PDA

View Full Version : CF Games & CF (mainpage) Programming


Steven Low
07-08-2008, 07:29 PM
Okay, so I decided to actually make a new thread because I didn't really want to taint the congratulations thread. I have been thinking about this a bit over the past few days but here's something to think about:



Josh (if you read this) would you say that your CF games profile is an accurate representation of your training?

How am I preparing for the games? Nothing special really. My weakly schedule looks like this...

Monday: agility drills followed by either 30yd sprints with a sled or sprints on the track up to 300m... everything is with full recovery... no fatigue
Tuesday: about 45 min of O-lift training focusing on snatches and sn asst movements a few sets of light C&J. After this I do a wt room based Crossfit (no running)
Wed: Sprints: 40yds up to 150m again with full recovery
Thursday: 45min of O-lifting focused on C&J along with heavy squats. I follow this with a running based Crossfit
Friday: rest day
Saturday: heavy o-lift day sn, C&J, squat... I usually follow this up with either 3x10 L-chins or 1x40 regular chins

Basically I enjoy sprinting & O-lifting so it makes up the bulk of my training. I'm ignoring training for the distance run because I felt like doing that last year really wore me down and I couldn't have run any worse than what I did anyways. As far as being mentally prepared... mostly I'm just visualizing my self being successful...also thinking of any and all possible wods and how I would attack them. The toughest part for me will be convincing myself to compete on the run... I have no interest in running over 200m competitively.

If that's the case, then since Josh doesn't really do CF WODs either:

1. There is a flaw in CF programming (whereby people who don't follow mainpage can get good at FITNESS)

2. You can get good at FITNESS without actually doing "CF" (as in a majority of "metcons"). This may actually go along with Gant's hybrid thread and MEBB routines for those weaker individuals who need more strength "before" fitness... but that may be another argument altogether.

This opens another question actually which is were this CF games and last years an accurate respresentation of gauging "fitness" or rather "increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains." I would argue yes, they were an accurate respresentation but this could be another whole thread in itself.

Basically, if yes the CF games were an accurate respresentation, then we have an incident where [1] CF (mainpage) does not necessarily "optimally" produce fitness or [2] FITNESS may be derived from multiple pathways not just CF programming. Might be a combination of the two, but I'm leaning towards #1 at the moment just because I've seen the effect lots of strength can have very easily on metcon ability (aka Donnie's grace).

Thoughts?


Edit: I realize prior training pre CF or athletic background is definitely a big one. One of the main problems with analyzing CF right now is most of the elite "CFers" have athletic/strength backgrounds. This may also play a factor seeing as how strength is harder to gain while conditioning is fairly easy to obtain. But I don't think this is a major factor in the argument above.

Steve Liberati
07-08-2008, 08:05 PM
I would say the CF mainsite programming is more for the slightly above average crossfitter/athlete, whereas the more advanced/seasoned athletes deviate from the mainpage favoring more strength and power work and less on conditioning. This seems to be more and more evident as you allude in your post.

However, I do wonder if the workouts selected for this year's CrossFit Games (Fran, Heavy Grace, Deads/Burpees) adequately represented the ten physical skills that define fitness. Hard to argue how much strength influenced the results of the event. Would the outcome be the same if "Angie" "Cindy" or "Murphy" was in there?

While someone who is really strong (like Josh) has a big advantage in a strength dominated event (as with a heavy grace or Fran), I wonder how of an effect strength has on met-con style workouts. Probably not nearly as much.

So IF we know for sure that future CF Game heats will strongly favor strength based workouts, then YES people can get good at fitness (and increase their odds of winning) without following the main page.

But if we assume there is the same chance of a metcon workout being selected as a strength based workout, I doubt training for strength alone will be enough come out on top.

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-08-2008, 08:14 PM
I am no where near an expert but I belive as good as I am at metcon wods I will improve more by strength training right now than if i follow CF main page. My gut has been telling me that for a while and the logic behind "the higher my maximum strength becoms the easier multiple reps of any lighter weights will be" really feeds into my intuition. Anyway I am gonna chance it. My goal is to get back into CF main page on a regular basis by march. i really belive I will have improved my Grace, Fran, and Diane through my strength training more than I would have otherwise, we will see what happens to my Cindy, Mary, and Angie.

Interesting thread can't wait to see what people say.

Patrick Donnelly
07-08-2008, 08:19 PM
Anyone who believes the CFWOD is the optimal fitness program is delusional. It's a cookie-cutter program, which works pretty damn well for a lot of people (like the Zone diet), but it's not specifically tailored to get everyone to perfection.

Steven Low
07-08-2008, 08:29 PM
Steve:

Ah yes, the thing I forgot was the level of programming (how foolish of me). If the WODs are for an "above average" CFer or whatever since we already have scaled workouts should something be advocated in a novice/intermediate/advanced/elite format?

True, the hopper could have been much more interesting. But lest we forget lots of strength applied towards metcon/endurance lends itself to great increases in conditioning/endurance in a very short time. I would be willing to bet that most of the people within the top 20 would still be there albeit the standings would just get mixed around a bit.

And strength alone definitely not. As you can see Everett's training he does have some semblance of conditioning from "some" CF and sprinting.


Patrick:

This is true. Everyone is different and responds different to different methodology. For example, some people can't handle 3/1 even with optimal sleep and nutrition.

I would ignore this for now though since we can't tailor everything to everyone. Look at it from a general perspective -- what kind of programming for instance would get the majority (or most) people the fittest. Is that indicative of CF main page or should it be modified to something else?

Chris Salvato
07-08-2008, 08:53 PM
I am no where near an expert but I belive as good as I am at metcon wods I will improve more by strength training right now than if i follow CF main page.

This brings up an interesting point that I have been mulling around for a few months.

People who get into the metcon program of crossfit see the benefits but usually drop out of main page programming after 3-8 months. After this time, people USUALLY jump on their own sort of program to acheive other, more personal goals....like increasing O-lift 1RM/5RM or obtaining gymnastics skills like planche, iron cross, front lever, etc.

It seems like the WOD page is made just to hook people into crossfit. The real crossfit methodology, behind the scenes of the WODS, seems to be finding what works best for the individual to increase performance across all domains.

One flaw with this method is that it is understated. People can go on doing WODs for several months or years without ever identifying personal goals -- just continuing to metcon for no particular reason.

Another flaw, that is kind of off topic, is that the main page WOD programming fails to address some key skills that Coach puts into his "World Class Fitness in 100 Words"

Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and no sugar. Keep intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat. Practice and train major lifts: Deadlift, clean, squat, presses, C&J, and snatch. Similarly, master the basics of gymnastics: pull-ups, dips, rope climb, push-ups, sit-ups, presses to handstand, pirouettes, flips, splits, and holds. Bike, run, swim, row, etc, hard and fast. Five or six days per week mix these elements in as many combinations and patterns as creativity will allow. Routine is the enemy. Keep workouts short and intense. Regularly learn and play new sports.

Very few, if any, crossfit enthusiasts work their basic gymnastics including presses to handstand, pirouettes, flips, splits and holds. Not only are these hard to test in something like the games but they are hard to explicitly program into a WOD for the masses.

My main point is that it takes the participant to realize that they will hit a point in their CF training where they will NEED to deviate from metcons and create/use a program that is more tailored to their personal goals.

josh everett
07-08-2008, 09:25 PM
Yes that accurately reflects my training. That program would not have your avg person prepared for the crossfit games or get them to their "peak" fitness level. I'm 33 years old and aside from recovering from surgeries I have never been out of shape since i was about 13 years old. Because of my consistant fitness levels and track background for over 20 years I need to do much less met-con than the avg joe.
Yes there were people who were fit (even by crossfit standards) before www.crossfit, yes there are people who are fit that do not follow crossfit. BUT i challange you to name another program that has gotten more people fit than crossfit, and that has improved the fitness of our military personell like crossfit. The program works... can anyone name someone that has done more for fitness than Greg Glassman?... Maybe bob hoffman?
Also my efforts this weekend killed me... I was on my back after each event from 20-60min... those that followed the wod were up and around within 5minutes.

josh everett
07-08-2008, 09:29 PM
don't forget I lost the last 2 years to guys that follow CF programing.

Steven Low
07-08-2008, 09:46 PM
Josh:

Yeah, not arguing that CF has gotten people fit and is probably at the moment one of the best if not the best program in the world for that. I'm just wondering if a difference in CF programming can get people "more" fit in the same amount of time that it does now.

I mean, we've seen the tendency at the moment with bringing in Mark Rippetoe that there's more strength bias to the workouts. Would further biasing produce a better effect?

And also the guys you lost to also had backgrounds in athletics or strength so I mean focusing that especially strength towards conditioning/endurance is going to exhibit very quick adaptations. One of the other things I was wondering about is when someone with a non-athletic, non-strength background will be able to compete with the CF "elite" if ever.

Gant Grimes
07-09-2008, 07:27 AM
Glad you brought it up, Steven. I've been thinking this since Josh was profiled after last year's Games. Any comments I would make here are in my log or related threads from the past six months.

A couple points:

1) Like Josh says, main page CF is the best out-of-the box program for developing GPP in the average person.

2) Being stronger gives you a greater metcon capacity, especially as the weights get heavier.

3) 155# C&J at 30 reps is not a pure strength workout. As Dale Saran said on the CF forums, it takes a terrible metcon toll on the body. Strength is necessary but not sufficient.

4) Finally, and most importantly, Josh and the people who are great at this stuff are exceptional athletes, not athletes in the "fitness as sport" sense, but in the actual do-something-athletic sense. If you took any all-conference D1 outside linebacker and had him CF for a year, he would finish in the top 10.

Besides football and track, I imagine Josh can hold his own playing softball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, or whatever else. Genetically, he is a better human than most of the others. Most won't get to be Josh Everett, regardless of the amount of training, supplementation, or whatever else they do. Sorry. That's life.

Mike ODonnell
07-09-2008, 07:48 AM
Besides football and track, I imagine Josh can hold his own playing softball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, or whatever else. Genetically, he is a better human than most of the others. Most won't get to be Josh Everett, regardless of the amount of training, supplementation, or whatever else they do. Sorry. That's life.

Get some skates on Josh and let's see you play some ice hockey! Ha.

Actually he would probably have a wicked shot.....

Gant...such the dream crusher.....but alas yes, some people have the "gift"...and then others play in men's league along side me. Which goes to say....people should just focus on their own performance and happiness in what they do...otherwise they may spend an eternity trying to be something they are not....or were not meant to be. Role models are great inspiration...but should not be a measurement for personal comparison...unless you like feeling inferior all the time. Which goes along with....find your strengths...and go with that. The world needs less people average at everything...and more people who excel at one thing...no matter what it is. Make your training reflect that as CF is a great tool to use, but also training must have specific focus on your area of expertise you are trying to accomplish (sport specific, etc). Like any tool....it can be used the wrong way or just way too much....as you don't run around with just a hammer thinking it will do everything from clean windows to iron your clothes.

Gant Grimes
07-09-2008, 08:13 AM
That explains why my house is breezy and my shirts have holes in them.

Garrett Smith
07-09-2008, 08:36 AM
The PMenu article from Josh and I about his preparations will be forthcoming...
:)

Josh's workouts right now are very sustainable over the long term. I still have my doubts about full-on mainpage WODs. The burnout rate is way too high.

David Stout
07-09-2008, 11:33 AM
The PMenu article from Josh and I about his preparations will be forthcoming...
:)

Josh's workouts right now are very sustainable over the long term. I still have my doubts about full-on mainpage WODs. The burnout rate is way too high.

I eagerly await that article.

I fall exactly where some of you mentioned and am now trying to find my way through all of this stuff.

Pat McElhone
07-09-2008, 02:06 PM
Anyone who believes the CFWOD is the optimal fitness program is delusional. It's a cookie-cutter program, which works pretty damn well for a lot of people (like the Zone diet), but it's not specifically tailored to get everyone to perfection.


I believe the vast majority of people who think they can develop a program for "optimal" fitness that is better then the CFHQ WOD are delusional.

Dave Van Skike
07-09-2008, 02:30 PM
I believe the vast majority of people who think they can develop a program for "optimal" fitness that is better then the CFHQ WOD are delusional.

I think delusions are optimal and fitness is optional, further I think vast is optimal.

Gant Grimes
07-09-2008, 02:54 PM
Anyone who believes the CFWOD is the optimal fitness program is delusional. It's a cookie-cutter program, which works pretty damn well for a lot of people (like the Zone diet), but it's not specifically tailored to get everyone to perfection.

I believe the vast majority of people who think they can develop a program for "optimal" fitness that is better then the CFHQ WOD are delusional.

You are both correct.

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Get some skates on Josh and let's see you play some ice hockey! Ha.

Actually he would probably have a wicked shot.....

Gant...such the dream crusher.....but alas yes, some people have the "gift"...and then others play in men's league along side me. Which goes to say....people should just focus on their own performance and happiness in what they do...otherwise they may spend an eternity trying to be something they are not....or were not meant to be. Role models are great inspiration...but should not be a measurement for personal comparison...unless you like feeling inferior all the time. Which goes along with....find your strengths...and go with that. The world needs less people average at everything...and more people who excel at one thing...no matter what it is. Make your training reflect that as CF is a great tool to use, but also training must have specific focus on your area of expertise you are trying to accomplish (sport specific, etc). Like any tool....it can be used the wrong way or just way too much....as you don't run around with just a hammer thinking it will do everything from clean windows to iron your clothes.


That is the most reasonable thing I have seen posted in this thread so far. Why can't we all just be and enjoy being? Wheather CF is the ultimate or not its deffinatly effective and to a degree that surpasses any other program which is taylored for the masses. Lets just let it be, and rejoice in its trials and triumphs.

Chris Bate
07-09-2008, 04:42 PM
That is the most reasonable thing I have seen posted in this thread so far. Why can't we all just be and enjoy being? Wheather CF is the ultimate or not its deffinatly effective and to a degree that surpasses any other program which is taylored for the masses. Lets just let it be, and rejoice in its trials and triumphs.

This is getting really philosophical, lol.

