PDA

View Full Version : Fran Strategies


Grissim Connery
09-16-2008, 08:05 AM
5'9"
165 lbs
31" waiste
dunno BF%, but can see abs

Timed a fran yesterday at 7:45. I think my biggest problem is actually that my front squat is not as stable as i'd like, so i gotta work on that.
What strategies do you guys use to improve your times? on the 21's i forced myself to rest after every 7 reps. on the 15's every 5. on the 9 i do 5 and 4 thrusters, and the whole set of pullups.

Should i attempt to break the 21's into 2 sets (an 11 and a 10) first or should i attempt to break the 15 into 2 sets first (8 and a 7)? Would a logical progression be to get all 3 to 2 sets, and then gradually make each one just 1 set? some days i have hit a straight 21 set of pullups right after a good paced 21 thrusters, but then i'm so winded and take way to long to start my next set of thrusters. is this actually an effective approach? I feel that a consistant pace is the goal, just like running a mile.

Steven Low
09-16-2008, 09:10 AM
7/7/7 (11/10)
5/5/5 (8/7)
3/3/3 (or 5/4)

Two schools of thought here though:
1. Go balls out
2. Pace yourself

Both have good benefits. Balls out allows better increases in lac threshold (not actually lac thresh though but better acid buffering + rates of anaerobic/aerobic pathways). Pace yourself allows more power and thus better work capacity. Do both on occasion. If you're aiming for like sub3 or sub4 you might want to scale down so you can do the first set continuously -- you'll get a more intense workout that leads to faster adaptations.


I'm not really a fan of gaming workouts though... although I might try it at the end of this year for 30 MUs. I want to try to beat the Fran record (aka sub2) with that workout.

Steve Forman
09-16-2008, 09:44 AM
thats good stuff Steve,

I have a comment and sort of a question, I guess.... Wouldn't getting stronger at thrusters, press, push jerks and push press help out with not break setting the thrusters in Fran.

I worked on the strength for those exercises and found that my fran time decreased by almost 2 minutes because I didn't have to break set. I started using thruster's as part of my strength routine, along with the other moves mentioned. At times I have added 65lbs thrusters into a my warm up.

I had the same problem with an unbalanced front squat, that every time I exploded upward, I would become off balanced. This when away with the more front squats i did. I was incorporating front squats also into a warm up and on skills work.

Steve

Garrett Smith
09-16-2008, 09:48 AM
Get your absolute strength on your front squats, overhead presses, and weighted pull-ups stronger, then everything else will become easier (and thus less of a tax on your conditioning).

Getting plain stronger will get you better & faster results with these types of workouts more than pacing ever will.

See the "Donny Shankle & Grace" (http://performancemenu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2257&highlight=donny+shankle+grace) thread for more discussion on this subject.

Grissim Connery
09-16-2008, 05:21 PM
I read some of the Donny Shankle and Grace thread. Some good concepts there that i agree with. For example, i was crapping out with some kettlebell juggling a month ago. since then i haven't worked with kettlebells much because my college just updated all it's oly equipment. yesterday, i yanked out one kettlebell for some post workout fun, and i've never juggled so well in my whole life. all i've really done for the past month is gant grimes's hybrid approach and bounced in and out of the PM WOD's for oly drills. i think that all the focus on heavy snatches has made whipping around the kb's feel like nothing.

Thus i just thought of this (sorry if somebody's already suggested it): what about a heavy fran? for example 135 lb thruster and 1.5 pood weighted pullups for sets of 9-6-3? i feel like i've seen crossfit do this with 115lb before and maybe l-pullups or something.

Steven Low
09-16-2008, 07:56 PM
Yep, I would suggest getting strength up very quickly if you want the REALLY fast improvements. If you're where you want/need to be strength-wise and need metcon the pacing/all out stuff is how you want to bring it up quickly.

Gant's stuff is good or a strength biased MEBB approach. PMenu should help as well. Whatever works..


Heavy Fran (already exists) is 15-12-9
135 lbs thrusters
+45 lbs weighted pullups

And yes, there's a vid:
http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFit_HeavyFranWOD.wmv
http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFit_HeavyFranWOD.mov

There's also a vid somewhere of Greg A doing it... very fast.

