Originally Posted by Bryan Kemper
2) If some or many of the exercises are unfamiliar to you and you are only modestly acquainted with elite athletic training.
What does the word "elite" have to do with anything in that sentence?
If you're "elite" at something (for example, you've won a national championship in some recognized sport) it does not mean you're capable of performing a WOD without getting rhabdo. In any way.
For example, see that elite miler guy on iamunscared.com who just got rhabdo.
Everyone wants to be elite these days. Hate to say it, but just because someone follows a workout regimen posted on a website doesn't mean they are elite.
For reference, Dan John -- "What is Elite?" http://danjohn.net/2010/12/what-is-elite/
Originally Posted by John Thomas
I read the post in the link above and saw that Mr. Unscared said the following:
"The muscular endurance most folks are used to requires long efforts at aerobic levels, vs. the extremely explosive, full range of motion, anaerobic and aerobic work a 100 burpees for time workout requires. You can shatter like glass, quite literally, as that is what happens to the tissue when it is so under trained."
Is that accurate at all?
I thought the primary rhabdo risk came from workouts that overemphasized the negative, eccentric part of a movement and had little to do with how explosive or anaerobic it was. That's why, for example, jumping pull-ups will cause rhabdo in the lats (because you lower yourself many more times than you ever could have raised yourself up) but they don't cause rhabdo in your legs (because once you can't jump anymore you have to stop).
Yeah, not really accurate. Burpees aren't explosive.
The reason you can get rhabdo from burpees is the same reason you can get rhabdo from pushups -- because the going down portion is easier, and you can always
go down again, and that's what causes the damage.