CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-14-2014, 06:01 AM   #41
Luke Sirakos
Member Luke Sirakos is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dallas  TX
Posts: 859
Re: The definition of being "big"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Coomans View Post
Turn on your sarcasm radar.
__________________
Deadlift: 475 | Back Squat: 405 | Front Squat: 320
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 04:44 PM   #42
Chris Essery
Member Chris Essery is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Blackwater  Australia
Posts: 1
Re: The definition of being "big"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Colon View Post
Give me a break. The mirrors are just literally not there but a lot of that is because 1) you wan't to develop awareness and know your Squat mechanics rather than see how you Squat. 2) you save money. Wall to wall mirrors are expensive and unnecessary. 3) they aren't the best when throwing weights, bumpers, etc. around. and 4) you move too much during workouts. There isn't a whole lot of standing around while you lift to watch yourself.

You are kidding yourself however if you think there are no mirrors because Crossfitters don't like to check themselves out. For every Crossfitter that swears "we don't need mirrors to check ourselves out while we train", you will see a dozen Crossfitters that don't need to take their shirts off, yet they do. They will still walk into a Crossfit gym wearing Nano's that match their socks, a Rogue t-shirt, some kind of "froningesque" bandana and rock tape. If they are not in WoD mode, you will see a shirt that says "My Snatch is better than yours." This is all because Crossfitters are not vain or give 2 $hits about what others think of how they look right? Give me a break.

For every Crossfitter that swears "bodybuilders are so not functional and I never want to train like that" there are a dozen that sit and look at Phil Heath or any dude at the big box gym with larger quads, a more muscular back or simply "the guns" and thinks...damn, I'd still take that. You're tellin' me, all a Crossfitter thinks is "well my Fran time is sub 3mins, I don't care that his body looks like a greek gods." Again, give me a break.

For every Crossfitter that swears "benching is for bodybuilders, we do C&J and Snatch" you have a dozen Crossfitters that will almost never make any sort of podium, especially in Olympic weightlifting, yet could use a good dose of Benching and overall pressing strength because even with your 5 minute Karen time, a sub 205 bench press for a man is still pretty pathetic (I only partially kid.)

For every Crossfitter that swears "we do this so different than you do", there are a dozen more than find out that Froning does "strict Pull-ups, Sprints, Benching 1-2x PER WEEK, powerlifting training with band work and chains and stuff like that." They find out that Khalipa gets better by doing A LOT of 800m intervals and listens to a Triathlete...the same one's that are too specialized and look like Gollum rather than bada$$ Crossfit elite fit looking.

For every Crossfitter that swears "we don't use machines, we build them!", I've seen a dozen struggle at a recent local Crossfit event when the prescribed was "strict pull-ups", rather than kipping ones. I mean super fit not obese people with insane Thruster cycling that looked dumbfounded and humbled doing more than 5 strict pull-ups without some effort to start moving their legs/hips. Your average decent bodybuilder that have a well built/strong back that uses lots of Cable Rows and Lat Pulldowns (WHAT MACHINES?) does sets of 10-15 strict pulls/chins on dare I say...'BACK DAY' as a finisher.

Just give the whole Crossfitters are this and they are that a big fuggin' rest already. That was so 2007. In today's game, athletes are athletes, training is training, hard work is hard work, fit is fit and strong is strong. Ryan Hall is Froning, as is Ashton Eaton, Tiger Woods, Lebron James, Usain Bolt, Liu Xiaojun and Koklyaev. Because last time I checked, running a sub 2:05 marathon is kind of hard. Like you winning the Crossfit games kind of hard. That hard. I know it isn't sub 3min Fran and Diane hard while also being able to C&J 350+ but ya know...I mean, winning Olympia 8x in a row like Ronnie Coleman...happens all day!
You are incorrect in a few of your assumptions. They may be your thoughts, but for me, someone who has come from a bodybuilder/ muscular orientated background your arguments in several of your points could not be more further away from the truth...
I prefer the much better all round functionality of my body.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 05:43 PM   #43
Matt Thomas
Banned Matt Thomas is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orlando  FL
Posts: 3,648
Re: The definition of being "big"

His statements are incorrect because they don't apply specifically to you?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2014, 03:19 AM   #44
Haris Argyris
Member Haris Argyris is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Thessaloniki  Greece
Posts: 14
Re: The definition of being "big"

Why does there always have to be a comparison between bodybuilding and crossfit ?

They are 2 different sports that aim at 2 different goals.
One is for pure aesthetics whereas the other is for overall fitness.

When it comes to working out, there should be mutual respect between athletes. Even if they come from different backgrounds.


On topic now, you can get "big" from doing crossfit but you have to have high BMI. If you are 180cm, weight 90kg and have 10% bodyfat you are going to be big, lifting weights bodybuilding style or not. That is of course if you do more than a simple wod.

As far as "ripped" is concerned, it has to do with nutrition and not training style. I have seen people doing martial arts and lifting weights a couple of times per week ( lift weight, high amount of reps ) and being very ripped because of their diet.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2014, 07:23 AM   #45
Drew Cloutier
Member Drew Cloutier is offline
 
Drew Cloutier's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kingston  ON Canada
Posts: 1,067
Re: The definition of being "big"

180cm = 5'10
90kg = 198

You honestly consider 198 at 5'10 big? even if its 10% I would not say 198 at 10% is big on a 5'10 frame at all. 190-205 i'd say is around avg for an active/athletic 5'10-6'2 guy, it's not big at all.

Now if you were to say that's big in a sprinters world yes I would agree.

