PDA

View Full Version : CFJ article on "CF Strength Bias"


Arien Malec
02-07-2009, 09:59 PM
http://library.crossfit.com/premium/pdf/CFJ_MartinWhite_StrengthBias.pdf

(requires subscription to CFJ)

Overview: Jeff Martin proposes an "intermediate/advanced" variant of CF that combines a daily ME BB lift, with the lift rotated daily among BSQ, DL, FS, and SP in a 2-1-3-1 weekly pattern of work/rest, combined with shorter heavy metcons and gymnastics skill work

Comment #1: Good to see "official" blessing for combining strength work with metabolic conditioning, as well as acknowledgment that strength is important to overall performance.

Comment #2: How the f*** do you publish an article on combining heavy lifts + gymnastic skill work + shorter metcons and not give props to Gant?

Comment #3: the proposed template has gymnastic skill work after heavy lifting and metcons, for no good reason.

Kevin Perry
02-07-2009, 10:15 PM
Hmm, I want to hear Gant's view on this. This looks a lot like his program...

But seriously? IS this stuff really any different then what has already been selected in the past? ME, one lift a day in addition to metcon, etc.

Hell i've been doing something similar lately but maybe I'll slap my name on it and post it in the CFJ.

Steven Low
02-07-2009, 10:46 PM
If those comments are true Arien I would agree with you there. And to be honest, if it IS that similar to Gant's hybrid then why was Darrell and Jeff busting on Gant's program on the CF forum. That seems.. kinda counterproductive. -_-

ALL skill work... before heavy lifting/power work... before metabolic/endurance work. Common sense.

I would just recommend 1-2 strength lifts + normal CF to be honest. Cut the strength maybe second or third day of 3/1 if it's too much. Take extra rest days when needed.

Mike ODonnell
02-07-2009, 10:49 PM
[Comment #2: How the f*** do you publish an article on combining heavy lifts + gymnastic skill work + shorter metcons and not give props to Gant?

Would't be the first time ideas were "borrowed"....but in the end, who really cares...just do you own damn workout and get results....let those that want credit battle it out to be the coolest kid on the block....the rest of us just go on with living a life.

Emily Mattes
02-08-2009, 08:27 AM
I dunno Mike . . . I don't know what Gant's aspirations are, but if I designed a program that was pretty successful for athletic development I would not appreciate it at all if a trainer swooped in and claimed my ideas as their own. If you are a trainer trying to establish a reputation for excellent programming and a solid knowledge base this kind of behavior can really undercut your ability to progress.

Glassman certainly did not take a "live and let live" attitude when he felt Mark Twight was claiming Glassman's ideas as his own--so if Jeff Martin's program really is that close to Gant's hybrid I am surprised this kind of behavior is countenanced.

Mike ODonnell
02-08-2009, 08:50 AM
I dunno Mike . . . I don't know what Gant's aspirations are, but if I designed a program that was pretty successful for athletic development I would not appreciate it at all if a trainer swooped in and claimed my ideas as their own. If you are a trainer trying to establish a reputation for excellent programming and a solid knowledge base this kind of behavior can really undercut your ability to progress.

Glassman certainly did not take a "live and let live" attitude when he felt Mark Twight was claiming Glassman's ideas as his own--so if Jeff Martin's program really is that close to Gant's hybrid I am surprised this kind of behavior is countenanced.

I would support Gant (or anyone else) starting up their own site and daily WODs. Otherwise someone else will come along and go with their idea, tweak it and call it their own.....just the way the fitness industry has always been. But it is great to see his work and ideas having a positive influence somewhere.

So Gant.....go start your own site, WODs and take all the traffic away from someone else claiming it as their idea. I think it is time....as you have outgrown those forums. Just don't use the words "muscle confusion"...I think someone else already claimed that. We are all behind you! :)

Emily Mattes
02-08-2009, 08:58 AM
Mike, like I said, I don't know if those are Gant's aspirations. It could be he doesn't care. He hasn't even replied to any of this yet. I was just saying if I were him, I'd have a problem.

And I do think it does shows a lack of character to claim someone else's ideas as your own--especially if you spent time denigrating those ideas. Ultimately, it is Gant's thing to fight (or not fight, or whatever), but if what Arien says is true then Martin has done something pretty sad and dishonorable.

Chris H Laing
02-08-2009, 09:21 AM
The only thing I really see in the article that is copying Gants program is the concept of "heavy metcons". Lots of people have been doing heavy lifting before wods (MEBB) long before either Gant or CFSB. Also the CFSB has more work tailored to getting better at the CF wods, such as the 21,15,9 rep schemes and the 15-20 rep sets.

Also, i think it says somewhere in Gants original thread about his program that he consulted with Jeff Martin, among others, when making his program.

I think that it is a good thing that we keep seeing reoccurring trends in the new workout programs, because that means the things that keep getting repeated work. No one should be mad at each other, but instead learn and keep advancing the knowledge that people have built off of others ideas.

Aaron Austin
02-08-2009, 09:50 AM
Emily, saw your post in the Hybrid program thread on CF and figured it would be best to reply here.
I've been doing Gant's program since the beginning of Janaury - with the exception of one week at the of January where I did straight, but scaled CF.com WOD's. I have just finished reading Jeff Martin's article in the CFJ and come to the conclusion that the programs are very similar - like most here also have. The differences main differences in my opinion are that Jeff's program lacks the Olympic lifts and dedicates a day to a 20 minute Metcon.
Prior to my hybrid program I was BrandX Crossfitting for about 2 1/2 months. Before that excercise was not part of my regular life for many years. I had done weightlifting in my teen years so the movements came back relatively quick and as a result I didn't have any aprehension to lifting heavy (relative :) ). I have seen linear gains in all my lifts and continue to improve my handstand and body composition. I am sold on Gant's hybrid template for me and have no intentions of making any changes after reading the article.
I do plan to do CF.com or Kettlebell training for a week or two when I feel a little stale on the hybrid - to recharge my batteries so to speak. In addition I am running a 5K race in May so I may change the balance before 4-6 weeks out to help prepare.
Who knows, this article might just get more people exposed to Gant's protocol.

Garrett Smith
02-08-2009, 10:37 AM
All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer

CF has never tried to hide the fact that they will "take" ideas that work from others.

Most people are happy to say that they learned things by being exposed to CF's "metcon" and give credit.

The problem here is that proper credit will likely never be given by CF to anyone other than the author of that article--ie. Coach Rut, Robb Wolf, Gant, Brandon Oto, myself, etc.

I had a good time the other day customizing a CF Regional prep program for a gifted athlete--utilizing many concepts from all of the above-mentioned folks. The mainsite WOD was never really mentioned except as maybe being part of the prep for "ideas" to use towards choosing a metcon setup.

Getting good at CF is a game in itself, and a cookie-cutter setup is not the way to do it.

Arien Malec
02-08-2009, 12:59 PM
No one should be mad at each other, but instead learn and keep advancing the knowledge that people have built off of others ideas.

No doubt. My question was not directed at the CFSB approach, which may or may not be an advance over Gant's and Garrett's approaches, but at the lack of credit given to what is pretty obviously a very similar template (except, as noted, the lack of power movements and the positioning of the gymnastics skill work).

Leo Soubbotine
02-08-2009, 05:39 PM
Weird kind of article.

Robert Callahan
02-08-2009, 05:52 PM
Weird kind of article.

Why do you say that?

Kevin Perry
02-08-2009, 10:31 PM
it is weird. The way I see it, there have been so many threads on the CF boards about strength integration that so many variety of training approaches have already been developed so it makes the creation of a journal article on the subject kind of pointless.

It's just taking everything thats already been said and done and printing it to a paper and slaping a name on it for credit... like MOD said.

Blair Lowe
02-09-2009, 12:43 AM
I think you could do gymnastics work after heavy lifting and metcon's if it was the typical CF gymnastics which is very basic. Not any decent gymnastics sessions for us gymnasts. It's basic playing with simple, easy stuff. L-sit hold, big deal. Muscle-up, big deal. Handstand stuff, big deal. It all depends on where the individual stands with this stuff. They are not going to be able to do anything that really taxes them unless that muscle group wasn't used in the lifting or metcon. Even then, they may be just out of energy to do it well.

I personally liked alternating Oly and PL days of lifting each workout and finishing off with a metcon. Some gymnastics strength training was subbed for bench and overhead lifting but not always. Between Oly days I switched between cleaning and jerking and snatching days broken down into working different progressions and assistance exercises. A clean and jerk day might work FS as assistance as well as push jerks, PC, tall clean, working from hang, etc. PL days switched between BS and DL. Typically FS and OHS were put into the Oly days and I would switch between snatch and clean grip DL or SLDL and such. Thrusters and SDHP would be put into the Oly assistance group and short metcons would be the end, followed possibly by some stability/mobility stuff ( glute ham/reverse hyper though GM and SLDL were generally in the PL assistance ).

I adjusted whatever WOD at the end so not to work something twice like doing HSPU and dips in the WOD.

I miss doing that.

Anthony Bainbridge
02-09-2009, 04:42 AM
Nothing against Gant, because I think he's a great guy, but he's not the first to mix strength and metcon for a more strength biased workout. I was doing it instinctively since I started CrossFit (3.5 years). Jeff Martin has been doing it for 5 years. Rut and Bagwell both have articles published on a strength biased plan. Several BBers with articles on CF+Strength/Hypertrophy concepts. And the list goes on. Gant made it popular on the forums about a year ago - which is great - but it wasn't a revolution to the rest of us who have been experimenting for years.

And I don't think the authors are bagging on anyone. They are simply demonstrating that you can improve both strength and metcon at the same time (within reason). So really, everyone is agreeing on basic principles, just slightly different angles.

PS - I also do my "basic" gymnastics practise after strength/metcon.

Dave Van Skike
02-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Yeah Gant! where do you get off inventing a things that was already invented like 50 times already???? Next thing you know we'll need a pass to read Gant's log and he'll patent protect our own memories of HS Wrestling.

I'll be the first to Say it here......Gant Grimes is a despot!!!

Andew Cattermole
02-09-2009, 04:00 PM
Thought this was a good reply from Craig Massey
Posted on the CF forum

"What I find funny is that The Community means the people on this board, for the main part home CrossFitters. The Affiliates, who are too busy training people to have time to post here with great regularity and many of whom have given up doing so through being shouted down by the vocal minority ("keyboard ninjas" one called them), are quietly getting on taking people from zero fitness to as far as they want to go using scaled CrossFit and nothing else.