Grissim Connery
09-16-2008, 09:09 PM
that looks legit. i'm gonna try it with the 9-6-3 rep scheme judging how hard that video looked. it'll fit better w/ the short metcons on the hybrid program.

is there any great long-term benefit from grabbing a weight with the foot on weighted pullups? i'd hate to feel like i was wussing out with a belt.

Craig Loizides
09-16-2008, 09:19 PM
As far as pacing goes I think the most important thing is to minimize the rest between sets. With most exercises I think it's best to keep the reps low and take short rests as needed. Thrusters are a bit trickier because putting the bar down and picking it back up takes a lot of energy and holding the bar in the rack position isn't great rest either. I usually push a little harder through the thrusters because of this. I also try not to rest at all in transitions. I try to get at least a few reps in before resting.

Alex Europa
09-17-2008, 04:22 AM
Great article (http://www.againfaster.com/articles/managing-your-way-to-mediocrity.html)about the potential long term effects of managing workouts by Jon Gilson of AgainFaster (W/F/S)

As for your question, how long have you been doing CrossFit? I wouldn't really sweat it too much. Don't overthink the WOD. Just do whatever feels best while you're in the moment. Some days, it might be better to break the sets in half or thirds, some days it might be better to go straight through at a slightly slower pace. That is one of the attributes that makes the guys like OPT, Speal, etc... so amazing: their awareness of their level of output and exertion. This is also a critical skill that translates directly to the real world. The only way to develop this skill is to practice and cultivate it. If you go into every WOD with a set plan, then there's a good chance that you're leaving a learning experience on the table.

As for your front squat, you should be working to improve your normal air squat until you can do a perfect, upright squat. This will greatly improve your technique on all squat related movements (i.e.: thrusters). Here's a great VIDEO (http://www.againfaster.com/the-micd-instructor/?currentPage=2) (also from AgainFaster) for improving the squat (W/F/S).

- Alex

Grissim Connery
09-17-2008, 09:30 AM
yeah i've been doing a lot of third world squats throughout the day to get more comfy down there. yesterday i actually drilled some boxing on a bag while hanging out in a third world squat the whole time. i think my big probelm is actually an imbalance between my right and left leg. i can easily squat down with BS, FS, or OHS and sit on my calves with my heels still pushing on the floor, but for some reason my right leg feels funny whenever i try to move the load back up. thus i shift my weight over to my left leg normally. i was working a Kossacks for a while and these helped correct this issue a ton. Does anybody have a link to those "Clock Squats" or 360 squat or whatever in which you do like a Kossack but move around in a circle?
Typically i can hit a few pistols with my left leg fine, but my right leg has a lot of issues. it stems from an injury i had a few years ago. there's a little click in my knee that doesn't hurt but feels unsettling. i think this is why i started shifting my weight over to my left leg.

i've been crossfitting for about a year. before that i was doing something similar mainly involving just body weight circuits. this was to help me with grappling. i used to weigh 244 lbs when i was into bodybuilding. after i developed back issues, i decided being big is stupid. i avoided most weightlifting and dropped some mad weight. my last competition i weighed in at 158 lbs. anyways, i was messing around with the rings for a while, and then i finally became comfortable again with the concept of really heavy weightlifting. i associated it so much with my old back pain, but i was determined to come back at it with a refreshed mind. i came back to deadlifts first because they always felt ok. squatting and benching always aggravated my spine more than anything. i was glad to find that i really don't need to bench again. if i really need to ME, i just do 1 arm push ups and planche work.
As for squatting, this has been a slow process. i only did air squats for a long time. i have fun with FS and OHS, but BS makes me nervous. Whenever i don't concentrate, i can feel old spots in my back acting up.

here's my question. can i just focus on OHS and FS and only do BS seldomly? also, what about pistols? I feel that the focus of BS is really just for ME while the OHS and FS are more functional. if ME is the main benefit of BS, could i just stick to weighted pistols?

Gant Grimes
09-17-2008, 09:31 AM
Grissim, break each round/component into 3 sets. When you improve, break them into two sets. Then try it straight through. Just try not to rack the bar; that will cost you the most time.

I try to manage everything, which is why I do heavier metcons. I program them so I reach exhaustion at (n-1) before switching to the other exercise in the couplet. Ideally, I don't have to rest.

There are several hundred wonderful discussions on this on the CF boards. Fran is a vital concern to many CFers. Placed in proper perspective, it's a hellish workout that comes up about 5 times a year. You needn't concern yourself beyond that.

PS I'm amazed at how many people brag about unbroken sets but post crappy times. If you can shave 1-2 minutes off your time by resting, then do it.

Great article (http://www.againfaster.com/articles/managing-your-way-to-mediocrity.html)about the potential long term effects of managing workouts by Jon Gilson of AgainFaster (W/F/S)

Gilson has good stuff, but I disagree with that article, and any athlete training for a sport will, too. Managing workload, nutrition, intensity, and recovery is vital towards peaking for events and achieving athletic success. If you're into "competitive fitness" rather than sport, then I suppose it's ok to go at an 11 every day, though I suspect you'll burn out much sooner than Gilson did. BTW, John has had years of positive progress by managing his workouts. His numbers are top notch. I suspect his recent regression is caused by something else.

Grissim Connery
09-17-2008, 09:39 AM
i guess i should give some numbers too:
5'9"
165 lbs
31" waiste
dunno BF%, but can see abs

Snatch: 135lb
C&J: 185lb
DL: 365 or 385lb (don't remember which one it was)
OHS: 135lb
BS: 245lb
Shoulder Press: 165
5k run: 21-22min
Fran (stated above): 7:45

as i'm typing this, i realize that i've never maxed on FS
back when i weight 244lb, BS was above 400lb. that weight frightens me now

Jacob Rowell
09-17-2008, 12:31 PM
There's a time and place for managing workouts. Most people I see at the gym who manage make progress slower, but in a more linear fashion. As said before, going balls-out every time can lead to a quick burnout, but we tend to program in some "rest" weeks, 5x5 type lifting, skill practice, whatever, to stave that off.

That being said, Fran is short, and I've gotten to a sub-4:00 time without being a particularly gifted CrossFitter or very strong either. I never planned much, but rather my body planned for me, when i couldn't deal with the fatigue, down the bar went. The goal was however, to not put it down. If I had to put the bar down every 7 reps. it would have been a very different workout.

As I got stronger, and my times dropped from 7:00-something to 3:49 (I'm not claiming it's an impressive time btw), it never got easier or more comfortable. I think my mental capacity to deal with the "suck" improved as much as my conditioning and work capacity.

Grissim Connery
09-17-2008, 05:11 PM
that's a pretty interesting take as well. i did rack the weights between each set, and it seems so easy to lose focus during those times. at times i would find myself sucking wind as opposed to controlling my breathing. it seems like if you don't rack the weight and stay under it, you really have no choice but to breath properly.

today during the strength portion of my workout, i worked on both FS and BS (3x3 for both) and spent about 3 seconds on each rep in the third world stance. these weren't really negatives, but just a rep with some chill time on the bottom. i feel like the more time my body hangs out down there, the more it likes to be down there

Steve Liberati
09-17-2008, 07:08 PM
Stop trying to figure out the best strategy and just attack the workout like a raging animal with enough fire power to knock down an army. There are a million and one ways to approach Fran.

The most effective one is to just DO IT.

This is not Chinese arithmetic. We are simply lifting a load....a heavy one at that....over a long distance...in a short time.

Get stronger (via Fran, back squats, CrossFit, Oly Lifting, etc) and you'll miraculously get better at Fran.

Simply as that. Try not to over think this stuff. Really. Or you'll start OUT psyching yourself. When you constantly strive to improve, it is too easy too try to hard.

The counter strategy is to stop trying and just do it.

Happens all the time to professional athletes and partially explains the reason why streaks are so prevalent in sports.