Steven Low
07-09-2008, 05:43 PM
Well, since we kinda got off topic, let's just say the main question is this:

Should CF main page programming be modified (or have different ability levels.. kind of like scaling -- possibly more strength work for beginners for example) such that it would "obtain" the ability to make people more fit in the same given amount of time as the previous main page programming? Why or why not?

Jordan Glasser
07-09-2008, 06:13 PM
it is scaled and should be modified. In beginners, so that one can learn how to safely execute the movements. And, it is generally accepted that specializing will be necessary in programming to help one's deficiencies, or, for those who are more advanced and seek improvement. ie, gymnastics or olympic weightlifting.

One thing I wanted to say earlier in this thread is that the following the WOD leading up to the games was a death trap. Anyone seriously competing should have been considering tapering before the event. But the WOD's leading up to the event were up difficult and taxing. That alone could have made an impact on results.

Chris Bate
07-09-2008, 07:11 PM
Well, since we kinda got off topic, let's just say the main question is this:

Should CF main page programming be modified (or have different ability levels.. kind of like scaling -- possibly more strength work for beginners for example) such that it would "obtain" the ability to make people more fit in the same given amount of time as the previous main page programming? Why or why not?

I think the inclusion of a scaling system similar to BrandX's would be a very reasonable addition (minus all the funny names). I don't see many reasons NOT to, and the benefits would be many:

1) From a marketing standpoint, it's easier for people to just jump right in.
2) Keeps beginners safe.
3) Allows some sort of progression (you're "Level one" at first then "level two", etc)

IMO, the more you can individualize the program and address weaknesses the faster people will become more "fit". An easy way to do this is simply say "beginners do X and intermediates do Y". Granted, people will have different needs at each level, but it's something to work off of.

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-09-2008, 08:08 PM
This is getting really philosophical, lol.

sorry I guess I got kinda silly with my last post. Crossfit has really changed my athletic ability in such an excellerated mannor I am a little bit fantical.

Steven i agree that beginers without a strength back ground may need a period of focus in strength training that is what i am finaly doing after 8 months of CF main page and always having to scale the lifts or be held back by my failiers.


When reading the CF journal I do get the impression they expect some straying from the main page for developement of special skills or improving weaknesses do to the content of many of their articles.

Dave Paton
07-09-2008, 08:56 PM
sorry I guess I got kinda silly with my last post. Crossfit has really changed my athletic ability in such an excellerated mannor I am a little bit fantical.

Steven i agree that beginers without a strength back ground may need a period of focus in strength training that is what i am finaly doing after 8 months of CF main page and always having to scale the lifts or be held back by my failiers.


When reading the CF journal I do get the impression they expect some straying from the main page for developement of special skills or improving weaknesses do to the content of many of their articles.

Liam,

I am curious, how has CF changed your athletic ability? What sports did you do before CF and what has changed in those sports? I am not trying to be condescending or anything, i am just wondering.

Derek Weaver
07-09-2008, 10:41 PM
When reading the CF journal I do get the impression they expect some straying from the main page for developement of special skills or improving weaknesses do to the content of many of their articles.

Liam,
In one of the CFJ's, I think it was the one on tumbling and referenced some old time navy handbook (which looked awesome by the way) they noted that their athletes at CFHQ will spend time on a prolonged warm up to help develop these skills.

The problem though, is that many people don't have time for much more than the CF WOD (well, nearly everyone has at least more time, they just don't realize they do).

Also, like you said, not many people jump in with the necessary strength. Thus they are scaling and adjusting for a very long time. I just read another post by Coach Rut on the CF Total article's comments noting that his MEBB variation seems to do the trick just fine in terms of getting an athlete ready for CF "as rx'd".

I would actually start everyone on either SS or MEBB depending on where they were. Underweight and very weak athletes would go the SS route. Those who were close and could benefit from a nice mix would get the MEBB route.

Once they were at the advanced level for strength, they'd go as rx'd if that was their interest.

Just my take on the whole thing.

Peter Dell'Orto
07-10-2008, 01:35 AM
Should CF main page programming be modified (or have different ability levels.. kind of like scaling -- possibly more strength work for beginners for example) such that it would "obtain" the ability to make people more fit in the same given amount of time as the previous main page programming? Why or why not?

I think it would benefit from:

- scaling, like BrandX, on the main page, in the WOD posting. Some guidelines where "what you should be scoring to move up" would help. Linda is a good example - you need to be able to 10-rep 1.5x your bodyweight in a DL, bw bench, and .75 bw clean to have a real shot at doing it as RXed. But what's a good guideline for someone new to CF to know where to start it? What's sufficient? You must scale if you can't do it as RXed but it's hard to know what to scale it to until you've tried it a few times. That makes entry sub-optimal...you're pretty unlikely to just estimate correctly what to scale it to. Knowing when to scale up is important, too. If I can nail Fran in 3 minutes (I can't), is getting it to 2:59 better than scaling up the weight on the thrusters and putting on a vest for the pullups and taking longer? Which is more in line with the aims of programming that particular workout?
Can't expect a beginner to know. I don't know and I'm not a newbie.
Simplefit is a good example of this - 8 levels, advice on how to judge when to change levels, and a couple levels of "advanced" programming for people who top out on the introductory workouts. Good stuff, and I think that's a useful model to examine.

- more of a strength-and-technique focus for beginners. I wouldn't mind seeing Starting Strength workouts in there, so you're telling beginners "Either do Grace, or if you're on the starting SS workout do workout A today." Or an MEBB approach integrated into the main page or a sub-page. It's easier to do this combined with scaling. You don't feel like a workout wimp if you're doing some real strength work/gymnastic work and then doing "Grace" with a piece of PVC. You do if you're coming from another workout background and you're expected to just do 30 PVC C&Js and call it a day.

- More on deloading and intensity cycling. I think people burn out and get hurt because it's easy to push too hard for too long. Direct and repeated advice about when to have easy weeks (and how to do them!) would go a long way. I don't think everyone can sustain 3-1 forever. Knowing that actual rest is beneficial and improves your results long-term is critical, I think. Taking a day off or doing a week of low-intensity work isn't falling off the wagon or bagging a workout, it's taking care of your long-term success.

I dunno, maybe I'd complicate it too much. But I think there is already much of this complication out there, it's just not very accessible. If you just go for the main page WOD and follow it rigorously, you're potentially cruising for injury/exhaustion, hitting sub-optimal results from either scaling too much or not enough (up or down), and missing out better long-term results by focusing on strength early if you're lacking it. In my opinion, anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I like crossfit, I did the main page WOD as best I could (lots of equipment and running subs...) for a while. It helps inform my training routine and I use many of the "Girls" as workouts. I just think it's a little complex and potentially problematic for new trainees. I happily tell my friends to go to the Crossfit affiliate near where I used to live - I know Rob Isza will do right by them. I'm very happy to show them simplefit.org, and say "go there and do that." But crossfit, well, unless someone is a serious trainer I worry they'll be in over their heads trying to keep up, knowing how to scale and what to sub, etc. It's a significant investment in effort, where I know something like simplefit is already scaled, and in-person training will have the benefit of a coach doing hands-on teacher.

