Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Other

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2006, 12:23 PM   #41
Danny John
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 131
Default

I've been realizing lately that in order to get something, you have to give something up. Our lives our completely full right with whatever we've decided to fill them with now, so in order to add anything, something's gotta go. In some instances what has to go is TV time, or junk food, but in more advanced athletes its often not necessarily "bad" stuff. For example, the guy I'm mentioned above isn't doing snatches, or cleans, or tabata thrusters, or gymnastics work on the rings. Why not? They're good exercises right? Of course they are. Problem is, he's doing loads of work outside of the gym already, so everything except the bare essentials had to go. I get him in the gym for thirty minutes, we get what needs to get done, and he's out. He's not sore and immobile for days, he's not spending hours in the weight room, he just gets what he needs and is out.

Another example of this principle is my own training this summer. When I was creating my training program I thought about my weaknesses. I decided as a goal to clean and jerk 225 for reps, which I knew would give me more than enough strength to manhandle most of the Crossfit workouts. My endurance is already mostly in place, so I knew I wouldn't have to emphasize it. As soon as I came up with that goal of clean and jerking 225 for reps, I thought, what am I going to have to give up in order to get it? For one, I made the first day of every 4 day training cycle heavy lifting day. No metabolic conditioning, no gymnastics, just heavy ass weights. Secondly, I knew that my pulling was not my weakness here. At the time my power clean was a decent 225 lbs. and my jerk was a pathetic 185 lbs. Thus I created a lifting program with a strong overhead and squatting emphasis with only a little bit of pulling work. I had to give up cleans in order to bring up my jerk and squat. This has worked very well so far. A few days ago I split jerked 175 for 5 sets of 2 and it was easy, whereas a month of go I doubt I could have managed one set of two at that weight.

In short, you can have it all, but only if you're willing to give something up. I've noticed that unless I'm willing to focus on training my weak points by giving something less important up, I make no progress at all on Crossfit. Even with a completely generalized goal, specialization and thus sacrifice, is required.



Russ, I thought this was brilliant when you wrote it. I kept it. I think that is the point.

Again, on that other thing...you might not know the extent of all of it...
Danny John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 02:44 PM   #42
Ron Nelson
Senior Member
 
Ron Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Center of the heterosexual universe
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny John View Post
But, he did:

People have asked me to speak so I will. To address a few points
1- It amazes me how people can turn idealogy person. I don't feel I have a big ego and don't consider myself a capitalist. I paid my own way to the SOMA Conference to sit on a panel and provide an opinion. I did that and fully expected to be asked the "CrossFit" question. I gave my opinion. I don't like high rep olympic lifting and particularly dislike it for those who are not good at it. There are better ways to work hard and develop muscle endurance.
2- I sat next to Mark Twight. I had a good conversation with him and exchanged emails. I don't believe any comments were directed at Mark. Hopefully if he reads this board he can address this himself.
3- My athletes regularly use olympic lifts. We hang clean, snatch and dumbell snatch. I have written articles on teaching olympic lifts and have produced a video on the same. We rarely do more than 5 reps. I use olympic lifts for power and other methods for endurance.
4-I train kids and adults as well as professional athletes.
I have no interest in making money off the military and have no issue with the people at CrossFit. That being said, I stand by original comments.

Thanks
Michael

Comment #152 - Posted by Michael Boyle at December 12, 2006 08:50 AM
I posted a comment on that day, but would edit one statement if I could. I made a comment that degrading one system to promote another is bullshit of the purest form, which it is. Unfortunately, I made that statement based on what someone told somebody else that this guy said something about another GPP program. You get the point. Had Mr. Boyle posted this before my post, my comment would not have seen the light of day.

My comment may have been a truism, but it was made regarding 2nd, 3rd, perhaps 10th hand knowledge which is not my style at all (not that I'd expect anyone to know this). That is why I regret that part of my post and, if I could, would gladly edit it out.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Boyle did not get in the mud on this one.
Ron Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 02:49 PM   #43
Robb Wolf
Senior Member
 
Robb Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,444
Default

Wow!
This thing has taken off! First, I think Mike Boyle showed some serious class in his response. Concise, to the point, take it or leave it. When you start trying to sell someone on something to the point of name-calling and public executions this is where things take a turn from “fitness program” to “movement” to “cult”.