Alex Europa
09-18-2008, 07:37 AM
Gant, I know where you're coming from, but I have to disagree with you in some regards. There are some workouts that neccessitate managing, "Murph" comes to mind, or a "true" intervals workout with specific time goals per 400, 800, whatever. But something like "Fran," in my eyes is nothing but a balls to the wall effort. However, that DOES NOT mean that he shouldn't break up the sets. Like I said in my previous post, it's my opinion that he has to manage his workout DURING the workout, not before. Yes, people develop and make great gains by going with 3 subsets, then 2, then straight through, but I know it works better for me to not set specific goals per set. If I NEEDED to rest at 17 (or 12, 14, whatever) reps, then I would. I also try to remember that whenever I feel like I need to rest, I've still got a solid 2 or 3 reps left in me. Additionally, it is possible to go all out consistantly and not get burnt out. Everyone is different; if I'm not mistaken, this is one of the reasons that you came up with your Hybrid program. As for training for sport, fighters (like Grissim and yourself) don't have the luxury to manage their intensity in a match. The intensity is based off the pace of the fight which is in no small part predicated by their opponent. In my eyes, fighters that don't go 100% into any workout that has similar time demands as their rounds/fights, are setting themselves up for failure when they face an opponent that HAS trained like that. Again, going 100% doesn't mean refusing to break up the sets. It means going to that individual's limit on that day - which can be different from one workout to the next based off any number of factors. I realize that nothing that I'm saying is earth shattering or stuff that you don't know, Gant. I'm merely pointing it out so that you understand my thought process, in order to keep the conversation flowing, not because I feel the need to enlighten you in any way. :)

Grissim, the third world squat is great, but the downside to just doing the third world squat is that it doesn't force you (or help you) to keep your chest up and your torso perfectly vertical. Definitely work in some weighted upright squats and pole squats. They've helped out my snatching and OHS ability immensely.

Steve, how's everything going with your gym? Can we expect to see an updated Journal article in the future?

- Alex

Ben Moskowitz
09-18-2008, 11:28 AM
I wrote the author of the 3rd world squat, and apparently you are supposed to keep your chest up and back neutral all the time at whatever depth you can achieve. It's more like an isometric air squat for time, and it's just not fun.

Garrett Smith
09-18-2008, 06:35 PM
A full-depth unweighted squat, due to the anterior/posterior weight distribution, is something I don't know I've ever seen performed with a neutral spine and chest up in the rock-bottom position. Add a weighted bar to the equation, the weight distribution is completely different, allowing A2G position without losing the neutral spine. Add OL shoes, it's a different universe.

I'd love to see the person who can do an A2G unweighted squat barefoot and not lose their lumbar lordosis. Trying to do it while maintaining a lordosis is a good "rehab" exercise to regain that ROM that we all had as children.

Sitting in a full squat, relaxing my back, feels great and decompressing. It's just not a position to load the spine in or go ballistically up and down from.

Even untainted youngsters can't maintain lordosis in an A2G squat barefoot:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_ufnBgVhivpU/SCXp24s_vHI/AAAAAAAAAA0/8X0r_Fj-qnc/s400/BABY+SQUAT.jpg

sarena kopciel
09-18-2008, 07:35 PM
A full-depth unweighted squat, due to the anterior/posterior weight distribution, is something I don't know I've ever seen performed with a neutral spine and chest up in the rock-bottom position. Add a weighted bar to the equation, the weight distribution is completely different, allowing A2G position without losing the neutral spine. Add OL shoes, it's a different universe.

I'd love to see the person who can do an A2G unweighted squat barefoot and not lose their lumbar lordosis. Trying to do it while maintaining a lordosis is a good "rehab" exercise to regain that ROM that we all had as children.

Sitting in a full squat, relaxing my back, feels great and decompressing. It's just not a position to load the spine in or go ballistically up and down from.

Even untainted youngsters can't maintain lordosis in an A2G squat barefoot:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_ufnBgVhivpU/SCXp24s_vHI/AAAAAAAAAA0/8X0r_Fj-qnc/s400/BABY+SQUAT.jpg

Are you gonna be posting pics of ur daughter soon in a A2G sq??

