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 11-29-2009, 12:21 PM   #11
Andrew Wilson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Weaver View Post
Steve Maxwell had a blogpost about metabolic conditioning. I guess Arthur Jones, of all people, helped develop metabolic conditioning. Here's the post (watch out for partially clothed people) http://maxwellsc.blogspot.com/2008/0...ining-for.html
Nice find, thanks. Looked up Arthur Jones and am seeing a lot of similarities with "GPP". I still do not understand why everyone labels high intensity exercise in a circuit metabolic conditioning, considering every physical activity uses the metabolic pathways and conditions them. I'm going to gamble here, because there is a serious lack of evidence based research in anything talking about GPP and metabolic conditioning... and call them both BS.
Andrew Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2009, 12:57 PM   #12
Brandon Oto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 299
Default

Call what BS?
__________________
Log | AGT template | Website | Stats and videos
Brandon Oto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 09:06 AM   #13
Pat McElhone
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Wilson View Post
Nice find, thanks. Looked up Arthur Jones and am seeing a lot of similarities with "GPP". I still do not understand why everyone labels high intensity exercise in a circuit metabolic conditioning, considering every physical activity uses the metabolic pathways and conditions them. I'm going to gamble here, because there is a serious lack of evidence based research in anything talking about GPP and metabolic conditioning... and call them both BS.
This is a good thread...but the ideal that evidence based research is needed to validate the term GPP or METCON is a weak statement. I would challenge you that very, very little actual evidence based research exists in the S&C world. I mean good research.

First, using a good study design. Next, having a large enough N that was determined by using a power analysis. Finally, that the right statistic was used to analyze the data.

I only bring this point up because so many in the S&C world want to talk about research and evidence based studies, like folks in the world of medicine do. I guess they do to legitimize their field, to get university appointments and such. The truth is that when great coaches consistently produce great athletes I would say that is better evidence their methods work, then any half-way study done on college undergraduates by some grad student.

So, I would ask why do you need to see the term in a text book, journal, or other pub to validate it?
Pat McElhone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 12:55 PM   #14
Andrew Wilson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat McElhone View Post
This is a good thread...but the ideal that evidence based research is needed to validate the term GPP or METCON is a weak statement. I would challenge you that very, very little actual evidence based research exists in the S&C world. I mean good research.

First, using a good study design. Next, having a large enough N that was determined by using a power analysis. Finally, that the right statistic was used to analyze the data.

I only bring this point up because so many in the S&C world want to talk about research and evidence based studies, like folks in the world of medicine do. I guess they do to legitimize their field, to get university appointments and such. The truth is that when great coaches consistently produce great athletes I would say that is better evidence their methods work, then any half-way study done on college undergraduates by some grad student.

So, I would ask why do you need to see the term in a text book, journal, or other pub to validate it?
You're 100% correct!
Because there's hundreds of thousands of people and thousands of companies following a fitness program design that continues to influence rebuilding health and physical activity in America, yet no one knows if it's authentic let alone knows 100% what it says about itself is the actual truth (as in being fact). I find it interesting that a fitness program that reaches so many people can be built without any attachment to a strong background in field's education or have any counter system that can provide checks and balances, or a proven substance backbone. This is seen in almost any sport, especially in something like athletics where legitimate doctors test and retest training programs and methods to build a higher quality of athletes for the international stage. In this case the only thing that can provide the checks and balances of General Physical Preparedness and Metabolic Conditioning is a body building website where insults fly in and out, beyond that, GPP and Metcon are completely absolute and no one knows why. Why is GPP and Metabolic conditioning the better system over everything else? Why is it elite? No one can really say other than "did you see how fast they did that workout?" What about the changes in muscle physiology, muscle reflex, efficiency in motor neuron patterns, RFD, what about the longevity of following the program, the efficiency between the goal of the training and the outcome, the rate of improvement? Why build an industry on building hundreds of thousands of people into a "fitness generalist" when they can just do decathlon workouts without the events. I'd argue that any top 75 international decathlete will out perform any top 5 international GPP athletes in anything because its a sport and training that is based on evidence based research and been tested for decades. But beyond this, the point of following a General Physical Preparedness training program and performing Metabolic Conditioning doesn't make sense, which I'm trying to find out why it makes sense. They're both terms that don't make any sense, because you'd think the more athletic (wfs) a person was, the more prepared they'd be for any general physical task. You'd also think because every form of conditioning is metabolic, labeling a style metabolic conditioning wouldn't be necessary. Both of these terms I haven't been able find having any authentic meaning as they're suppose to, and that comes from not having any evidence based research or any proof that they're legit, which makes me believe they're gimic-y.
Andrew Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 01:18 PM   #15
Andrew Wilson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 1,140
Default

I also do not understand the focus on work capacity, in doing more work, faster. Why not focus on building greater athletic capacity so more work can be done easier.
Andrew Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 01:56 PM   #16
Derek Weaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,642
Default

Just to be sure, you're talking about crossfit with that post right? I think that the term GPP is so "general" anyway that it's kinda dumb to try and define it. Gpp for a powerlifter is different than for the basketball player. I tend to think of it as a satisfactory base of fitness that should exist, usually prior to sports specific conditioning, but at times achieved through sports specific training/conditioning.
__________________
Quote:
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 11-30-2009, 02:34 PM   #17
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

I think "metcon" should just be re-labeled:

Endurance training utilizing what used to be regarded as strength-building exercises.

Looking at the 2009 CF Games schedule, then reading about CF's general disdain for "endurance athletes" like triathletes, just makes me chuckle nowadays.
__________________
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 11-30-2009, 10:44 PM   #18
robby mor
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4
Default

Hi to all, am new here so be patient please.
To my way of thinking does it really matter ?
The terms are so general that they can and maybe should include any kind of state of preparedness .
The meanings that you find in them are only there because you are CF influenced.
Metcon means any kind of training that conditions metabolis pathways.
GPP is such a general term it encompasses almost anything and everything.
robby mor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 10:54 PM   #19
Derek Weaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,642
Default

Robby,
That's more or less what I was saying in regards to GPP.

Metabolic Conditioning seems to have at least had a relatively specific inspiration. At least that's what I got from the blog post I posted from Steve Maxwell wrt to Arthur Jones' 'experiment'.

As well, Alwyn Cosgrove has had a lot of success with his metabolic packages that he puts together. While some of the stuff I've seen by him certainly looks brutal, it has a design to it rather than a Mr. Potato Head approach to fitness.

Same kind of stuff, I think, that Dan John talked about in his T-mag interview from a month or so ago regarding "non impact weightlifting cardio" or whatever it was. Just different ways to burn the butter.
__________________
Quote:
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 12-02-2009, 08:09 PM   #20
Steve Forman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Wilson View Post
I also do not understand the focus on work capacity, in doing more work, faster. Why not focus on building greater athletic capacity so more work can be done easier.
Aren't you saying the same thing here with both statements. Doing more work faster in training gives me more athletic capacity so the work I do everyday is easier. Especially when I have to go to a fire.

I thought that was the point of work capacity? at least the need to increase it.
__________________
Steve
Steve Forman 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 02:35 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