Loads of things I wanted to comment on. Regarding the ability of CF to “Home Brew” an elite athlete…the person either comes to the party with the engine or you need to take the time to build it. The front page WOD has shifted stunningly in the past year since Rutman’s ME-Black Box piece. Compare some Oct ’06 programming with Oct ’01, 02, 03…you are not going to build a strength base with that previous programming. I had my head up my hoo-ha on this issue and could have been further down the road. Rut asked me what I thought of the combined template and I thought it was unnecessary as I was making progress nearly daily on straight WOD, front page programming. I also had a good gymnastics, PL’g and OL background. I was seriously wrong, but observing the progress, or lack thereof in our clients opened my eyes. People got some stronger, certainly better cardio/metcon, but nothing impressive. Now that folks O-lift, do weighted pull-ups and the like we are building some intermediate to high-level athletes from scratch.

One of the big eye openers for me was when Ido had one of his students come to stay with us for a few months. She came from a background of heavy low rep strength work, Olifts, gymnastics, Capoeira and boxing. She was at the top of the heap on ALL of the CF WOD’s the first time she tried them. She had multiple muscle ups, HSPU’s solid DL and squat numbers…and could do metcons like 130 back flips for time. According to Coach Glassmans definition of fitness ala CrossFit, Ido and his folks are MORE fit. Why? Due largely to their strength base and “metcon” from boxing and capoeira intervals. That floored me and Ido has been fighting the good fight trying to keep me focused for nearly two years now. Sorry if this is meandering a bit, loads of ideas going on.

Back to the Boyle question. Off base? He recommends Olifts for strength/power and “other methods” for endurance. To my knowledge Poliquin employs similar methods. Poliquin has a boatload of Olympic medallists he works with. Boyle has a pretty impressive client list. To my knowledge CrossFit has produced NO Olympic medallists. If I’m wrong about this I’m confident I’ll be set straight. I think some Crossfitters may have won the PanAm’s and Mundials in BJJ. Good stuff. But if one makes the claim of “The Fittest” I think it important to use something other than the progress of military trainees doing CF vs standard PT as the gold standard. Who would think that long slow running, push-ups, sit ups, flutter kicks, ruck marches would produce the best fitness? Of course KB’s, Olifts, gymnastics and INTENSITY will elevate the games of these folks. I’ve said elsewhere that I think the fitness CF produces is likely the best for health there is…but this is far different than claiming the ultimate system for athletic greatness.

Lets take a look at the new CrossFit total. Squat, DL, Press. How do you recommend attacking this? What is your best route to improving this total so, as Coach Glassman asserts, overall CF performance will improve? Some strength work….then some metcon in the same day? One day of strength work, one day of metcon? Or something like several months of strength work followed by a shift towards metcons…with a small peppering of strength work to maintain strength during the strength endurance phase…then a shift back to strength work, possibly Conjugate methods, some Olift derivatives for rate of force development. Hmm. Looks remarkably like modern periodization with the emphasis being a stud strength/endurance athlete. This would be a phenomenal CrossFit Journal topic: How to optimize CrossFit-One year of Periodized progressions.

What is my point to all this? It’s nothing new. Most folks in S&C understand:
1) Strength endurance is predicated on strength.
2) It requires only a small amount of strength work to maintain a high degree of strength.

CrossFit is defined as “A strength & conditioning program built on constantly varied if not randomized functional movements, performed at high intensity”. I contend that the constant variation is detrimental to overall development and that some measure of planning, specifically of strength work, will produce the best results, by the standards of fitness CF lays out. I’m not sure if that tweak entitles me to the intellectual property of a program like I outlined above but it is interesting. Oh, but wait…Ross Enamait has already put forward programming like that. I wonder if he will mind co-patenting this with me.

CrossFit is phenomenal for increasing work capacity and, if done smart, unparalled in staving off fatigue at high work output. Increasing volume of work up to the point of failure again and again enhances substrate storage and improves subsequent efforts. Again, nothing new…that’s in the supposedly archaic NSCA CSCS manual.