Pat McElhone
09-19-2008, 03:33 AM
I have been to the "third world" and have seen real "third worlders" perform real third world squats, lumbar extension was lost everytime. It was usually performed barefoot or with thin sandals. No one wore weightlifting shoes, also the arms were not used for counterbalance to drop into the "third world squat".

Darryl Shaw
09-19-2008, 06:31 AM
A full-depth unweighted squat, due to the anterior/posterior weight distribution, is something I don't know I've ever seen performed with a neutral spine and chest up in the rock-bottom position. Add a weighted bar to the equation, the weight distribution is completely different, allowing A2G position without losing the neutral spine. Add OL shoes, it's a different universe.

I'd love to see the person who can do an A2G unweighted squat barefoot and not lose their lumbar lordosis. Trying to do it while maintaining a lordosis is a good "rehab" exercise to regain that ROM that we all had as children.

Garrett, there's a few old Chinese guys that live near me and I often see them sitting in a perfect rock bottom A2G "asian" squat with a neutral spine while they wait for the bus into town. They hardly seem to lean forwards at all to stay balanced in this position so their backs are almost vertical and they look so comfortable I'm sure they could sit there all day if they felt like it.
I mentioned this in passing to a Chinese friend once and she didn't understand why I was so impressed with these old guys because she didn't know any Chinese people who couldn't sit like that.

Garrett Smith
09-19-2008, 08:05 AM
Darryl,
It would seem that to sit in a neutral spine, chest up, "asian" squat comfortably for extended periods of time would require one of two scenarios:
1. Super flexible hamstrings to allow for the required degree of pelvic tilt to maintain the lumbar lordosis.
2. Certain body segment lengths/ratios that allow for that positioning without the effort it would take most others.

A portion of one's torso has to be in front of the anterior/posterior "balance" line, especially if the arms aren't extended forward in some manner, or else too much weight will be back on the heel side to balance OR be comfortable for long periods.

Quick question--I'm assuming those Chinese guys are wearing shoes, maybe dress shoes, correct? Because that does change the issue significantly from barefoot...

Gant Grimes
09-19-2008, 08:48 AM
Alex, I think we have different meanings for "managing" the workout, and the error is probably on my side. When I say manage, I'm just talking about hitting marks and taking a brief pause (less than 3 seconds). I have found that short rests at 7 and 14 save longer rests at 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Grapplers don't train to failure every single session, or they'd burn out very quickly. Matches can be extremely difficult. The force exerted during the opening gambit cannot be duplicated by any workouts (that I have done). And yes, during a fight, we look for opportunities to "rest" aka minimize our exertion while the other guy still has to work.

You are right about the hybrid metcons. The goal is to program them so you can blast through without any breaks. The shorter duration encourages faster recovery, which allows you to spend more time on your sport skills.

Ben Moskowitz
09-19-2008, 09:29 AM
Quick question--I'm assuming those Chinese guys are wearing shoes, maybe dress shoes, correct? Because that does change the issue significantly from barefoot...

There's a Chinese guy in the lab building I work(ed) at who likes to call people after work or at lunch in the squat in sandals. He has a surprisingly small back angle and good ankle flexion. I don't think his pelvis rolls under much if at all.

Steven Low
09-19-2008, 09:34 AM
I agree with Gant here... fully 100% intensity work is going to lead to burnout pretty quickly. Of course, we all have different recovery capacities, so it is possible that many people can do MOST workouts at 100% intensity.

But to go 100% all the time especially on a frequency schedule such as 3/1 or 5+ times a week you're likely to burnout if you're doing anything close to high intensity especially often with heavy weights or sprinting or such exercises.

Well, that and some form of periodization once you reach elite level is needed to progress faster. You can keep doing your 100% workouts, but it's not going to lead to optimal progression without some form of manipulation of both recovery and programming methods.

Garrett Smith
09-19-2008, 09:41 AM
Disclaimer: I'm also slightly biased in my view due to my own proportions.