Anyway, just my opinion. Hope that's useful and reasonably on-topic, because it sure ain't short.

Timothy Holmes
07-10-2008, 05:03 AM
From what I can gather, most people following the Main Page simply warmup and do the WOD, which currently includes zero skill work (the WOD doesn't count) and the most basic of gymnastics. Surely, it could be included.

I remember sometime ago (not sure how long) there was a WOD posted: 'Devote one hour to handstand practice.' Does anyone else remember that?

----------------

I like where you are going, Peter. Makes perfect sense to me. 'Tis hard to implement though, so many variables and guidelines...

Regarding affiliates and handling of clients, a class is not just a supervised WOD.

Ken Manning
07-10-2008, 05:05 AM
Peter -

Excellent response. I seriously doubt the ideas you presented in that last post would "complicate" things too much considering the already vast integration of different training modalities often in one workout (Oly lifts/powerflifts/ gymnastics, etc..).

I personally believe that more of a "programming" element would benefit the CFHQ WOD greatly. Now, that's my OPINION. I had been performing the CF WOD religiously since January of this year. I began with a decent strength base, for example I had a 425 unbelted raw DL and a 170 SOHP. Those numbers have dropped dramatically and my metcon times, although they improved for some time after beginning, have also stalled out. Essentially, instead of deloading or reducing intensity, etc., I just kept hammering away, and ended up burned out. After reading about Gant's hybrid programming and some similar ideas on strengthmill.com, I'm restructuring a program for myself with a pre-programmed strength emphasis and 3 short, intense CF metcons/week (performed after weight training sessions). After reading Rip's Practical Programming book (about a dozen times over), I realize that my recovery was lacking and that, although "routine is the enemy" according to Glassman, having progressive-strength goals is most likely a good thing, at least for me.

JW Luckett
07-10-2008, 05:39 AM
We have a new diagnostic paradigm, Delusional A and Delusional B.

Delusional A: Crossfit is the optimal fitness program for everyone.

Delusional B: Individuals can develop a program for "optimal" fitness that is better than the CFHQ WOD.

I am delusional B.

Timothy Holmes:

I remember that WOD, "devote one hour to handstand practice." I'd guess that was about 2004 or 2005. I also remember "virtual shovelling." That was good for a laugh.

Pat McElhone
07-10-2008, 06:03 AM
Liam,

I am curious, how has CF changed your athletic ability? What sports did you do before CF and what has changed in those sports? I am not trying to be condescending or anything, i am just wondering.

I will jump in about how CF has changed my athletic ability. I am a recreational soccer player. I play in the competitive division of my suburb's park district. I have been following the CFHQ WODs for a year. In the past 3 months, I have begun moving into a hybrid program based on the MEBB. Rather then moving daily between CF, ME, Oly lifts, I do a week of CFHQ WODs, a week of slow lifts, a week of CFHQ, then a week of CA WODs. I do not necessarily follow a 4 week template, just move on when I feel like it. I post under the name x66F.

CF does train across broad time and modal domains. When you do a WOD you are moving through all 3 energy pathways and through all ranges of muscle endurance..max effort, low rep, high rep etc. In soccer you do the exact same thing. I have seen my ability to explode off the ball improve, this is quickness. Also, my ability to do a full effort run down of the ball, followed my another and then another improve (recovery). My agility has improved. I think this is due to learing coordinate movements of the olifts, gymnastics and jumping rope. I have experienced no cramping or muscle pulls or any other injuries in the last 3 seasons, it is amazing how many adult men playing sports "pull" muscles. Finally, I have scored more goals since starting CF.

In defense of CF, while the following is said alot "just do the WOD" almost everyone I know associated with CF (local affiliates and reading all the journal articles) advocates the WODs being the center of a training session, but not the entire training session. A CFHQ WOD session for me (and I believe most) is a warm-up, a few minutes on skill development and then the WOD. If someone just does the WOD and only the WOD, they will never be able to do many of them "as Rx'd". A few examples: I do not know of anyone who has done a muscle-up without practicing them. Another move is the double under. Both of these are main CFHQ exercises and someone has to devote time and effort aside from "just doing the WOD" to learn them.

Pat McElhone
07-10-2008, 06:16 AM
This post is not aimed at any one person.
If so many people think they can do a better job at helping people achieve optimal fitness why don't they start their own fitness program. Seriously, what is stopping you? Hang out your internet shingle and do it.

Greg Glassman did. You can too. Put it out there and if it is really good and really works people will find it. Many people have found Crossfit, Performance Menu and Dragondoor.

Put it out there, encourage people to post times, scores, loss of body fat, what ever variable you want to track. Then follow these people over time and watch their improvement. Then take this information of how much people following your program have improved versus Crossfit, or PM, or what ever.

John Alston
07-10-2008, 06:31 AM
I remember that WOD, "devote one hour to handstand practice." I'd guess that was about 2004 or 2005. I also remember "virtual shovelling." That was good for a laugh.

Virtual shoveling? Do tell. Was there a video?

Allen Yeh
07-10-2008, 06:47 AM
Virtual shoveling? Do tell. Was there a video?

It sucked, I do remember this workout.

Video as requested:
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/000816.html


Workout:
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/000927.html

I did this in 21:09 almost 3 years ago back in my following the WOD days.

JW Luckett
07-10-2008, 06:50 AM
Pat McElhone:

Delusional B refers to individuals developing programs for themselves. Sorry that wasn't clear enough.

Certainly the world has enough Awesome Internet Fitness sites. I would never encourage the hanging out of more internet shingles.


John Alston : It was 2005. I only saw it occur once.

http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/000816.html

Allen Yeh
07-10-2008, 06:50 AM
A reminder to all, discussing different models and ideal models of fitness is fine but some people are skirting the lines of polite discussion.

John Alston
07-10-2008, 07:05 AM
RE: Shoveling

OK, I see... well, not all experiments are worth repeating.

But did you see this?

I had been thinking of virtual shoveling for a workout. Glad I don't have to plan it since you guys did it for me!
Comment #1 - Posted by: beth at October 2, 2005 6:35 PM

That can't be real.

Garrett Smith
07-10-2008, 07:15 AM
Just as there is no one proper way to prepare ALL athletes for OL, PL, or gymnastics competition, there is no one proper way to prepare ALL athletes for "fitness as sport". That should make sense.

Upon figuring out what an athlete's strengths/weaknesses are, learning about their current adrenal & CNS state, and tailoring their programming around that, no two people would likely come up with the same program (assuming they had a decent coach).

As the CF Games get bigger, you will find fewer athletes interested in "broad fitness" and more interested in winning the competition. The two definitely lead to different training programs. This is the nature of competitive sport. This will also lead to more folks following customized programming--regardless of which of the above goals they are after.

The interest in the Hybrid Programming that Gant and I have presented speaks volumes.

John Alston
07-10-2008, 07:22 AM
This post is not aimed at any one person.
If so many people think they can do a better job at helping people achieve optimal fitness why don't they start their own fitness program. Seriously, what is stopping you? Hang out your internet shingle and do it.

Greg Glassman did. You can too. Put it out there and if it is really good and really works people will find it. Many people have found Crossfit, Performance Menu and Dragondoor.

Put it out there, encourage people to post times, scores, loss of body fat, what ever variable you want to track. Then follow these people over time and watch their improvement. Then take this information of how much people following your program have improved versus Crossfit, or PM, or what ever.

Hey man, a couple things.
One, I think people have shown well enough there are other ways to get high results. I won't use optimal, because that, to me, isn't really a valuable term, because it will vary often for individual's goals, too undefined.
As for hanging a shingle and all that, getting thousands involved - that's business, man. Xfit rakes in huge amount of dough, hundreds of affiliates and hundreds of people doing certs for thousands of dollars. People love the program, community, etc., and happily pay plenty for it. Great for the people who run that part of it.
But to run a counter program, and do comparison, is pretty unworthy of consideration as an experiment - the realm of control would be around zero.

Mike ODonnell
07-10-2008, 07:32 AM
Certainly the world has enough Awesome Internet Fitness sites. I would never encourage the hanging out of more internet shingles.

I got one more shingle to hang out very soon. :) Although that's what I do, but it's more towards the "general public" and motivating them.

With that being said....you can never have enough programs....as looking around the general public need serious help. Hell even Curves had it's place in helping overweight women....would I recommend it to someone? Probably not....did it help people that wouldn't have done anything otherwise? Quite possibly.

There is plenty of room in the market for all types of idea....millions of people out there that need something to motivate. Although I will never say one way is the only (or right) way.....every program is important if it helps in some manner (or you can take away things to apply to your own program variation). Those that want to defend their own program as better than everyone else....well that's a personal need to be right and better than everyone else. I could care less who is right, only that people get results. Now time to go take my hammer and make some eggs.

Steven Low
07-10-2008, 09:15 AM
Thanks for the great discussion guys.

I *personally* think it will come down to individualized goals and the strength and weaknesses of different people. It seems that bringing up those weaknesses (such as OPT doing specific work in Oly this past year -- although judging from CF games might not have helped him as much as he liked) may be much better for elite levels. Speal might do better putting on some muscle mass and becoming stronger. Shrug. Really depends on what the person wants to accomplish and what they don't.

I personally don't really have a vested interest in too much since I'm probably not going to do CF mainpage WODs again, but I do think it's something important to think about. Well, not necessarily to get up the balls to run a workout that I think is better; however, like Peter said with all the suggestions of proper scaling, technique, loading, intensity, etc. it would be a good idea for CF to incoporate aspects such as these within their main page WOD. Or something like that.

Dave Van Skike
07-10-2008, 09:49 AM
I've got one. Whole new polytheisitic fitness cult scammed entirely from last month's Ironmind mailer...

Today we kneel at the feet of Strossen...

WAD: Do 20 reps of squat continuously with a weight you know you can do for 10....Drink one gallon of milk.

Tommorow is Steve Justa:

WAD....shoulder an oil barrel 50 times right side, 50 times left side.....

John Alston
07-10-2008, 09:59 AM
I love it, Dave! But to sell it in huge numbers you gotta be able to show pics of ab gods and goddesses on your main page.

Dave Van Skike
07-10-2008, 10:07 AM
I love it, Dave! But to sell it in huge numbers you gotta be able to show pics of ab gods and goddesses on your main page.

Check! I'm perfectly placed for a fitness revolution...

A local FBI dust up with "gentleman's clubs" has left a great many young ladies out of work...

to do list:

place craigslist ad....

get my hands on some anavar...

create top secret training lair....

hire videographer....

Let the Certs begin!

Peter Dell'Orto
07-10-2008, 07:57 PM
Just as there is no one proper way to prepare ALL athletes for OL, PL, or gymnastics competition, there is no one proper way to prepare ALL athletes for "fitness as sport". That should make sense.

It makes sense that a "one size fits all" model really doesn't. But the problem of how to do an assessment of what a given trainee needs without requiring them to be under a coach's supervision is a tricky one. It's hard to self-assess, even if you're totally honest with yourself and are really knowledgeable. Translating that to a daily workout on a webpage is hard.

I think that's probably why I like simplefit so much. It gives you a progression to start with, so you don't come into an evolving WOD cycle with ever-changing programming. Assessment is much simpler with a more limited number of exercises. But then again, progress is probably more limited if you're doing just bodyweight work.

MEBB/Simplefit, that's the answer. :D

As the CF Games get bigger, you will find fewer athletes interested in "broad fitness" and more interested in winning the competition. The two definitely lead to different training programs.

That debate should be interesting - what if folks find the way to best win the CF games is to not do CF, but to do specific programming? I suspect that will be the case; top-end athletes doing the CF WOD as written on the main page are probably not going to remain top-end for long. It's assured to deviate from what they need, either overshooting or undershooting their own training. Plus, you'll want to peak for the games, which suggests a different approach to intensity cycling and periodization than the main page WOD can deliver. Then you'll have the issue of CF "monsters" are those people who don't do CF as written. Will that fracture the CF community, or will the WOD get modified, or will this be seen as appropriate specialization for an athlete with specific needs? I'd hope it would be the last of those, just seeing that CF is a modality or concept of training, not a specific usage of the WOD.

I think of the example of BJ Penn doing Crossfit. He's a professional fighter. I'd be stunned if he came out and said he trained the Crossfit WOD as written on the main page on a 3-on 1-off schedule. It's a great way to workout and improve your fitness, but is it the best way to peak for a fight, combined with a regimented program of physically demanding skill training? I'd be surprised if anyone said yes. Even the SOF versions of the CF workouts are programmed differently.

So perhaps that's what I've suggested earlier - including scaling, strength work, and levels of assessment, and using the WOD more as a "figured example" than as a workout for everyone, everywhere, needing to improve anything.

Steven Low
07-10-2008, 09:38 PM
I like your ideas Peter. :)

Derek Weaver
07-10-2008, 11:40 PM
I have to disagree with the idea that the best way to win the Games is to program more specifically. Sure, if you're deficient in an area you'll want to bring up your weakness, but that's theoretically part of the foundation of CF... work what you hate and/or suck at.

Josh said himself that he finished 3rd and 2nd respectively to guys that mainly follow the main site WOD. He also noted that they were recovered much quicker on average.

I think that Josh is a poor example because he is a more of a natural monster who had an incredible capacity built up from being a high level track and football athlete in the past.

Not to say that someone who follows more of a MEBB or some other schedule can't or won't win the games, but I have to believe that since the schedule isn't known for much time beforehand that the only way to prepare is to be very good at almost everything, but great at almost nothing.

Colm OReilly
07-11-2008, 03:05 AM
I can't understand people getting upset at this topic. CF is evolving, and surely the games will push that evolution? The original thrust of CF was "functional movements, high intensity, constantly varied". Cool. Now we've accepted that - isn't it only right we use the massive amounts of data available (from the games and everybody else 'tweaking') to discover better and better ways of implementing FM,HI,CV --> if that's shorter, heavier, workouts, dedicated strength/gymnastic work, more/less sport, more/less running/weights/whatever, isn't that a good thing?

