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 06-04-2008, 06:08 AM   #31
Gant Grimes
Departed Gant Grimes is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 1,549
Re: Hybrid programs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Powell View Post
Gant, The point of Met-Cons is not strength focus. No where did I say scale it down to a 2 minute Fran. What I am talking about is getting up to the prescribed weight and attempting, avoiding sacroplasmic hypertrophy the fastest way. Once bar speed is at its most productive speed and maintainable, increase the weight. So similar to Jeff chimed in, once you cannot move faster in order produce more force over time, then increase the weight. If you are moving light loads fast, like you mentioned in the above posts, then strength is being developed dynamically with starting strength, acceleration strength and even strength endurance, without the CNS mapping slow movement.

Guys that are more on the slow twitch to average end struggle with these kinds of events, and find it hard to improve rapidly without first lowering the weight and mapping the movement with quickness.

When you lower the reps you are then doing modified "Heavy" Fran, with "Scaled" weight. Totally, valid, but it is not meant to see the same result.


Either way, Gant, good work. You continue to lead the charge.
I think our messages have gotten crossed.

I realize the point of metcons is not strength focus. I am actually doing all this strength training to improve my metcons. I got on this program because my sport involves throwing 200-lb. guys around for five minutes at a time, so the strength-focused metcons make sense for me.

I'm glad Jeff chimed in. To be clear, when I start beginners, I always have them scale (they're probably mad because I'm really conservative with them for several weeks). I'm an advocate of scaling, but I like to sneak some strength in earlier (I have a guy that's front squatting 230 but still needs to use 75# thrusters to maintain speed). So I'm with you there. I just find that giving guys an extra dose of the iron helps them scale up faster.

Again, I'm not here to discuss what should or shouldn't work. I'm here to share what happened to me (and is happening to others who are doing this). Strength-biased workouts with short metcon sessions (as heavy and fast as you can safely go for 3-6 mins.) translates well to metcons like Helen, Elizabeth, Cindy, and Murph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Powell View Post
When you lower the reps you are then doing modified "Heavy" Fran, with "Scaled" weight. Totally, valid, but it is not meant to see the same result.
Exactly! And that's the result I'm after (provided the weight is still moving quickly). It has worked well for me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 06:13 AM   #32
Alexander Kornishev
Member Alexander Kornishev is offline
 
Alexander Kornishev's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Newmarket  Ontario
Posts: 1,617
Re: Hybrid programs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Oto View Post
On the subject of reverse hypers, unfortunately there are very few of them around. Anyone think it would work to lie on a high bench and hold a dumbbell between your feet?
My gymnastics coach had me to do something similar to reverse hypers lying on the pommel and raising my legs, it was hard enough even without additional weight, but plates can be attached with a strap if needed (like in Coach Sommer's article about hanging legs raises). And some other ideas here w/f safe
http://www.bodyessence.ca/Pages/Main...movements.html
swiss ball variation seems more like cardio bunny version though
__________________
43/5'9"/180 SP: 195, BS: 425, DL: 500, Clean: 285, Jerk: 265, Snatch: 200, Fran: 2:19
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 06:20 AM   #33
Patrick Haskell
Member Patrick Haskell is offline
 
Patrick Haskell's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winchendon  MA
Posts: 4,365
Re: Hybrid programs

Quote:
provided the weight is still moving quickly
And that's the crux of the matter and probably the point where most of us here would agree is the minimum standard for scaling for the shorter metcons. Failing to meet that standard would defeat the dynamic effort power-generation that helps make these metcons such excellent training tools.

For my own programming, my typical ceiling on metcons is 20 minutes, based on similar logic to yours, but with different goals in mind, as my sports are mountain biking and skiing, which involve longer sustained efforts than Judo (and have different strength requirements). It's hard to turn down the occasional chipper, too, but that's not a rational programming decision, it's just because the workouts look so cool.
__________________
45 / M / 5'10" / 175# CF Workout Log
CF Blog (wfs, but quiet these days)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 09:47 AM   #34
Joey Powell
Member Joey Powell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Prescott  AZ
Posts: 569
Re: Hybrid programs

Gant, so you are advocating moving from the speed-strength realm to the strength-speed realm, as I now understand you. fair enough.


This is where I got confused with your advice...

Quote:
If a person can't do Fran as rx'd, he needs to get stronger.
agreed, but I argue increasing weight to "heavy" in a met-con is not the best way.

Quote:
The metcons in this program are designed to have you lifting 1) heavy weights 2) as fast as you safely can 3) with little or no rest.

"Heavy" weights would generally be catagorized toward the 1-3RM range. The RX it appears you are giving, is still using light weight (<60% of 1RM) based on the sheer number of reps you are saying to accomplish with a fast bar speed, though heavier than those regarded with speed-strength (<40%). So the barbell is still moving fast, but the lean on the teeter-totter pushes to the strength side, as opposed to the speed side, and the effects of fatigue (and slowing bar speed) are/should be mitiged by lower reps.

So would it be fair to say to the group that you are not advocating HEAVY weight(s) in the sense that it is not approaching maximal?

I say this because many people will look at the rep scheme you propose, and being the "go-getters" that they are, will use it as a guide to choose a weight they will be close to, or at, failure on by completion of the set. However, with those reps required at the weight they choose, such action would put the athlete SQUARELY in the mod heavy/mod volume range which we appear to agree is not necessarily productive for our application or general athletisism.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 10:02 AM   #35
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Hybrid programs

Are we actually looking for a metcon effect here or do we want strength bias metcon? I think Gant is looking for the latter.

