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 > Fitness, Strength & CrossFit

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-09-2009, 08:22 PM   #21
Chris Falkner
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 56

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.
Chris Falkner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 09:14 PM   #22
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
Garrett Smith's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368

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.
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 10:56 PM   #23
Arien Malec
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,035

Originally Posted by Derek Weaver View Post
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.
Arien Malec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 11:41 PM   #24
Derek Weaver
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,642

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.
And if you don't think kettleball squat cleans are difficult, I say, step up to the med-ball
- CJ Kim
Derek Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 12:13 AM   #25
Gant Grimes
Super Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,373

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.
"It should be more like birthday party than physics class." | Log | 70's Big

Last edited by Gant Grimes; 02-10-2009 at 03:23 PM.
Gant Grimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 12:19 AM   #26
Brandon Oto
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 299

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.
Brandon Oto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 08:36 AM   #27
Kevin Perry
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,672

"open source" model. There, that means everyone can be happy.

BBQ sounds good.
Kevin Perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 08:39 AM   #28
Steven Low
Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091

Originally Posted by Brandon Oto View Post
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.
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 11:00 AM   #29
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
Garrett Smith's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368

Originally Posted by Brandon Oto View Post
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:
  1. Low-rep power training
  2. Low-rep strength training
  3. Gymnastics training
  4. 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.
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2009, 11:14 AM   #30
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596

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.....
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote

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

BB 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 05:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

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

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

Submit Your Question

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
Products & Services
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator