How do you program a good metcon?

[Scott Kustes]

Gant is basically saying "It's very easy to make someone tired." I could put together a series of movements that fatigues anyone, leaves them a sweaty mess on the floor, etc. That doesn't mean that set of exercises is actually advancing them in their athletic pursuits (or at least not advancing them as far as other movements/reps/sets could've in the same amount of time).

[Chuck Kechter]

Originally Posted by Scott Kustes

Gant is basically saying "It's very easy to make someone tired." I could put together a series of movements that fatigues anyone, leaves them a sweaty mess on the floor, etc. That doesn't mean that set of exercises is actually advancing them in their athletic pursuits (or at least not advancing them as far as other movements/reps/sets could've in the same amount of time).

Exactly!

If only more trainers got that distinction!

[Garrett Smith]

The final max sets of 5/3/1 seem pretty metcon-ish...

Training for GS is generally good for metcon and work capacity...it's also easy on the brain.

[Steve Liberati]

Originally Posted by Garrett Smith

It is too bad that the supposed "genius" of CF programming is too complicated to share with the unwashed masses...

wow Garrett, I think you've made your dislike of CrossFit abundantly clear by now. I don't visit the PMenu as much as I like anymore (just not enough hrs in the day!), but everytime I visit the boards...its the same ol' shit hearing you bag CrossFit or make snide remarks about its trainers or programming. Wasn't it just a few months ago that you were working on getting CF affiliated? Guess that didn't work out so well, so now you have an axe to grind and make every opportunity you get on the board or in an article to take a stab at CF.

If its not your thing, why can't you just leave it at that?

[Chris H Laing]

Originally Posted by Chuck Kechter

If only more trainers got that distinction!

I think many trainers understand the distinction but dont know how to apply it to actual metcon programming.

[Garrett Smith]

Steve,
You didn't address the quote that you included from me.

If CF shared some of their programming ideas, there would be no need for a thread like this, and the best articles on how to program metcons would not have to be in the Performance Menu.

If you don't agree with what I said, then go after that. Otherwise, you're just giving a knee-jerk defensive reaction.

[Chuck Kechter]

Originally Posted by Chris H Laing

I think many trainers understand the distinction but dont know how to apply it to actual metcon programming.

Maybe.

I've been a PT off and on since 1984, and in all that time I've only met a few -- maybe three dozen, out of hundreds -- that really got the distinction.

Everything is goal dependent (including having no goals beyond "just exercising"). Including type, timing and use of met-con.

By the by, I know you know this... Just writing to write I think...

[Greg Battaglia]

CF.com programming is based on preparing one for the unknown and the unknowable. They've made that information available for years now.

The goal with general Crossfit programming (like that found on CF.com) is to develop a well-rounded individual that could hold his/her own in virtually any physically demanding situation. It's not about specialized goals. Remember the quote from Greg Glassman "Crossfit/nature punishes the specialist"? The Crossfit main WOD is designed with the intention of not having any specific goal other than to increase work capacity over broad time and modal domains.

How do you implement that goal into programming? Work at a high intensity on a regular basis in a broad array of time and modal domains. That's exactly what CF.com does with it's workouts/programming. As for the exact workouts that they use, at the CF cert. I attended last August we were taught that the workouts are basically just random, because you won't know what you'll be confronted with in nature, the streets, or any survival situation at any given time. Remember, CF aims to prepare you for the unknown and the unknowable.

Now, if you have goals other than increasing work capacity across broad time and modal domains, then you will need to make modifications to your programming accordingly. Is Crossfit somehow "wrong" for not implementing YOUR goals into their programming when they've made it crystal clear that the goal of their programming is to, again, increase work capacity across broad time and modal domains?

If you have different goals than what the Crossfit program implements, then maybe you shouldn't be looking to Crossfit to achieve those goals.

Not choosing any particular side here, just giving my honest 2 cents on the discussion based on what I know.

[Garrett Smith]

Greg,
I'm sure we all understand the info that CF.com has presented.

That info doesn't help with the original question, "How does one program a good metcon". It is this lack of education that allows so many affiliates to just run out and start programming (or "hoppering") obscene chipper workouts day-in-day-out...because they aren't taught not to.

Picking stuff at random isn't programming. Watching CF.com's WODs after a while, one will see that the exercise selection is limited, and the rep schemes will often be repeated often enough to become familiar over time. These both mean that IMO the workouts are not random, as choices have been made.

Or let's say they are truly "random". That sure doesn't lend itself to any scientific validation or scrutiny. Nor does it TEACH anyone how to do anything themselves, which is how someone LEARNS to do something, so they don't have to ask the QUESTION that is this thread. Saying they are "random" also means that the people putting it out there really have no other wisdom or authority on the matter than anybody else approaching it with the same intent.

Work at a high intensity on a regular basis in a broad array of time and modal domains.

Really, for experts in this "metcon" arena, actually setting down standards and general guidelines for programming this really should not be that hard. Not sharing this info is a way to create dependence.

[Steven Low]

The one problem I see with mainpage is this:

The alternatives out there like MEBB, CFSB, CFFB, or whatever you want to call the programming that Coach Glassman calls "alternative" to mainpage have fairly clear methodologies lined out. Most affiliates like Robb Wolf or others could tell you what kind of programming they run for their clients. While on the other hand the theoretical template of CF programming basically tells us nothing about what mainpage actually is.

So in arguing the efficacy of something for CF games mainpage has doing fairly well for the most part sure. But that doesn't tell us much about "why" it works because we don't know anything about how it's set up. So how exactly are people supposed to try to "advance" fitness and improve upon mainpage if we don't know how he programs it?

I dunno I've always seen most of the people say that CF is open source, and will constantly adapt if they find something better. But the mainpage sure ain't open source... so how can people use that to improve?

And mainpage is definitely not random.


Anyway, this isn't even touching the whole strength bias debate which is another big issue that's been argued zillions of times.


edit: Hah, Garrett and I are on the same wavelength. Pretty much what Garrett said.. it kinda creates a dependence on the mainpage.