View Single Post
Old 09-12-2016, 12:56 PM   #4
Sean J Hunter
Member Sean J Hunter is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Shore  New Zealand
Posts: 805
Re: Yet another "Study" saying CrossFit is bad for you...gawd people let it go already

OK here's the brief on the specific training they did.

Quote:
Training Session Days
Subjects completed 2 training sessions 24 hours apart (table 2).

In workout of the day 1, subjects completed:
a) five sets of one repetition of snatch from the block at 80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) with 2-5 minutes of rest intervals;
b) 3 sets of 5 Touch & Go Snatches (full) at 75% of 5RM with 90 seconds of rest between sets;
c) 3 sets of 60 seconds of weighted plank hold with 90 seconds of rest; After the third set of the aforementioned exercises, 5 minutes of rest was allowed and then endurance conditioning was performed with 10 minutes of as many rounds as possible (AMRAP)
- 30 double-unders
- 15 power snatches (34kg) (Padulo et al., 2015).

In workout of the day 2, subjects completed:
a) five sets of one repetition of clean and Jerk from the block at 80% of 1RM with 2-5 minute rest intervals;
b) 3 sets of 5 touch and go cleans (full) with 70% of 5RM with 2-5 minute rest;
c) 3 sets of 10 strict hand standing push-ups;

After the third set of the aforementioned exercises, 5 minutes of rest was allowed, followed by endurance conditioning with 12 minutes AMRAP of
- Rowing (250m, Concept)
- 25 target burpees.

The goal of the endurance conditioning sessions were to complete each training session in the quickest time possible, without compromising exercise technique.
Were the F**K is the recovery day for the heavy lifting?!
OK granted, I find most of the study unintellegable, but how do these guys not know that heavy lifting throws out homestasis and you need 24 hours recovery or at worst active recovery before hitting it again.

Smells to me like someone has never actually trained in their lives, or are looking for the lime light. Let's know CrossFit that'll get us in the paper.

Anyone read any differently?
  Reply With Quote