I’m starting to wander here but I’ll wrap up with this. Coach Glassman has asserted that if you take a given group of people doing CF and folks doing another system and compare them head to head, the Crossfitters will come out ahead. Here is a study I’d love to see, and since CrossFit Inc. is seeing such explosive market share they could easily fund it. Three groups of people age, gender height, weight matched and a baseline of fitness established by a long list of standards (CF WOD’s, max efforts, runs…you name it). Standard scientific practice is used in data collection. The groups would be trained as follows:
Group 1- Standard randomized CF WODS chosen from the previous 4 years of offerings from crossfit.com. Everyone eats Zone. Rationale? CF does not change programs for various athletes (from the Foundations I believe) and the Zone. What more is there to elite nutrition after all?
Group 2- Periodized program with strength emphasis. Individual loading is closely monitored and cycles between blocks of strength work, power work and metcons. Nutrition is monitored daily, as is sleep, and various elements of recovery used to assess overreaching/overtraining. Rationale? A structured strength base will produce a better strength endurance athlete.
Group 3-Jazercise. Just for kicks.

I’m confident Group 2 wins out. I’m also confident group 3 gets beat up a lot.

This may sound like a bunch of armchair pontificating but not only would this play out as predicted, this is what DOESS play out every day…and it was not on anyone’s radar except Michael Rutherford. Now it’s added to the mix and the new and improved, community driven program is better…but everyone outside the community, who do things differently are apparently idiots! Hmm.

My thought on high rep Olifts? I like ‘em. I use them appropriately however. I have a client pushing 400lbs and not even the super accessible medball clean is going to work. He rows, walks, frequently with a sled and that is about it. His squat form is abysmal and I’m nervous about blowing out his knees. He does what he can and I keep it simple. He makes progress. Yippee. I think these points of contention are interesting but can be taken to extremes IMO.
__________________
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

Robb's Blog
Robb Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 03:29 PM   #44
Ron Nelson
Senior Member
 
Ron Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Center of the heterosexual universe
Posts: 547
Default

Robb,
I wish you wouldn't veil your thoughts in double entendre and innuendo. Just tell us how you really feel.

Having dropped out of the CF community for quite some time, I was surprised to see the amount of ME work appear. The one reason I stopped doing the WOD for so long was to build my strength foundation using a couple of different programs. Result? Better performance on some of the benchmark WOD's that called for strength. My Helen sucked before, became shit after (using Dave Tate terms), but I can live with that.

By the way, I'll volunteer for the over 40 portion of group 2 in your study if you write my Paleo menu each day. Like Dan, I have to be told what to do if I'm going to do it. I'm eating an apple right now; that's paleo isn't it?

As far as the Boyle thing goes, I said it in my post on the CF site; I agree with his stance on back squats (probably because my front squat is better than my back squat) but like barbell deadlifts better than single-let DL's. I also said he tends to piss off a lot of people in the S&C community (just look at his last T-Mag article). I guess you can add the CF community to his list.

Again, nice ramble Mr. Wolff.
Ron Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 03:35 PM   #45
Robb Wolf
Senior Member
 
Robb Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,444
Default

Thanks Ron, it was a ramble. Other folks, youself included, were much more cogent than I.

I just want to offer up some appreciation for the level of respsect in the thread. It's easy enough to express a differing point of view with out running people down. It tends to keep things a discussion and not a blood bath.
__________________
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

Robb's Blog
Robb Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 04:03 PM   #46
Billy_Brummel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 100
Default

Robb,

The people on the jazzercize.com forum are really worked up about your earlier posting. You might want to do some damage control over there.
Billy_Brummel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 05:09 PM   #47
Steve Shafley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,285
Default

Did somebody mention blood bath?
Steve Shafley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 05:56 PM   #48
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

"The people on the jazzercize.com forum are really worked up about your earlier posting. You might want to do some damage control over there."

Curves sucks....just wanted to make sure we didn't leave anyone out, now the blood..or jelly stuffing from the donuts will flow.
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 06:46 PM   #49
Eva Claire Synkowski
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 346
Default

maaan, i actually went to jazzercise.com to see if they have a forum.

fyi - they dont, but you may get hooked on some of the testimonials, e.g.,
"No one worries about what you're wearing or even if you make a mistake - it's fun and it's a great stress release.

now, back to pontificating, robb. interesting read.
Eva Claire Synkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2006, 07:23 PM   #50
Robb Wolf
Senior Member
 
Robb Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,444
Default

Billy-
I was going to offer my first born as thanks for the heads up but I see i've been duped! I'll keep my eye on you and your slick Lionel Ritchie avatar...

Eva-
Do they (jazercise) appear to have any problems with....oh...say, um...working out NAKED...but around a bunch of other CLOTHED people...I'm asking for a friend who, Oh how do i put this? This person has special NEEDS...
__________________
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

Robb's Blog
Robb Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator