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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2009, 10:42 AM   #21
Grissim Connery
Senior Member
 
Grissim Connery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 624
Default

i don't like football, but those WODs look fun. they should make a crossfit lacrosse. even though i don't play anymore, i think lacrosse is more fun.

recently my workouts have been the GB WOD followed by a 5-12 min metcon. i think i'll just start using the CFFB metcons after the GB WOD.

speaking of heavy metcons, the GB site posts up these WODs sometimes where you do 4 rounds of 3 exercises. coach sommer recommends to rest 2-3 min between founds. if you skip the rest and adjust the reps, you can make some pretty brutal metcons. going beetween wheels, jumping HSPU's, and AG walks is intense.

i wish they'd put some KB stuff on CFFB. normally i use www.newjerseycrossfit.com for some KB metcons. of course, these are scaled down. most of their metcons are timed to take at least 30 min.
Grissim Connery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2009, 10:37 PM   #22
Blair Lowe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 593
Default

GB WODS as metcons are horrid affairs. One of gymnasts hates using rest periods and is fighting with me a lot on it with, of course poor performance during rounds.

I do love the look of the CFFB metcons. I might have to see about doing them for metcons, I'd probably enjoy them more.
Blair Lowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 12:46 AM   #23
Justin McCallon
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 45
Default

I'm a little late on this.

I do the workouts and I like the system a lot. Lots more strength work, I love heavy/short metcons, overall more demanding, and there's not (many) 1000-rep type workouts. But, I'm using it to get better at CF.

From a football standpoint, I have 2 knocks on the system. (1) I don't think it's sport-specific enough (this is a matter of degree -- I feel like CF changed its philosophy a bit and now started making sport-specific programs, but it didn't go far enough here), and similarly (2) I think there's too much cardio and not enough strength work for most football players.

I always consider GPP and SPP on a continuum. Maybe that's dumb. But I think working on increasing sprint speed, jump height, tackling power, etc. is somewhere in between the two terms. If the program doesn't do a significant amount of this kind of work, I think it's hard to say it's on the same level as something like DeFranco's system, which is all about specializing the training for the task.
It just seems like CFFB doesn't introduce any new movements. Yeah, there's box jumps sometimes, but there's no seated box jumps. The marketing side makes this a little bit harder. Tires and prowlers are examples of equipment not utilized by the program because CF gyms don't all have them. Tire flips/prowler pushes are great movements for football players to be doing, imo. (Add to that bands, chains, lots of box jump variations, etc).
Also, it's possible that as we get closer to the season, John will get more sport-specific. There is definitely more of an emphasis on speed work, bench press, squat, box jumps and burpees, so it's a step in the specialization direction.
(I get the fact that skill work is done on the field, but I think the work I am describing should be prescribed by the S&C coach)

Other than that, I like the idea of using the CrossFit "system" for a wider application. I just think the system needs to incorporate some new movements (most of which would honestly be effective for anyone, though), and although the CFF is doing more strength at the expense of cardio, it doesn't go far enough.


One question: How effective do you guys think heavy metcons are for increasing strength? I've done these off and on, and usually with good success, but I'm thinking it might be like HIT where you'll initially respond well, but then the improvements slow down. Are heavy metcons anywhere close to replacing 5x5 or 3x8 work for strength development?
Justin McCallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 02:47 AM   #24
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

Justin:

I feel both your points are encompassed by this one point which is that they're trying to use "one" program for ALL positions which is clearly going to be ineffective. QB, RB, OL/DL, TE, WR/CB/S all really have different needs and their training should reflect that. You can't have one size fits all stuff for this.

There's a bunch of studies out now on how strength from "functional lifts" doesn't translate out onto the competitive field (aka stuff like cleans and such). So the main aspect now really is to (1) get the athletes strong then (2) use sports specific drills and technique to help translate that out onto the field. Of course, we all pretty much knew that anyway. But yeah, I don't think some of the movements they are using in the program are needed pretty much at all either, and then they need to be doing more sports specific drills along with that as well.

I do think it would be a good idea to incorporate some heavy metcons or intervals in accordance with the "play clock" where you do 5-20s of work and then rest 30-40 secs like actual plays in game. That makes the most sense to me at least because it's sports specific.

Shrug.
__________________
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 05-09-2009, 06:54 AM   #25
Philip Stablein
Member
 
Philip Stablein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 66
Default

I think its M-T-Th-F days of lifting that are supposed to make the athlete strong in the CFFB programming and that the jury is still out on the heavy metcons.

From cruising the CFFB forums the prowler and tires are endorsed by John.

I think the intention is to use CFFB as the off-season training program for all football codes (Aussie Rules, both rugbys, and Gaelic) and do-able at a CF gym.

I hope I can get myself to their east coast seminar and learn more!
__________________
www.southbaltimorecf.com
Philip Stablein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 09:57 AM   #26
Justin McCallon
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 45
Default

Steven,

I definitely agree on the position aspect. Part of that can be fixed with different diets for every player, but the program should really go farther.

Also, you mentioned that cleans don't translate into on-the-field power all that well. But, what about the more specific movements? i.e. the prowler, tires, etc? I remember reading a good article on this subject awhile ago, but again, it's been awhile. Is there not a continuum? i.e. the closer the movement mimics the on-the-field movement, the more carry-over? Or is it just that you need to build strength/power generally, and then actually playing football will teach you to use that power?

I remember when I was doing MMA I would do a lot of DE Bench with chains followed immediately by heavy-bag power punches. This helped my power out a lot.

p.s. that was my post on the prowler! I don't have any idea why CF gyms don't all have 3.
Justin McCallon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 01:40 PM   #27
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

Here's a little bit on the "functional" training aspect:

http://conditioningresearch.blogspot...unctional.html
__________________
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 05-09-2009, 03:41 PM   #28
Donald Lee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Low View Post
Here's a little bit on the "functional" training aspect:

http://conditioningresearch.blogspot...unctional.html
Steven,

It looks like the guy being interviewed is a HIT follower. Some of what he says is partially true, but I wouldn't listen to him to read more into the fallacies of functional training.

I do agree with this point that the guy being interviewed stated:
Quote:
Exercise practitioners have never been known for implementing scientifically-based approaches to exercise. In exercise, it seems that essentially "anything goes." The exercise community at large is driven by fads, not by science.
Essentially, all training can be boiled down to 3 considerations:
1. Mechanical
2. Coordinative
3. Energetic

I borrowed that from some other more knowledgeable people than me. I uploaded a piece of a relevant discussion, if anyone is really that interested.

http://uploading.com/files/DKAAO44J/...ining.doc.html

Here are some better sites that speak more to "functional" training:

http://www.dryessis.com/wp/
http://www.sportscoachingbrain.com/s...view/#more-448
http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php...8&I temid=140
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 06:34 PM   #29
Steven Low
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091
Default

I'll check 'em out. Personally, I don't really care that much if it's true or not.

I would say do everything "like" you would be doing it as sport. That's obviously going to carry over the best.

Football with the X amount of plays for 5-20s effort with the rest "time clock" of ~40-45s interval simulates the game situation pretty well.
__________________
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 05-10-2009, 07:15 AM   #30
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin McCallon View Post
p.s. that was my post on the prowler! I don't have any idea why CF gyms don't all have 3.
Quite simple. No vertical displacement, thus no work done. Too many exercises are discarded due to this approach, which is wholly arbitrary IMO.
__________________
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
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 01:23 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