A bunch of us standing around and agreeing that stopping CrossFit to do SS is the only way to way to address a strength deficiency can't really match hundreds professional coaches training thousands of people all over the world and completely ignoring us. We're a bunch of guys sitting around in the backyard with beers in our hands deciding how the military or building construction or information technology or any other activity that requires specialised knowledge should be run.

I've seen one of the foremost Coaches in CrossFit ignored on this very forum when he dared to take time from actually teaching this stuff to try and explain why we're wrong. And not just once. He didn't have to do that, he certainly didn't have to do that more once, he did it because he cares about CrossFit and genuinely wants to see it done properly. Now he's gone to the trouble to explain very carefully how we can have our cake and eat it too. And, he's proved that it works.

Ignoring that is madness and it's driving people away from this forum. Good people. People who want to contribute for joy of CrossFit.

"Like shouting into an insane asylum" is how one of them described it recently. It's a shame that he was all to accurate."

I am first to admit I love lurking and reading threads and have obtained a lot of interesting thoughts and leads from them in terms of how not to approach certain aspects of training

As usual on reading these entertaining threads all that comes to mind is
Shut up and train then..... actually do something
as opposed to just training and writing on forums or just writing on forums and doing sub par training

Garrett Smith
02-09-2009, 04:41 PM
Just read the article, and like Leo said, it seemed a little weird--don't quite know how to explain it.

Off topic, but a concern I had was in the linked videos to the article is that Connor Martin loses all his lumbar curve in the starting position of his heavy squats. That won't be good over time, for sure. I had to re-watch it to confirm...the amount of pelvic tilt he goes through in the transition from standing to actually squatting is *huge*.

Derek Weaver
02-09-2009, 06:48 PM
I haven't read the article, but I don't see what the big deal is. It's Jeff Martin's approach to something similar.

Like Anthony said, Gant's not the first to incorporate heavy lifting with CF. Coach Rut has a little program called the Max Effort Black Box that accomplishes the goal as well. Along with Anthony's approach, Brandon Oto's etc.

What I think is interesting is that the higher ups in CF, usually the ones who say that following the mainpage is all that's needed, have apparently ok'd an entire journal article on another approach.

Chris Falkner
02-09-2009, 07:22 PM
I think its funny the CFJ came out because a month or so ago I had a heated debate over crossfit. I told a fellow trainer of mine I dont crossfit anymore or atleast follow the main page WODS I started doing a hybrid program(gants with some tweaks which by the way is working out well for me). I told him it caters to my needs better and how doing a 20min plus metcon is just not going to help me in my day to day life. He just went off on how all you need is to do the WODS that are posted and Ill get optimum results from it yada yada the typical crossfit fanatic response. It was almost like he was talking down to me. Now that this came out I am sure he is going to completely ignore the program I have been doing and boast this because it was tagged/labelled by crossfit. Man some people are just complete douche bags. FYI I have not read the CFJ yet.

Garrett Smith
02-09-2009, 08:14 PM
Chris,
Glad you aren't crushing yourself with the long metcons anymore.

If you're coming around CF Works, let me know. That's a fun place.

Arien Malec
02-09-2009, 09:56 PM
I haven't read the article, but I don't see what the big deal is. It's Jeff Martin's approach to something similar.

Like Anthony said, Gant's not the first to incorporate heavy lifting with CF. Coach Rut has a little program called the Max Effort Black Box that accomplishes the goal as well. Along with Anthony's approach, Brandon Oto's etc.

What I think is interesting is that the higher ups in CF, usually the ones who say that following the mainpage is all that's needed, have apparently ok'd an entire journal article on another approach.

That was what I thought was the most interesting aspect to this. The Gant comment was somewhat secondary.

On the other hand, to defend what was unique and individual in Gant's approach, Coach Rut's MEBB articles until recently were of the CF/ME/CF/rest/ME/CF/ME/rest template. Only in the most recent MEBB article did he propose something more hybrid like, and that was very slightly after Gant's posting (although the discovery process was certainly parallel).

Gant's approach was the first that I had seen that was an organized, structured way of combining skill work, ME lifting, and short, heavy metcons. Clearly, he was building on lots of history, but he made an original contribution in that aspect of things.

Derek Weaver
02-09-2009, 10:41 PM
Very true Arien. Coach rut, at least a year ago, was posting a 3 day/week MEBB routine of programming.

I've only been paying attention to his blog for a short while, so he may have developed that a while ago or just last year.

Regardless, it's all pretty odd timing. Guys like Rut and Rip have preached the need for more strength work... at the CF Level 1 they stress the importance of heavy lifting... but the mainsite programming stays pretty much the same in its adherence to the template. Even after last year's CF Games when it seems that EVERYBODY suddenly recognized that the best guys are the strongest (Speal, at 135 lbs. is a STRONG s.o.b.).

Now we're getting an article preaching the merits of increased strength and heavy metcons... It just seems odd.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great thing, just odd in terms of the evolution from the fringes (CF Forums, this place here at PMenu, Rip and Rut) all the way up the ladder. Hopefully this will make an already great contribution to the fitness industry that much better. The T-Nation crowd would probably have a few interesting things to say.

Gant Grimes
02-09-2009, 11:13 PM
Damn, the only GPP thread I've been following was the doughnut one. Who knew? I appreciate those people who took offense on my behalf at any perceived slights from the article. However, emails are starting to hit my inbox asking for comments. I'll post them here to simplify things.