Peter Dell'Orto
07-11-2008, 05:50 AM
I like your ideas Peter. :)

Thank you.:o

Sadly I've got a lot of good ideas but a crappy back squat and asthma. So I don't think I'll be running my own website yet. :D

Peter Dell'Orto
07-11-2008, 05:58 AM
I can't understand people getting upset at this topic. (....) isn't that a good thing?

I think it is a good thing, but it's also easy to get upset. If you've been pushing yourself on CF for a while, and you've invested a lot of sweat, tears, pain, injury, and vomit in it...it's going to make it hard to say "Gee, if I'd done it differently I could have done it better." Sunk costs and all of that.

No one likes to find out the One True Way they followed wasn't. Not saying anyone here is this way, but I think it's true. On another message board I'm on, new people frequently ask for workout advice. A common reaction to "your workout sucks and you should change it" is for people to defend it. I've done it, too, even though I was asking for advice on how to change it for the better. So it's very easy for CF to be an emotional topic for people. I suspect if Steven Low asked this same question on the CF boards, he'd get a larger proportion of heated replies. I could be wrong, of course. But I'd think it would be more of a trigger topic there than here. The approach here, and the posters here, seem to be more open to tinkering with the process.

Craig Van De Walker
07-11-2008, 07:33 AM
My rambling thoughts on the matter.

I may be odd but I don't necessarily consider CF the main page workout. I consider CF the philosophy behind the workout. The philosophy I learned when studying for my black belt was that after a long period of training (4 years for me) after obtaining my black belt I was to assume greater responsibility for determining my future training. I would assume Coach Glassman may have something similar in mind for high level CFers but that is only an assumption on my part.

I think that there are people who would benefit from significant alteration of the WOD for example if one individual was genetically biased to have a baseline strength and muscle mass 3 or more standard deviations above the norm, that person may want to skip most of the strength work if they want the best overall balance in performance. Conversely you may have someone on the opposite side who even if he concentrates on a heavy ME schedule does not get very strong, hence the desired habit of measuring your own progress and your own improvement. Most of us wont DL what Anthony B does even weighing 20 or 30 lbs more than he does, that is just the way it is. I am not encouraging excuses just being realistic. Heck I have been trying to get a one armed pullup for almost three years, a friend of mine while in high school got one just messing around, talk about genetic differences in strength...

I think the more advanced a trainee is and the more knowledgeable and objective (not everyone can be objective) a trainee is about how their own body works will be the most likely to benefit from doing their own programming.

Garrett Smith
07-11-2008, 08:01 AM
Over the years, being that I was part of a twentieth-something affiliate, I have come to believe that CF is the mainpage WOD and not a philosophy, as the mainpage WOD has strayed from the original philosophy (especially the "World Class Fitness In 100 Words") too much IMO to still be following it.

The CFJ is a philosophy. The mainpage WOD is "CrossFit" as a standalone training program. I may use the power lifts, but I'm not a "powerlifter". I may use a CrossFit workout here and there, but I'm not a "CrossFitter". If someone said they followed the PMenu WODs or Mike's Gym WODs and they really didn't, what are they doing?

The inclusion of substantial doses of isometric work (ie. gymnastics strength hold progressions) in the hybrid programming has shown appreciable increases in many folks' work capacity, however, it definitely violates one of the be all, end all goals of CF--that of increased power output over time. Jeez, it also puts a lot less wear and tear on the joints themselves. Yet due to the fact there is no power output, it is left out completely.

The fact that Josh was still able to compete with the younger guys at his age of 33 (and being all natural) speaks volumes to his preparations and abilities. With more time, we might have been able to improve his recovery capacity more.

If it isn't obvious to others from the pictures and the videos, anabolics have well invaded the competition already. They are not against the rules and likely never will be. Recovery is one of the major benefits of utilizing AAS. Josh didn't do that.

Funny note--my statements on the CF.com "Comments" page (http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/003640.html) and in a related thread (http://http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=31747) about strict form standards AND the old standard of touching the chest to the bar on pull-ups (an old CFJ article on pull-ups) were both included in the CF Games this year. Yet I've been told publicly online in that same "Comments" page that I don't "understand CF". Sometimes I think I understand it too well.

Gant Grimes
07-11-2008, 09:05 AM
Just read the comments page you linked to. The response to your comments (about preferring form, ROM, technique over speed) is very telling. I fear SS Virtuosity has sailed out of the harbor, never to return.

Garrett #188, your points are entirely eclipsed by the single most important component of fitness, which is increased work capacity across broad and modal domains. If you don't incorporate average power in your discussion of fitness, you've simply missed the point.

WTF? This is why fitness is not a sport.

Greg Everett, by the way, misses the point on technique. Good technique is only such in that it leads to more effective, efficient and safe production of work. Technique and intensity are not at odds. Good technique is the only way you'll ever maximize intensity and thus fitness. Quality of movement matters, of course, but only to the degree that it enhances performance. Reducing intensity to meet some "established" quality or characteristic is foolish. This isn't figure skating.

No, it's not figure skating. Again, figure skating is (gulp) a sport (kinda).

To clarify, if you're moving sandbags to build a levee in a flood or removing debris off an earthquake victim, does it matter if you don't open your hip all the way on every rep?

Only if the bags don't way more than 65#. Hopefully there will be a lifter around to get the bags on the top row.

Danny John
07-11-2008, 09:55 AM
"If it isn't obvious to others from the pictures and the videos, anabolics have well invaded the competition already. They are not against the rules and likely never will be. Recovery is one of the major benefits of utilizing AAS."

If this is true, then we find ourselves back in York, PA, circa 1960. The magic was FIC then and guys were running around pushing door frames and pushing houses to match the improvements of Bill March and the gang. I've read maybe five or six authors talk about their struggles in matching the obvious change that you could see from Strength and Health pictures. When someone would visit York, though, they would get the Pink Pills and POOF the magic would happen.

Note well: Anabolics work. If "fitness" claims are being touted with the use of these substances then we should be given full disclosure. What kind, how much, how often. Otherwise, it is like the amazing fat loss results from some diets and you don't make progress until you take ECA three times a day.

As a side note, I understand that these Anabolics are an illegal substance, a felony. I realize that law enforcement doesn't make this a priority, but I did note that the one Military Officer noted "Core Values." I can only imagine that most organizations (certainly high schools and universities) would want to know the extent of anabolic use in a training program.

josh everett
07-11-2008, 10:30 AM
in reference to garretts post regarding steriods... while it would be naive to think nobody at the games was/has used streriods but the overwhealming majority of people there most definetly have not. Crossfit self selects for integrity. Most people recovered just fine from the workouts and they didn't need steriods they just utilized the sound training principles crossfit has taught them.
Also i think crossfit produces the results it claims to produce. I don't follow the wod on the site because i enjoy O-lifting and want to be a competitive O-lifter. I could lower my 10k time from 43 to sub 40 minutes but that would cause a drop in my o-lifting... I'm not willing to go there to improve my overall fitness(as defined by crossfit). Plus running distance is about the most horrible torture i can think of... i enjoy my training and it's a big reason I train... it's fun!

Dave Van Skike
07-11-2008, 10:35 AM
The idea that this is obviously going on for a once a year cross fit games is hilarious. It’s like taking D-bol for the company picnic sack race.