On a side note BIG has a lot to do with SIZE more so then just weight I believe.

So if all a guy had was big arms and nothing else I wouldn't call him big.

For the record at 5'10 to be big i'd say 220+ as a good ballpark
__________________
M/30/5'10/216lbs
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2014, 07:01 PM   #46
Alex Chaney
Member Alex Chaney is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Torrance  CA
Posts: 132
Re: The definition of being "big"

www.70sbig.com (wfs for the most part)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2014, 08:19 PM   #47
Dakota Base
Member Dakota Base is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Wichita  KS
Posts: 394
Re: The definition of being "big"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Cloutier View Post
180cm = 5'10
90kg = 198

You honestly consider 198 at 5'10 big? even if its 10% I would not say 198 at 10% is big on a 5'10 frame at all. 190-205 i'd say is around avg for an active/athletic 5'10-6'2 guy, it's not big at all.

Now if you were to say that's big in a sprinters world yes I would agree.

On a side note BIG has a lot to do with SIZE more so then just weight I believe.

So if all a guy had was big arms and nothing else I wouldn't call him big.

For the record at 5'10 to be big i'd say 220+ as a good ballpark
I think you're coming at this from a pretty elitist view. While I tend to agree that 195lbs at 5'10" isn't anything difficult to attain, even sub 10% fat, to the average person, it's pretty big if you're doing it lean.

If you're just a chubby kid, then sure, 5'10" and 198lbs isn't anything to brag on, but T.C. Mits (anyone remember him) will call a lean 195lb guy under 6' tall pretty big.

While I don't consider myself a "big guy", hitting pretty much those exact specs you have posted, as 195lbs, less than 10%, 5'10", I've had a lot of people in the last 15yrs at this size call me a "big guy". Maybe it's just a reference frame issue, considering that someone this size has a BMI of ~28, which is "overweight". To the average person, if you're "overweight" because you carry so much muscle, that's pretty big.

So no, in bodybuilding or powerlifting terms, it's not big. But when the average dude sitting on the couch is watching Froning at the Games, they'll say he's big at that size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2014, 08:36 PM   #48
Jeff Enge
Banned Jeff Enge is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Collinsville  IL
Posts: 5,542
Re: The definition of being "big"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Chaney View Post
www.70sbig.com (wfs for the most part)
Just an FYI, but that site isn't really "work and family safe." There's a decent number of language thrown around.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2014, 03:51 AM   #49
Haris Argyris
Member Haris Argyris is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Thessaloniki  Greece
Posts: 14
Re: The definition of being "big"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Cloutier View Post
180cm = 5'10
90kg = 198

You honestly consider 198 at 5'10 big? even if its 10% I would not say 198 at 10% is big on a 5'10 frame at all. 190-205 i'd say is around avg for an active/athletic 5'10-6'2 guy, it's not big at all.

Now if you were to say that's big in a sprinters world yes I would agree.

On a side note BIG has a lot to do with SIZE more so then just weight I believe.

So if all a guy had was big arms and nothing else I wouldn't call him big.

For the record at 5'10 to be big i'd say 220+ as a good ballpark
5'10 and 220 is a bodybuilders stats and you call that a only "good" ballpark?

I do not like the perception of "big" that exists nowadays. Over the past decades people created the tendency to become as big as possible and most of the time not proportional to their height.

Just take a look at todays bodybuilders and compare them to 60's -70's bodybuilders. What used to be considered "big" back then is now average?
I totally disagree with this.

For me people who are well build ( AKA working out ) and are more than 10kg over their height ( say 180cm and 95kg ) is big.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2014, 10:42 AM   #50
Dakota Base
Member Dakota Base is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Wichita  KS
Posts: 394
Re: The definition of being "big"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haris Argyris View Post
5'10 and 220 is a bodybuilders stats and you call that a only "good" ballpark?

...

For me people who are well build ( AKA working out ) and are more than 10kg over their height ( say 180cm and 95kg ) is big.
I'm confused by what you're saying:

IT SOUNDS LIKE you're saying that his comment that 5'10" and 220lbs is too big to be the small end of "big", but then you come right back and say 5'11" and 210lbs is big? Kinda splitting hairs aren't we?

It's all relative. Just like we're comparing bodybuilders in the 60's and 70's to current era builders, "a big guy is "big" until a BIGGER guy comes along". Refreshed in my mind after Paul Walker's death, take the Fast & Furious movies as a prime example: Vin Diesel was a "big guy" in those films until they brought in The Rock, now he's not really that big. (Even though they clearly try to play the camera angles to make them seem similarly sized in a lot of scenes).

At the end of the day, it depends on who you're comparing them to. Compared to the average person, Dan Bailey is a big dude (especially at only 5'7"), Rich Froning is a big dude, Vin Diesel is a big dude. But if any one of them walks into a power gym or build gym, they'll get surrounded by really big dudes that skew the average.

Let's not forget that the average American is overweight, a third of Americans are Obese, and the average American doesn't workout even 1 day a week.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Definition of "Unbroken" Dave Nova Exercises 7 03-05-2013 10:48 PM
Thoughts on "Forks over knives" Documentary and "The China Study" Mark Davis Nutrition 14 09-13-2011 01:32 PM
"Functional" Definition Matthew Swartz Fitness 55 08-03-2010 06:40 PM
"Points for Toothbrushing aka DICE 2010: "Design Outside the Box" Presentation" David Doran Marshall Stuff and Nonsense 1 02-24-2010 02:25 PM
New Definition of "Moderate" Exercise Kurt Armbruster Fitness 23 03-30-2009 05:59 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.