First of all, I have loads of respect for Jeff Martin. Rip once described Jeff and Mikki Martin as "truly nice people, as opposed to an asshole like me (Rip) who flies off the handle at stupid shit." That's as high a compliment as you'll get from Rip, and I have no reason to disagree with him. Jeff has carried the CF banner for a long time and has brought more people into the fold than anyone else out there (BrandX, CF Kids, etc.).

Jeff and I traded a few PMs and emails after I first detailed the hybrid program last summer. He mentioned that he was doing a similar thing with some of his athletes, but it was hush-hush at the time. We stopped communicating, in part because I was spending too much time answering emails about the hybrid program. I don't know how similar his program was or is--I haven't subscribed to the CFJ in several months. But really, any half-ass decent programmer who wants to build strength is only going to consider squatting, pressing, pulling, and OLY lifts. It's no surprise that the program looks similar. Did any of the comments on the hybrid threads influence his program? I don't know or care.

As far as the boards, Jeff didn't criticize the program so much as he disagreed with me about the priority of strength development in CF (we still disagree about this). I will say that there are several people who roundly criticized the program on the CF board but PMd me that they privately supported me but didn't want to speak out (for whatever reason).

And let's be real here. People new to training think all of this stuff is revolutionary because they don't know any better. In 20 years of S&C (with a couple breaks), I haven't seen a hell of a lot of new stuff. Fads come and go. New trends emerge, but they're variations on the old themes. Even WSBB (Louie applied OLY concepts to PL) and CF (John Jesse's "Wrestling Physical Conditioning Encyclopedia" set forth similar principles) are updated, improved arrangements of old concepts. Strongmen and fighters have been using metcon intervals for quite some time.

I try to credit everyone who I have learned from in building my programs, including Glassman, Rip, Rut (the MEBB is the original strength-biased CF program), Greg E. (who put OLY-->strength-->metcon in his WOD), Burg, and Pendlay. I have also learned from other lifters and coaches, like Dr. G. (who discussed these concepts), Brandon Oto (who devised a similar program), Bainbridge (who has been adding strength lifts before metcon for years), Lon K., Louie, Richard Vanmeerbeek, Robb Wolfe, Steve Low (who discusses the reasoning in his hierarchy of training), Leo (who first dispensed with chipper WODs in favor of couplets and triplets), and the boys at CFSanFran (KStar and Boz, who will be taking this to the next level). Without these people, and the hundreds of folks who have shared their data with me, there would be no hybrid program. It's truly open source, and it's been laid bare and put out in public since day 1.

The hybrid program is not a program but an arrangement. It's a program that stresses order of exercise and shorter, heavy metcons. It is not CrossFit. I am not a CFer. It can be used for CF, but that wasn't the purpose. It was to be applied and modified by those who played a sport or just wanted to get stronger. Rut's and Martin's programs are CF and are designed for CF. That's a big difference.

The nice thing about this is Martin's cred in CF. Hopefully the underfed body weight metcon crowd will take notice and realize that a 225# deadlift is inadequate. It will be better for everybody.

My plans are to continue training for judo, get stronger, eat good BBQ, and help out a handful of people at a time. I don't care about credit or popularity, and I take pride in being a "nobody" in the CF world. I don't post or read there; I like it here. And I'll continue spreading the gospel of strength and protein as long as I draw breath.

PS I guess this means I have to finally finish the article I've been promising Greg.

Brandon Oto
02-09-2009, 11:19 PM
Every time I turn around, I see new evidence of an increasing trend towards strength in the CrossFit community. This makes me nothing but happy.

Kevin Perry
02-10-2009, 07:36 AM
"open source" model. There, that means everyone can be happy.

BBQ sounds good.

Steven Low
02-10-2009, 07:39 AM
Every time I turn around, I see new evidence of an increasing trend towards strength in the CrossFit community. This makes me nothing but happy.
That is true. :)

Garrett Smith
02-10-2009, 10:00 AM
Every time I turn around, I see new evidence of an increasing trend towards strength in the CrossFit community. This makes me nothing but happy.
The biggest thing I see with this shift is that the "constantly varied" idea will have to be accepted as being (pretty much) defunct. Putting someone on a routine like in the CFSB is not "constantly varied" at all anymore.

This will go along with CFHQ's near abandonment of the "10 general physical skills", only to be prioritizing "work capacity".

My perception is that, much like any large bureacracy, the folks in the "trenches" (ie. affiliates) are the innovators and leaders. This trickles back up to the head people either to be slowly integrated or ignored.

From what I've seen, many affiliates highly prize the "10 general physical skills" and the leaders are integrating regular strength and skill work.

Regarding the part in the article about Kelly Starrett taking six weeks off of metcon to improve his strength lifts (setting PRs) and losing metcon capacity in the process, only to need 6 weeks to return to his previous metcon capacity (while maintaining his newfound strength PRs). This seems obvious to most of us, I'm sure.

Do no metcon, get worse at metcon. Do dedicated strength work and get stronger. Do an excessive amount of metcon or strength lifts too rarely and max lifts will likely suffer. I'll bet that strength work translated into better metcon performances after the six weeks of "metcon recovery" was completed. That part wasn't mentioned. All that being said, Kelly is a pretty strong dude to begin with--based on his workload and background, he might just need a 6-week concentrated strength cycle to improve his numbers!