I'd love to get in a lather about this but frankly, it's just funny. Usually just a handful of folks, same thing at amateur strongman competitions. It's something you can spot from a mile away and since it's not technically against the rules, no one really cares (well, I don’t) I just feel sorry for them that they take it that seriously and are competing locally against other amateurs….

I look at AAS like silicone implants, or bleaching your teeth or hair plugs….what people do to support their vanity is their decision, which I totally support. just don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass your work off….

Greg Everett
07-11-2008, 11:17 AM
This thread is borderline... Regardless of opinions RE steroid use, let's save the claims until there's actually evidence of such. As I understand it, the games will be tested next year, so the potential for a problem has been recognized and is being addressed about as well as it can be in any sport.

Just remember - this is not a forum for bashing CF or the people running it (or anyone else). Let's keep the discussion strictly technical or it's going to disappear completely.

David Stout
07-11-2008, 11:20 AM
in reference to garretts post regarding steriods... while it would be naive to think nobody at the games was/has used streriods but the overwhealming majority of people there most definetly have not.

I think this is probably a more fair and accurate statement than supposing a majority of competitors are using illegal substances.

Full-time CrossFit studs recovering from CrossFit workouts doesn't necessarily equate to steriod use. I'm a sub-par performer and am fine after a full on, cashed out effort on a metcon within 30 minutes (easily). This just comes from CF full time and specializing in the "metcon domain" for me.

I agree with the remainder of Garret's post #51, however, as well as Gant's post #52.

Edit - Apologies Greg, I was typing as you were posting.

Dave Van Skike
07-11-2008, 11:29 AM
I think this is probably a more fair and accurate statement than supposing a majority of competitors are using illegal substances.

Full-time CrossFit studs recovering from CrossFit workouts doesn't necessarily equate to steriod use. I'm a sub-par performer and am fine after a full on, cashed out effort on a metcon within 30 minutes (easily). This just comes from CF full time and specializing in the "metcon domain" for me.

I agree with the remainder of Garret's post #51, however, as well as Gant's post #52.

Edit - Apologies Greg, I was typing as you were posting.


I don't think a sinlge person here meant to imply that AAS is required to be a cross-fit-er. or a crossfit gamest.....

But, once a you've been around mid to high level amatuer athletics for very long, you can spot "exceptions" to the rule pretty quickly....and mostly it's kind of funny.

Peter Dell'Orto
07-11-2008, 05:04 PM
The philosophy I learned when studying for my black belt was that after a long period of training (4 years for me) after obtaining my black belt I was to assume greater responsibility for determining my future training.

After my third or fourth MMA fight, my coach told me that it was up to me to start directing my training. I needed to decide what to work on and what to train, because I had fought enough to know.

I think that philosophy is a good one.

I think the more advanced a trainee is and the more knowledgeable and objective (not everyone can be objective) a trainee is about how their own body works will be the most likely to benefit from doing their own programming.

I think they can benefit from custom programming, but it doesn't necessarily have to be their own programming. A quality coach can custom design a program for someone to address their strengths and weaknesses.

I do think this is consistent with the CF philosophy. Long Kilgore's article about "dissecting the fish" - determining where on the recovery/learning curve you are for each fitness domain - points to that. If you have great metcon, endurance, recovery, etc. and poor strength, you're going to benefit from more strength work. No reason not to structure your workouts to emphasis it a bit, because directly attacking a weakness will make the most short and long term sense in your development. I don't think this is contrary to the CF approach at all.

Patrick Donnelly
07-11-2008, 05:14 PM
Virtual shoveling? Do tell. Was there a video?

Don't forget about the inverted burpee workout, or one the broad jump workout with punishment reps. The latter began with a series of broad jumps for distance, and the more jumps the distance took, the more reps you did in the workout.

Another fun way to use punishment reps:
100 burpees; your chest must reach the ground on each push-up and your hands must go overhead in each jump. Each time you pause, whether it's standing between reps, in the squat, or in the push-up, do [insert small circuit here]. You can rest all you want during and after the circuit, but once the burpees begin again, they must be continuous. This workout is scored by time.

That one was my masochistic creation, but it really does encourage you to not give up! Of course, I have no idea where punishment reps fit into a good workout program; they just make for a "fun" workout.

Garrett Smith
07-12-2008, 09:36 AM
In terms of the necessity of training "like CF" in order to be "good" at CF.

Consider WestSide training and how much/little it actually looks like the actual PL meets (ie. max lifts). Sometimes it looks the same, most of the time it looks totally different. Can't argue the success they've had.

For example, someone really sucks at thrusters. Getting plain stronger at front squats and push/strict presses is going to have a direct carryover to their thrusters. By training them separately, they get to avoid their "weak link" that would hamper their progress if they prioritize thruster training. A workout every once in a while utilizing the thruster movement would then refresh their neuromuscular patterns and allow for judgement of progress. Work capacity increases without training the metcon aspect (necessarily).

Oh wait. That sounds like hybrid programming...

Dave Van Skike
07-12-2008, 11:31 AM
sooth. training for a bike race doesn't really look much like a bike race at all...except the superhero costume and the bike...

mostly it looks like some lonely guy hammering up a big hill long after dark trying to learn how to climb so he doesn't get dropped the next time around......did i say that outloud?

Alex Europa
07-13-2008, 10:57 AM
This thread is borderline... Regardless of opinions RE steroid use, let's save the claims until there's actually evidence of such. As I understand it, the games will be tested next year, so the potential for a problem has been recognized and is being addressed about as well as it can be in any sport.

Just remember - this is not a forum for bashing CF or the people running it (or anyone else). Let's keep the discussion strictly technical or it's going to disappear completely.

Greg, if you can say, where/from whom did you hear that next year's Games will be tested? I think this could have a significant impact on "the sport of fitness," making a stand (one way or another regarding steroid use as it pertains to CrossFitting). Particularly in light of the fact that the majority of anabolics that one might consider for improved CrossFitting stay in the system for a long time (i.e. Deca or Equipoise).

Alex

Greg Everett
07-13-2008, 11:00 AM
I was told by Robb Wolf at the Games.

Alex Europa
07-13-2008, 12:10 PM
Werd...

Robb Wolf
07-13-2008, 02:02 PM
I was told by Robb Wolf at the Games.

That douche-bag is full of shit.

Derek Weaver
07-13-2008, 03:33 PM
I need to reconsider my stance on all of this. One, I didn't know we were talking about steroids... either way I don't think it's really a problem at the Games.

Second, looking back on the first two years of CF Games, I have to think that the best way to win them is to be a CF'er... not anything else. Josh Everett is a poor example because he is a genetically gifted monster with an outstanding base in physical conditioning.

Whether it be OPT, AFT, Khalipa or Jeremy Thiel from CF Central, all those guys were/are CFers. We can't say that doing anything else, whether it be hybrid programming or some other approach is better because it hasn't been substantiated. Only full time CFers have won the Games.

Once one of us who is following a hybrid mode of programming wins it, then we can claim superiority in terms of competition. Until then, it's a work in progress.