I jokingly say I have the torso of a 6'4" guy and the legs of a 5'8" guy. My 5'4" wife's legs are as long as mine are. According to Kilgore's article on "normal" body segment lengths (http://journal.crossfit.com/2008/07/the-measure-of-man-by-lon-kilg.tpl), I also have short arms. Makes for interesting squat mechanics.

My torso is so long (and thus a larger part of my BW than "normal") that without a forward lean (assuming barefooted) that there is no way I could maintain lumbar lordosis in a full squat. I have plenty of ankle flexibility, so that's not an issue...

Also, hypertrophied calves/hamstrings/quads/abdomen (fat or muscle) can definitely restrict the depth that a full squat can reach, which can further explain differences in A2G squat capacity.

Gant, your attempt to stay on-topic is admirable...

Ben Moskowitz
09-19-2008, 09:55 AM
Disclaimer: I'm also slightly biased in my view due to my own proportions.

I jokingly say I have the torso of a 6'4" guy and the legs of a 5'8" guy. My 5'4" wife's legs are as long as mine are. According to Kilgore's article on "normal" body segment lengths (http://journal.crossfit.com/2008/07/the-measure-of-man-by-lon-kilg.tpl), I also have short arms. Makes for interesting squat mechanics.

My torso is so long (and thus a larger part of my BW than "normal") that without a forward lean (assuming barefooted) that there is no way I could maintain lumbar lordosis in a full squat. I have plenty of ankle flexibility, so that's not an issue...

Also, hypertrophied calves/hamstrings/quads/abdomen (fat or muscle) can definitely restrict the depth that a full squat can reach, which can further explain differences in A2G squat capacity.


I agree that anthropometry impacts how movements are performed, no doubt. Super mass/bulk can change things too.

Still, if one could do the front and (hanging) side splits, high kicks, and so on like Tom Kurz, maybe an unweighted A2A squat is no biggie.

Check this video of his (http://www.stadion.com/videos/patellofemoral_squat.wmv) out (6.28 MB). WFS
The "bar" looks more like a pipe with tape on it, I doubt it weights 45 lbs, so maybe the weight-shift of the back squat is closer to nil.

Garrett Smith
09-19-2008, 01:25 PM
If one wanted to be a "butt-wink Nazi", as Rip so eloquently puts it at times, he does still have a tiny butt-wink (posterior pelvic tilt motion) at the bottom.

Actively maintaining the hamstring stretch in a barefoot squat, even lengthening them further at the bottom position, requires a tremendous amount of active effort. I don't see how anyone could be "relaxed" at the bottom with chest up and an anterior pelvic tilt necessary to maintain lumbar lordosis. I could be wrong.

With the knees far enough apart, along the lines of a sumo DL stance (although likely not THAT wide), one might be able to do it more easily. Note how even Mr. Kurz had to start splaying his knees laterally (more than in the early demos on that video) in his his wall squats. The butt-wink is still visible even with that addition.

I want to add that I'm not against flattening of the lumbar spine in the rock-bottom of a squat. I simply don't think lordosis can be maintained without a lot of effort, which wouldn't jive with sitting in the deep squat position for long periods. Relaxation of as many muscles as possible would facilitate long use of the squat position. I can totally relax down there, I've at times even considered napping there, but I don't think it would work. My whole back is rounded, armpits over my knees, it is quite comfy that way.

I'd simply rather add some OL shoes to the squat to allow for more lumbar lordosis to be maintained in full-depth weighted squats, rather than allow the back to flatten or round due to an attachment to being barefooted. They are different movements (in ways), with different intentions.

Darryl Shaw
09-20-2008, 05:27 AM
Garrett,

I see your point about those old Chinese guys wearing shoes when they squat but I've seen them sitting there chatting and having a smoke while they wait for the bus wearing everything from work boots to cotton tai-chi slippers and what they wear on their feet seems to have no effect on their comfort or technique.

I think the reason squatting with a neutral spine is so difficult for most of us is because we spend too much time sitting in chairs which encourage us to limit the ROM of our hips and knees to about 90 degrees. Over time this restricted ROM inevitably leads to a shortening of the tendons and a loss of flexibilty whereas those old Chinese guys, who've probably been sitting on low stools or squatting their whole lives, either maintained or improved the ROM they could achieve as kids.

Craig Loizides
09-20-2008, 02:56 PM
Actively maintaining the hamstring stretch in a barefoot squat, even lengthening them further at the bottom position, requires a tremendous amount of active effort. I don't see how anyone could be "relaxed" at the bottom with chest up and an anterior pelvic tilt necessary to maintain lumbar lordosis. I could be wrong.


Are you saying that an anterior pelvic tilt is a good thing and necessary for a neutral spine?

Craig Loizides
09-20-2008, 03:10 PM
Great article (http://www.againfaster.com/articles/managing-your-way-to-mediocrity.html)about the potential long term effects of managing workouts by Jon Gilson of AgainFaster (W/F/S)


Isn't this really an issue of programming rather than pacing? Let's say you're training for a mile. You'd want to do some workouts faster than mile pace. The go all out approach would be run 400 as fast as possible and then finish the rest of the mile as well as possible. A better approach would be to do something like 5x300 at 400 meter pace with 3 minute recoveries.

With CF workouts this requires something like power bias workouts, or Gant's method of specifically choosing weights and reps, or my favorite using "Lynne" style workouts. For instance max reps of thrusters followed immediately by max reps of pull ups. Rest and repeat. Scaling probably plays a bit of a roll here too. I think a lot of people would be better off going up in weight once in a while. There's nothing magical about 95 pound thrusters. But increasing weight still isn't going to let you hit that max intensity. That takes either a fly-and-die approach which I don't think makes sense or changing your workouts to plan for that max effort.

Garrett Smith
09-22-2008, 12:45 PM
Craig,
To directly answer your question, I would say no. It would have been more proper for me to say a "neutral" pelvic position/tilt.

One cannot have a posterior pelvic tilt and still have a significant lordosis in their lumbar spine. I made the error in my earlier post of saying the equivalent of "if it's not a posterior pelvic tilt then it must be an anterior one", completely disregarding the neutral position. My bad.

I hope I'm explaining this clearly. Either way, I don't know that any of us are really gaining anything from this tangential discussion at this point (which I started, I realize).

Grissim Connery
09-22-2008, 05:02 PM
I guess this thread has taken off in 2 diff directions, but i had a bit of a breakthrough today. I was front squating and concentrating really hard on straightening my spine. i think my problems a few years ago were that i would over hyper extend my spine and that would cause much pain. anyways, i got in the bottom and when i focused really hard, my abs started to lock up. i have never legitamately felt my abs contract hard while squatting before. anyways, this contraction allowed me to better control my posterior muscles and drive with them much harder. my back finallyi felt completely stable as i squatted, and i never realized after years of squatting just how unstable i had felt before.
i think my abs are gonna kill tomorrow though.

Craig Loizides
09-23-2008, 10:41 AM
Craig,
To directly answer your question, I would say no. It would have been more proper for me to say a "neutral" pelvic position/tilt.

One cannot have a posterior pelvic tilt and still have a significant lordosis in their lumbar spine. I made the error in my earlier post of saying the equivalent of "if it's not a posterior pelvic tilt then it must be an anterior one", completely disregarding the neutral position. My bad.

I hope I'm explaining this clearly. Either way, I don't know that any of us are really gaining anything from this tangential discussion at this point (which I started, I realize).

Thanks Dr. G. I've actually been working to eliminate my anterior pelvic tilt so I was confused by your post. I've actually seen a noticeable improvement in some of my lifts, especially deadlift, when I started focusing on neutral pelvic position / neutral spine instead of focusing solely on maintaining an arch which is the advice I seem to hear the most.

Garrett Smith
09-23-2008, 11:07 AM
Craig, I'm glad my post made things a bit more clear.

The reason many people, IMO, emphasize the lordotic arch in the back is that it is a much safer position for the lumbar spine than losing the lordosis to flat or especially kyphotic.

However, if someone already has a posture of hyperlordosis (with the accompanying anterior pelvic tilt, or vice versa), as in your situation, emphasizing the back arch could be detrimental. Basically, it sounds like you are on the right track.