By prioritizing:
Low-rep power training
Low-rep strength training
Gymnastics training
Moderate amounts of metcon

...one can get better at nearly all of them simultaneously while being able to choose which ones get concentrated attention either for sport purposes or to improve some perceived weakness.

My own perceptions on the most effective metcon programming is:

Power-biased (allowing for higher power outputs round-to-round)
Heavy metcons (taxing higher levels of strength in a metcon fashion)
Metcons with weights and/or cals that allow for continuous movement without stopping ((taxing higher levels of CV output in a metcon fashion)
6 round Tabatas (because if you can do more rounds, you didn't go hard enough)
Typically less than 10 minutes (easier on the CNS and adrenals long-term)
Doublets or Triplets (because chippers just suck the life out of people)
For sessions of longer than 10 minutes, a single modality more suited to longer work periods is advisable (ie. running, rowing, biking)
GS-style KB work

Somewhat all over the place, and JMO.

Mike ODonnell
02-10-2009, 10:14 AM
at least Gant can copyright his beer and ice cream PWO diet. :)

Strength is good.....funny how good the body feels after a real strength workout.....vs how crappy it feels after a long metcon drain.....almost like it wants more short and heavy sessions.....

Ken Urakawa
02-10-2009, 10:52 AM
[QUOTE=Mike ODonnell;50113]at least Gant can copyright his beer and ice cream PWO diet. :)QUOTE]

Well....I hate to have to rain on anyone's parade there, but I can clearly recall both the "beershake" and just plain old Guinness and ice cream being a part of my recovery strategies back in the in early '90's.

Just saying is all...

Kevin Perry
02-10-2009, 10:55 AM
Or BBQ diet.

I think most of us here can agree with the more strength shorter metcon approach as showing it's highly effectiveness.

Brandon Oto
02-10-2009, 01:00 PM
The biggest thing I see with this shift is that the "constantly varied" idea will have to be accepted as being (pretty much) defunct. Putting someone on a routine like in the CFSB is not "constantly varied" at all anymore.

This doesn't kill me either as I'm not convinced that training has to be blizzard-like in its randomness in order to create a body that can do many things.

Garrett Smith
02-10-2009, 02:33 PM
This doesn't kill me either as I'm not convinced that training has to be blizzard-like in its randomness in order to create a body that can do many things.
I agree, and I think most of us here realize that no one can be fully prepared for everything.

My thing is I simply find hitting PRs in OLs and getting new gymnastics moves to be so much more fulfilling than improving my times on a metcon. That would seem to be the same reason I didn't get much out of competing in triathlons--finishing the first one was cool, then it was simply fighting the clock. I guess I'd rather learn new things than just try to get better and better at the same movement.

What I found even more interesting is that Coach Glassman mentions that there will be non-typical (at least to CF programming) movements utilized in this years CF Games--see the relatively recently posted video (http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFitGames09_Coach09Format.mov) on the now-acronymed "MP" (mainpage). This is curious because CF prides itself on using movements that involve the generation of some of the highest work outputs. Since they are looking for the men & women who have the highest "work capacity", will their search really be fruitful using lower-output movements--or are there magical, unknown-to-most-of-us movements out there that generate even more horsepower than the OLs and other "functional" movements?

Gavin Harrison
02-10-2009, 02:50 PM
What I found even more interesting is that Coach Glassman mentions that there will be non-typical (at least to CF programming) movements utilized in this years CF Games--see the relatively recently posted video (http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFitGames09_Coach09Format.mov) on the now-acronymed "MP" (mainpage). This is curious because CF prides itself on using movements that involve the generation of some of the highest work outputs. Since they are looking for the men & women who have the highest "work capacity", will their search really be fruitful using lower-output movements--or are there magical, unknown-to-most-of-us movements out there that generate even more horsepower than the OLs and other "functional" movements?

I think it fits in neatly with the "how do you train for the unknown and the unknowable" aspect of crossfit. If you do things that are too close to normal crossfit wods, you aren't really training for the unknown/unknowable, you're training for crossfit. That's my take on it, at least.

Brandon Oto
02-10-2009, 03:20 PM
I think it makes complete sense to use weirder, non-trained patterns of movement to TEST GPP since that's the whole point -- everyone knows you're good at what you train, the GPP question is how good you are at everything else -- while not necessarily using anything but the most effective movements to TRAIN GPP.

That's actually how I myself envisioned the Games (something nobody there has trained), so I'm extremely pleased to hear it may be that way.

Mike ODonnell
02-10-2009, 04:37 PM
Well....I hate to have to rain on anyone's parade there, but I can clearly recall both the "beershake" and just plain old Guinness and ice cream being a part of my recovery strategies back in the in early '90's.

Just saying is all...

Mmmmm....the old Guinness float....Yummy. Seriously....if that kind of pwo eating isn't motivation to go workout....I don't know what is.

Do you think there will ever be the P90X games?

Garrett Smith
02-10-2009, 05:05 PM
"How to create an injury" aka "men will die for points"

=

Take unfamiliar & untrained movements, get a bunch of highly-trained athletes in a highly competitive atmosphere, and have them go balls-out for extended periods of time.

This could be a recipe for rhabdo in the "specifically unprepared" athlete. Think GHD sit-ups, they can take a world sit-up champion and put him out of commission.