Peter Dell'Orto
07-13-2008, 08:01 PM
Whether it be OPT, AFT, Khalipa or Jeremy Thiel from CF Central, all those guys were/are CFers. We can't say that doing anything else, whether it be hybrid programming or some other approach is better because it hasn't been substantiated. Only full time CFers have won the Games.

Given that this is the case, do we know what Crossfit they did? Was it pure "main page" WODs, preceded by the official CF warmup with no additional work? Was it main page + supplemental work? Different CF workouts (local affiliate schedule)? Strength work plus CF workouts, more like MEBB? What non-CF exercise did they do? (Editing later - by non-CF exercise I mean other sports, other training, anything else that may have impacted their fitness level)

I don't ask to be argumentative. And honestly, I haven't made any attempt to look at their training logs or interviews or whatever, just lacking time. But seeing your post made me think "Okay, they do CF, but what exactly did that involve?" If we knew that, it might provide more insight on the best way to prepare for the games, or provide some tools for improving alternate programming.

Just a thought.

Derek Weaver
07-13-2008, 11:35 PM
Peter,
That's a good question that I thought of after I made that post earlier.

I remember the interview with OPT, I think when he did a 6.59 Helen and he said he follows the main page, saying something like "He's my coach" or something along those lines.

He also went and worked with Greg though I think for a while on his Oly Lifting.

Looking at some of the top CF'ers like OPT-assuming he is still a mainpage follower after his oly hiatus and Speal it's tough to argue with their results at the Games the last 2 years.

Tom Rawls
07-15-2008, 12:38 PM
Regardless of opinions RE steroid use, let's save the claims until there's actually evidence of such. As I understand it, the games will be tested next year, so the potential for a problem has been recognized and is being addressed about as well as it can be in any sport.




Do I misunderstand Mr. Glassman's view on the use of performance enhancing drugs? He seems to be unconcerned about drug use. He wrote back in May:

"It is mistaken perception that the ones "caught" are cheaters and the others "clean". The ones caught have erred in dosage, masking, or metabolized abnormally slow the outlawed substances. They are more unlucky than anything else. These athletes are no more cheaters than stepping out of bounds accidentally on the one yard line before crossing the goal line is cheating.

. . .

"BTW, If you're thinking that Mark Rippetoe has a different take on this or shares your misapprehension and condemnation of athletes taking steroids, then you don't know the man as well as I do."

If this accurately reflects his views, he apparently views testing as merely a means of catching fools, not excluding those trying to gain an advantage by using illegal drugs.

Mike ODonnell
07-15-2008, 02:17 PM
Beer was performance enhancing for Babe Ruth....have they banned that yet in sports? Hell....I can't play decent golf without it.

Greg Everett
07-15-2008, 04:19 PM
Tom -

The only person who knows what Greg Glassman thinks is Greg Glassman, and I'm not going to speculate. All I know is what I already wrote regarding testing - Honestly, what more can anyone do? You can't randomly test 300 participants prior to the games, and certainly not the several hundred more potential participants. The nature of drug testing is that it's not completely reliable, but until there are new options, that's what we've got, and there will always be athletes who take advantage of the system's flaws.

John Alston
07-15-2008, 05:08 PM
"I was arguing with someone just before the games started about the pullup standard. Adam or Gaucioin maybe? I argued the standard is fine, but it wasn't right that the elite guys knew ahead of time. I was, shall I say, scoffed at, and informed that everyone was informed the same day the video was posted on July 4th. Well, OPT clearly states in the video he had 5 days advanced notice. Just food for thought. Make the exercises as strict and tough as you'ld like, but you have to make a good faith effort to inform everyone at the same time. Peace my bothers, peace."
Comment #155 - Posted by: Dan Diego at July 12, 2008 11:02 AM

The games are just games, a contest like any other. The above I think points to a couple posts above about the nature of the games.

People who WOD did well. People who don't did well. Didn't someone do well after only 2 months of xift? Many ways to get there.

Ben Moskowitz
07-15-2008, 07:02 PM
What if the Games included the possibility of not just a CFT but also:

1. An Olympic lifting meet.
2. A gymnastics competition. I guess maybe a floor routine or something to keep it simple and fair (perhaps only because the floor is featured in men's and women's gymnastics).

That might shake things up a bit.

Jared Buffie
07-15-2008, 07:47 PM
What if the Games included the possibility of not just a CFT but also:

1. An Olympic lifting meet.
2. A gymnastics competition. I guess maybe a floor routine or something to keep it simple and fair (perhaps only because the floor is featured in men's and women's gymnastics).

That might shake things up a bit.

I was thinking that it may have been neat at the end to have people hold handstands for as long as they could, and deduct that time from their total workout time (up to a certain amount, maybe). Or L-sit or something...

Steven Low
07-15-2008, 08:15 PM
I was thinking that it may have been neat at the end to have people hold handstands for as long as they could, and deduct that time from their total workout time (up to a certain amount, maybe). Or L-sit or something...
That's a pretty good idea.. especially as say the last event. Everyone will be gassed then we can see how they do as if you're gassed you'll need a good technique based handstand.. which requires good control (pretty much a bunch of the CF's 10 aspects of fitness).

Well, at least maybe a hopper or two of skills from the "world class fitness in 100 words" list.

Maybe someone should bring that up to Coach G.

John Alston
07-16-2008, 06:20 AM
Really this sounds more boring than ever. L sit for time at a competition?
I think this "sport" is failing the 10yr old inside of me's critique.... is it cool to watch?
PL might be borderline but at least it makes 10yr old sense due to its simplicity.

Ben Moskowitz
07-16-2008, 08:48 AM
That's why I thought an OL event would be good, I mean there's already a CF version of a PL comp.

Mike ODonnell
07-16-2008, 09:09 AM
add beer pong as an event and I'll consider showing up....

Gant Grimes
07-16-2008, 11:20 AM
Kegstands would be much more interesting. It requires balance, coordination (drinking while upside down), a good stomach, and mental toughness.

Mike ODonnell
07-16-2008, 11:37 AM
Kegstands would be much more interesting. It requires balance, coordination (drinking while upside down), a good stomach, and mental toughness.

ahhh....The Fraternity Olympics Games.....now those were fun! Beerfest anyone?

joe waguespack
07-16-2008, 11:58 AM
When I was on the Police Dept. In New Orleans as initiation to my old unit we had to down a yard long glass that held 4 beers and 4 shots of Goldschlager for time, without puking. Now that was an event. I still hold the team record of 23 seconds. I am still very proud of that accomplishment.:D

Alex Bond
07-16-2008, 06:51 PM
Kegstands would be much more interesting. It requires balance, coordination (drinking while upside down), a good stomach, and mental toughness.

Keg stands right before the metcon. Think Speal could knock out a 2:05 Fran with the better part of a dozen beers in him?

Derek Weaver
07-16-2008, 08:46 PM
This girl I knew in high school would have crushed the games if keg stands were included. No joke, 50 second keg stand when were maybe 16 or 17, never seen someone that size do anything like it since... the one who got away...

Peter Dell'Orto
07-16-2008, 11:25 PM
Keg stands right before the metcon. Think Speal could knock out a 2:05 Fran with the better part of a dozen beers in him?

If anyone is sober enough to operate a stopwatch, I think they've missed the point of these games. :D