MacDonald's diet/training schemes. One piece compliments the other.


Where's Crossfit [powerlifting]?
*******Well, yeah, that has been my point the whole damn thread.******
(I guess there were other points)

A broad training principle can be applied broadly. This was my response to Sensei's "kool aid" blog post. Routines should not be prescribed to everyone (i.e. a powerlifting program shouldn't be prescribed to an endurance runner). Principles (potentially) can be broadly prescribed. Sensei's blog post was not "people are saying everything is CrossFit." It was (basically) "CrossFit doesn't work for everyone." This was a direct response (I think? maybe that paired with Everett's article) to me recommending CrossFit Football in the other thread.


You can't lump a program under something.
What would be the preferred terminology for "25 different principles that I think you should utilize, that every CrossFit routine utilizes"?? I really don't see anything in your point.


Trying to specify the specific is just asinine.
Joe DeFranco "specifies the specific" to the same extent. He recommends that Football players use his WS4SB program. Several people have asked questions about Football training and people have simply recommended they follow DeFranco's stuff. Implicitly, you can use the stuff he outlines change it based on your weaknesses. This is the same **** as PMenu, CFF, etc.

A lot of CF athletes make their own programming based on the principles of CF. But, the fact is that if your goals align closely with one of the CF programs, then it's just very easy to implement their programs because you get several advantages (competition, and, you're not going to **** up and make a really bad program -- (and yeah I know what you're thinking)).

joey54
05-08-2009, 08:34 PM
I've increased my squat by 100 lbs during the time this thread has gone on. My goodness, at least you are passionate. If you train with half the intensity you defend crossfit with, you will certainly succeed, no matter what program you use.

Sensei
05-08-2009, 08:42 PM
Holy crap... I can't wait until there's CFWS... Could someone please lock this thread?

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 08:49 PM
At least let HY/Reko have a chance to respond.

And I don't know what your deal is with locking threads. If people want to stop discussing, then stop discussing.

A big part of your article was (implicitly) "you can't take CF and apply it to a bunch of different sports." This was right after I spent 4 pages in the other thread explaining the difference between a principle and a routine.
Now, I think at least a couple people understand what I was saying the whole damn time. And now you can understand why a principle can be broadly applied.

WillNoble
05-08-2009, 08:51 PM
lock please... stop the CF stupidity

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 08:53 PM
lock please... stop the CF stupidity

I think if you talk to Reko in person he could probably explain to you that what I have been saying this whole time makes perfect sense. Although we might need 1 more page to clear everything up. (i.e. so people get the fact that CF principles manifested into a training routine will be similar to already established, good programs, but different enough to warrant a unique terminology for the differences).

Sensei
05-08-2009, 08:58 PM
At least let HY/Reko have a chance to respond.

And I don't know what your deal is with locking threads. If people want to stop discussing, then stop discussing.

A big part of your article was (implicitly) "you can't take CF and apply it to a bunch of different sports." This was right after I spent 4 pages in the other thread explaining the difference between a principle and a routine.
Now, I think at least a couple people understand what I was saying the whole damn time. And now you can understand why a principle can be broadly applied.
Dude, you have a problem with definitions.... Shall I define "troll"? The thread wasn't about CF, but you made it so. I didn't want an argument, but you made it one.

You've taken broad "principles" (which are largely methods btw) and labeled them "CF principles". Apparently, anyone who uses circuits, with concurrent training in their fitness or S&C is using CF. Everyone gets that you love CF and, being so in love with it, you see it in everything. That's fine and I'm not bashing your love, so get over it and just accept that not everyone thinks it's God's answer to every need (even if it's coupled with appropriate SPP)...

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 09:17 PM
Apparently, anyone who uses circuits, with concurrent training in their fitness or S&C is using CF.
Nope. And on this very page other people realized this is incorrect, too!!


Everyone gets that you love CF and, being so in love with it, you see it in everything.
You've made it halfway. But you're missing the part that "not everything is CrossFit." I would re-read this page. Alternatively, you could give me examples of routines, and I could tell you the routines are not CrossFit and explain why.


accept that not everyone thinks it's God's answer to every need
This pretty much contradicts the 2 points above. If I am defining CF so broadly that it encompasses everything (note: I'm not; see above), then it pretty much is the answer to everything.

Principal(s) = the laws underlying the working of a device or system. Method works, too, though.


I didn't want an argument, but you made it one.
I've always been of the opinion that the adversarial system is great for uncovering knowledge.


You encouraged your blog's readers not to be like these people:
"A person who believes the answer to every training question is to follow the guidelines and principles stated (or unstated) by their chosen training/diet regimen."

I am not even arguing semantics here. You straight up said that you don't think fitness principles can be broadly applicable to all different athletes.
I used non-linear periodization from the start -- almost any athlete can benefit from it.

Sensei
05-08-2009, 09:23 PM
You encouraged your blog's readers not to be like these people:
"A person who believes the answer to every training question is to follow the guidelines and principles stated (or unstated) by their chosen training/diet regimen."Actually, no, I didn't. I said it's important to trust your training. But I DID say don't be an annoying evangelist, which is what you are.


I am not even arguing semantics here. You straight up said that you don't think fitness principles can be broadly applicable to all different athletes.I never said anything remotely like that.

Look buddy, NO ONE is agreeing with you here. Reko is just being civil. It's fine that you are still trying to construct the perfect CF model with brand new terms of your own design, but do you have to do it here, in this thread?

KingJustin
05-08-2009, 09:32 PM
You encouraged your blog's readers not to be like these people:
"A person who believes the answer to every training question is to follow the guidelines and principles stated (or unstated) by their chosen training/diet regimen."
Actually, no, I didn't.
Yeah, you said: "please, please, please don't become the annoying Kool-Aid evangelist... " which you defined as "A person who believes the answer to every training question is to follow the guidelines and principles stated (or unstated) by their chosen training/diet regimen."

Please respond to this because this is, again, unbelievable.



But I DID say don't be an annoying evangelist
This is directly, directly, directly, no-debate-whatsoever contradictory to your previous sentence.



Look buddy, NO ONE is agreeing with you here.
If people that are making 100% contradictory statements right next to each other disagree with me, then that doesn't mean much.

I really wish PowermanDL. He would do the same thing as me. It took him 8 pages one time to explain that just about anyone can squat 3x a week and make progress.

Travis Bell
05-08-2009, 09:34 PM
This is crazy LOL I leave for the evening and come back to several more pages.

Somewhere in here things turned trollish

Another thread that shall be locked :)