Or just maybe, like prior to last year's Games where I complained about the old CFJ standard of chest-to-bar pullups being ignored for the new record-setting "chin just squeaking above the bar" standard (http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/003640.html), only to have the chest-to-bar standard being installed days before the Games (note that my post was May 13th, the Games were June 5-6th, coincidence?). Maybe they'll read this and rethink the approach they're currently proposing.

Could be disastrous. Maybe deadly. "Dangerous" (think t-shirt) might take on a whole new meaning there. Keep the medics handy.

Gant Grimes
02-11-2009, 03:31 AM
I agree, and I think most of us here realize that no one can be fully prepared for everything.

I think it fits in neatly with the "how do you train for the unknown and the unknowable" aspect of crossfit.

And why should we? Between your individual physical characteristics, geography, and demographics, you can forsee 80% of the things (even the really weird ones) that might happen to you.

It's fine to do something because you like it, and a lot of people like CF. For true GPP, it's tough to beat. But how many people need true GPP? Most people tell themselves they're preparing for "everything," when they're really in it for the abz.

Unless you truly need GPP for your job (a small portion of mil/spec ops, some fire, very few LEO) or are one of those people that DON'T need it for anything, you're going to be better off with a programming bias.

Ben Moskowitz
02-11-2009, 09:34 AM
Well, most people "need" biased programming like they need GPP. The rub is some people like one more than the other.

Gavin Harrison
02-11-2009, 01:39 PM
And why should we? Between your individual physical characteristics, geography, and demographics, you can forsee 80% of the things (even the really weird ones) that might happen to you.

It's fine to do something because you like it, and a lot of people like CF. For true GPP, it's tough to beat. But how many people need true GPP? Most people tell themselves they're preparing for "everything," when they're really in it for the abz.

Unless you truly need GPP for your job (a small portion of mil/spec ops, some fire, very few LEO) or are one of those people that DON'T need it for anything, you're going to be better off with a programming bias.

Oh, I agree with you 100%... I don't crossfit, and I probably will never crossfit. I did for a short time. But, I think crossfit's main contention is that true GPP is the goal of the CF.com workouts and LEO/Fire/Mil has been their prime market all along. The talk/QA given by Greg Glassman at the war college, at least the free preview bits (not a subscriber), were pretty interesting.

Well, most people "need" biased programming like they need GPP. The rub is some people like one more than the other.

I agree, except strength and GPP both help me in day to day life, they aren't really necessary :P

I personally don't really like metcons too much, at all. I'd rather have good strength numbers and a few low level gymnastic skills than a 3 minute fran time or whatever. Just enough conditioning to be able to not be destroyed by lifting, and to be able to do normal daily things like running stairs or w/e without getting too winded ;)

The really good things that have come out of crossfit for me personally are pointers to great sources of information that I'd never heard of before, introduction to oly lifting outside of power cleans, introduction to low level gymnastics outside of dips and chins, and introduction to kettlebell lifting.

John Filippini
02-12-2009, 04:59 AM
The really good things that have come out of crossfit for me personally are pointers to great sources of information that I'd never heard of before, introduction to oly lifting outside of power cleans, introduction to low level gymnastics outside of dips and chins, and introduction to kettlebell lifting.

I agree, and I know pretty much everyone in oly lifting agrees as well, probably a lot of people in gymnastics and kettlebells too. Hardcore oly lifters may hate the form that CF teaches and the high rep oly workouts for time, but they can't deny the huge influx of membership and interest they've gotten as a benefit. A lot of my coaches give a lot of thanks to CF as something of a "gateway drug."

Garrett Smith
02-12-2009, 06:12 AM
A lot of my coaches give a lot of thanks to CF as something of a "gateway drug."
Agreed.

Steven Low
02-12-2009, 07:54 AM
Oh, I agree with you 100%... I don't crossfit, and I probably will never crossfit. I did for a short time. But, I think crossfit's main contention is that true GPP is the goal of the CF.com workouts and LEO/Fire/Mil has been their prime market all along. The talk/QA given by Greg Glassman at the war college, at least the free preview bits (not a subscriber), were pretty interesting

If you go to the CF Journal and find them they are free. I don't have CFJ and have watched them all.

It's actually a very good series.. pretty much clarified my "concept" of how Coach Glassman thinks of CF. I understand a lot more where he's coming from now.


That said, I agree with Gant (and have said it a lot). Most people don't "NEED" true GPP... it's those fire/police/mil/etc. guys that "truly" need it.

Craig Brown
02-12-2009, 07:55 AM
Agreed on the gateway...led me to a vast amount of what I do.

Mike ODonnell
02-12-2009, 12:20 PM
That said, I agree with Gant (and have said it a lot). Most people don't "NEED" true GPP... it's those fire/police/mil/etc. guys that "truly" need it.

Most people don't really "need" to do much anything in life stressful....just comes down to what we enjoy doing. I think Ross said it best....if aliens attack I'm not going to try and pick up a 200lb rock to throw at them, I'm grabbing my shotgun...(or something like that).

If anyone can give me a situation in life of why I would even need to be able run 26.2 miles....then I might consider taking up marathons.

Liam Dougherty Springer
02-12-2009, 12:37 PM
If anyone can give me a situation in life of why I would even need to be able run 26.2 miles....then I might consider taking up marathons.

Word;)

And as to CF being a "gateway drug" to fitness.

I agree, it was definately mine, and I think for many that is its ultimate service and for the masses perhaps its greatest.

It introduced me to an exilerateing and creaative side to fitness.

Garrett Smith
02-12-2009, 01:03 PM
Thinking back, I recall that Pavel's PTTP, then KBs, were my gateways into this whole arena.

I always get a chuckle when I look back at who was at the 2nd TSC (http://tacticalstrengthchallenge.com/results/2002_2003/mar_08_2003.html):
Pavel
Coach Burgener (hosting at his high school)
Josh Everett (winnah! and PMenu author)
Steve Cotter
Brett Jones
Stephane Rochet (another PMenu author and head university strength coach)
Myself

That would seem to be half the people there...I do know Tony Ducci got into CF as well later...

Kevin Haynes
02-12-2009, 01:57 PM
Sorry to barge in. I'm new to this site and think I've found a home, but have a newbie question. Other than the gymnastics work, I'm trying to figure out the difference between Gant's Hybrid and simply following the WOD on this site. As someone moving from doing CF for the last two years, I am glad to find some good alternative program.

Donald Lee
02-12-2009, 02:19 PM
Thinking back, I recall that Pavel's PTTP, then KBs, were my gateways into this whole arena.

I always get a chuckle when I look back at who was at the 2nd TSC (http://tacticalstrengthchallenge.com/results/2002_2003/mar_08_2003.html):
Pavel
Coach Burgener (hosting at his high school)
Josh Everett (winnah! and PMenu author)
Steve Cotter
Brett Jones
Stephane Rochet (another PMenu author and head university strength coach)
Myself

That would seem to be half the people there...I do know Tony Ducci got into CF as well later...

Wow. I knew Josh Everett won the TSC, but I didn't know he competed against Brett Jones and Steve Cotter.

Donald Lee
02-12-2009, 02:29 PM
Sorry to barge in. I'm new to this site and think I've found a home, but have a newbie question. Other than the gymnastics work, I'm trying to figure out the difference between Gant's Hybrid and simply following the WOD on this site. As someone moving from doing CF for the last two years, I am glad to find some good alternative program.

Gant's Hybrid has gymnastics, the slow lifts, the Olympic lifts, and heavy metcons. The CA WOD is mostly Olympic lifts with slow lifts as assistance exercises. The metcons are usually short and sweet to maintain some level conditioning.

http://www.cathletics.com/wod/index.php?show=about

That will be helpful for understanding the CA WODs.

Garrett Smith
02-12-2009, 04:06 PM
Wow. I knew Josh Everett won the TSC, but I didn't know he competed against Brett Jones and Steve Cotter.
Yes, his freakish physical abilities was evident even back then...:D That was a fun day.

Peter Dell'Orto
02-12-2009, 05:48 PM
"How to create an injury" aka "men will die for points"

=

Take unfamiliar & untrained movements, get a bunch of highly-trained athletes in a highly competitive atmosphere, and have them go balls-out for extended periods of time.

Maybe they'll just make them do a decathalon or pentathalon or something like that...it'd be fun watching then throw javelins and such.

Or maybe it would be like the Drunken Lawn Darts Invitational, and just be terrifying instead.

I'm curious what unconventional movements they have in mind, but I agree it could be a wee bit dangerous.

Peter Dell'Orto
02-12-2009, 05:53 PM
And why should we? Between your individual physical characteristics, geography, and demographics, you can forsee 80% of the things (even the really weird ones) that might happen to you.

Yeah, I agree. It's especially true with sports.

One thing I learned while doing CF + MMA training was that I didn't really need "general" preparedness. I could specifically predict what was going to be involved in a match. I knew the maximum time it could involve, the rest times, the rules, when it would happen, and the movements it would involve. So I started to trim away the stuff that came up on the WOD that didn't really help as much...and in the end, programming (with a peak for a planned fight) proved to be more useful.

Not knocking CF as a concept or its benefits, really. Just saying that, yeah, you generally don't need to be prepared for anything, just the stuff you're likely to encounter. Athletes and probably many military and first-responder types can predict that. Athletes can especially predict when they'll need it, as well as the "what." Still, broadly-inclusive GPP is a good way to try a lot of different movements and modes of training and see which ones you need to work on.

For me it turned out to be strength. Heh. :)

Kevin Perry
02-12-2009, 06:19 PM
CF is an excellent program for finding where a person will need to prioritize their weaknessess and in that respect more programming will be valuable.

Dave Van Skike
02-12-2009, 08:52 PM
the sooner all y'all realize that it's all Bodybuilding the more contented you'll be...less time online for sure, but your mind will be clear.

Kevin Perry
02-12-2009, 09:26 PM
hell Dave even I did some DB presses the other day for fun.. a little HST now and then never hurt anyone...


becareful when using that term with some of the kool-aid ninjas though... might consider it blasphemous

Dave Van Skike
02-12-2009, 10:50 PM
hey i'm comfortble with my own (albeit fetishistic) form of vanity, just trying to spread the good word.

Kevin Haynes
02-15-2009, 06:04 PM
Thanks Donald.

So which do most of the people on this forum follow?

Derek Weaver
02-15-2009, 06:20 PM
Thanks Donald.

So which do most of the people on this forum follow?

Kevin, there's no answer. This place is great because we have people with a gymnastics focus, strong man, olympic lifting, power lifting, GPP fans etc.

It's the people and insights that make this place what it is.

George Mounce
02-15-2009, 06:52 PM
I don't have anything to add, just wanted to say this is a really, really good thread.

Aimee Anaya Everett
02-15-2009, 09:59 PM
all:
remember to play nice. This thread is borderline. Follow the rules, no CrossFit or individual bashing or I will make this thread go to cyber heaven. or hell.
Keep your beefs in private messages or to yourselves. This is a great topic and thread otherwise, but we don't gossip or talk badly about anyone who are our friends. There are other forums for that.

thanks.

Gavin Harrison
02-16-2009, 12:25 PM
Sorry to barge in. I'm new to this site and think I've found a home, but have a newbie question. Other than the gymnastics work, I'm trying to figure out the difference between Gant's Hybrid and simply following the WOD on this site. As someone moving from doing CF for the last two years, I am glad to find some good alternative program.

Gant's is a GPP via increased strength program. CA WOD is a Oly lifting w/ marginal metcon/GPP program. The CF Strength Bias program is very similar to Gant's program, except more GPP based, and includes higher repetition lifting work in addition to the lower repetition work. From reading through the comments on the CFSB program, I'd say it looks like a good program for a crossfitter looking to focus on strength without leaving crossfit, which is what Bingo and Jeff Martin have always said.

IIRC, Bingo/Jeff have never ever bashed on Gant's program or anything, they just were kind of confused when people on CF boards would say something like "hey, I'm weak but I like the fitness I get from crossfit, what should I do??" and a lot of folks would respond, with answers such as do Starting Strength and forget metcon until your lift #s are up. In this regard, I'm sure they were more favorable to Gant's program than SS. Makes sense to me. And why not? If you like the metcon ability and you don't have any immediate strength goals or needs, why drop GPP all together to focus on solely strength.

Also of note: Crossfit Football has been announced by Coach Glassman and John Welbourn just a little bit ago. They said they should have something up about it soon (March?). This should be very interesting :)

Peter Dell'Orto
02-16-2009, 04:10 PM
Also of note: Crossfit Football has been announced by Coach Glassman and John Welbourn just a little bit ago. They said they should have something up about it soon (March?). This should be very interesting :)

Do you have a link to that? What I turned up on a search was just some mention of a Crossfit Football Certification...but nothing on what it's all about. I train at a gym that churns out Combine-bound athletes, so I'm curious what this is all about.

Gavin Harrison
02-16-2009, 06:32 PM
Do you have a link to that? What I turned up on a search was just some mention of a Crossfit Football Certification...but nothing on what it's all about. I train at a gym that churns out Combine-bound athletes, so I'm curious what this is all about.

http://board.crossfit.com/showpost.php?p=519473&postcount=3

That's the only thing anyone's really got to go on so far, I think.

Patrick Donnelly
02-16-2009, 07:56 PM
As far as credit giving goes... This reminds me of how Newton invented calculus. Heheh. Not really anything else to add, I just thought the parallels were interesting.

Liam Dougherty Springer
02-17-2009, 03:13 PM
Kevin, there's no answer. This place is great because we have people with a gymnastics focus, strong man, olympic lifting, power lifting, GPP fans etc.

It's the people and insights that make this place what it is.

Word:cool:

Kevin Haynes
02-18-2009, 06:04 AM
Thanks again for the response. If I want to follow Gant's Hybrid program, I think I found his outline, but my question is: on Snatch or C/J days, does one simply do 3x3 or 5x5 or 1rm, or do you also prep for those lifts in a similar fashion to the wods' on this site (snatch balance, 3 position cleans, heavy pulls, etc?) Slow lifts are easy enough and i can figure out a mini metcon to do, but the Oly lift training is my biggest question.

Gant Grimes
02-18-2009, 06:33 AM
Thanks again for the response. If I want to follow Gant's Hybrid program, I think I found his outline, but my question is: on Snatch or C/J days, does one simply do 3x3 or 5x5 or 1rm, or do you also prep for those lifts in a similar fashion to the wods' on this site (snatch balance, 3 position cleans, heavy pulls, etc?) Slow lifts are easy enough and i can figure out a mini metcon to do, but the Oly lift training is my biggest question.

No, the OLY lifts are programmed differently. Look to Greg's WODs for guidance. Lots of singles and doubles. The hybrid utilizes the OLY lifts but doesn't practice them like the WODs here. If you want extra work, change a couple OLY lifts to OLY assistance exercises. Or just add tall cleans or snatch balances to your warmup, which isn't a bad idea for ANY training program.

Garrett Smith
02-18-2009, 12:07 PM
The only OL-related exercise I do that goes above 3 reps/set is back squats.

Liam Dougherty Springer
02-18-2009, 01:39 PM
When I was following the highbryd I often did O-Lifts in a timed repetition patern for maybe 10-15 min. sometimes I would get greedy and do 20+ min. but if I wasn't carefull I would end up needing to back off or take an extra rest day later in the week. I would use percentages of max and do acending sets on the minute or two minute sometimes ending in a heavy sigle for the day very rarely my 1RM. I think there was some reference to this style in one of the posts by Gant anyhow I got the idea from some of the WODs on Mikes Gym . When wanting to test the O-lifts 1RM I would typicaly reverse the O-Lift and slow lift portions of the day and the do some moderate Slow lifts or Oly asistance exercises at a moderate volume maybe 5x3 or even explosive rack squats either front or back 8x3. I also would test on a day with no metcon often on the 4th WO of the week after a rest day.

Thats what I did:)
Play around and have some fun.