If the person doesn't need FITNESS for his/her job like police, firefighting, military then I would contend "do it as rx'd" to help build up the strength required to do it as rx'd faster. Yes, it's not *as* metcon. Yes, it will get the person towards rx'd weights generally faster.

I recognize that we're still scaling here if the metcon has the tendency to go outside of 10 minutes; just not scaling it so much that it goes into that sub-5 minutes or faster range unless you're already doing the workout rx'd.

To maximize intensity (or power rather) with bar speed we need a weight of approximately 40-50% 1 RM. IF we use a moderately heavier weight 60-80%, there is a tendency for "more" strength gains as opposed to the broad spectrum fitness gains you would get from scaling it down to the 40-50%. However, as Joey said there is also a tendency for sarco hypertrophy; however, this effect should be mitigated by the extra strength and skill work outside of the short metcons. Sarco has the ability to be converted into myofib hypertrophy fairly easily -- probably cause there is space to put more myofibrils instead of having to grow myofibrils AND expand the muscle to accomodate them (this is along the lines of why stretching tends to help increase muscle mass via fascia stretching).

Based on Gant's results with his lean muscle gain, I'd say overall it tends to promote good muscle gain and definitely faster strength gains to help do the metcons faster. Well, I have been one of the proponents that strength carries over VERY well into metcon. The conditioning aspect is very easy to develop, but the strength is harder which is why I tend to recommend that. So in accordance with the above "black box" (well, I tried to explain it some), that's why I would recommend it over dropping the weights down to maximize fitness... if the person does NOT need fitness of course.
__________________
Posts are NOT medical, training, nutrition info
Bodyweight Article, Overcoming Gravity Book

Last edited by Steven Low : 06-04-2008 at 10:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 10:19 AM   #36
Justin Herring
Member Justin Herring is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Washington  DC
Posts: 64
Re: Hybrid programs

Question about your excel sheet: how do I read the metcon? For instance, on March 17, it says "Metcon" and lists "3:51." But what was the metcon? On other days it shows a PR that indicates a WOD (like Fran), but is there any indication what the Metcon is on a daily basis?

Also, what do the notes (H) (M) (L) mean next to the lifts?

Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 10:20 AM   #37
Gant Grimes
Departed Gant Grimes is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 1,549
Re: Hybrid programs

Joey, I just got a Mac at the office and don't know how to cut and paste with the damn thing. I'll put my comments in bold. Please bear with me.

"Gant, so you are advocating moving from the speed-strength realm to the strength-speed realm, as I now understand you. fair enough."

Pretty much. I'm approaching this from "I need to grab someone my size and move them around until I can do it very quickly" rather than "I need to move someone around quickly, and I will do it until I can use someone my size."

This is where I got confused with your advice...

agreed, but I argue increasing weight to "heavy" in a met-con is not the best way.

I understand. I'm advocating using rx'd weights as quickly as possible, provided the bar is still moving. I prefer to scale reps before weight if I can. There are enough bodyweight metcons to make up for this.

The OLY lifts and the ME/DE work in the slow lifts tightens up a lot of the metcon shortcomings you think are going to happen in this scheme.

Assuming it can be done at speed with little rest in roughly the same time frame, I'd rather a guy do a 15-12-9 Fran with heavier weights than 21-15-9 with lighter weights.

Please note I don't cherry pick Fran like many do; I even skip it occasionally, so this isn't going to come up more than 4-6 times a year.


"Heavy" weights would generally be catagorized toward the 1-3RM range. The RX it appears you are giving, is still using light weight (<60% of 1RM) based on the sheer number of reps you are saying to accomplish with a fast bar speed, though heavier than those regarded with speed-strength (<40%). So the barbell is still moving fast, but the lean on the teeter-totter pushes to the strength side, as opposed to the speed side, and the effects of fatigue (and slowing bar speed) are/should be mitiged by lower reps.

So would it be fair to say to the group that you are not advocating HEAVY weight(s) in the sense that it is not approaching maximal?

That's right. When I describe "heavy" metcon, I'm not referring to near ME. In fact, I'm referring to as heavy as you can do something and still keep moving. I pick my exercises then pick my weights. For example, Monday I decided on 5 rounds of 10 KB swings and ring pushups. I figured that 32kg was the most I could handle on swings without rest and 10 pushups was about the most I could manage on the rings over the five rounds. It worked out. Sometimes they don't.

That's why I don't like chippers. There's usually something in there that you suck at that slows you down. Say I suck at wallball and K2E. Instead of trashing my filthy fifty on those things, I'll do a WOD with something like 5 rounds of 10 wallball and 10 K2E. If I can manage 10, then I can do it quickly with little rest. I've gotten a good metcon workout with relatively heavy weights (because I suck at them), I've attacked my weaknesses, and I've gotten a good neuroendocrine response from a short, power-packed metcon.


I say this because many people will look at the rep scheme you propose, and being the "go-getters" that they are, will use it as a guide to choose a weight they will be close to, or at, failure on by completion of the set. However, with those reps required at the weight they choose, such action would put the athlete SQUARELY in the mod heavy/mod volume range which we appear to agree is not necessarily productive for our application or general athletisism.

Are you referring to sets/reps in the strength training or the metcons? I'm not sure. I like rounds of 10s and 15s for metcons at whatever weight you're able to use. I may not understand the question.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 10:28 AM   #38
Jared Ashley
Member Jared Ashley is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 1,550
Re: Hybrid programs

Gant,

Thanks for another great thread on another experiement... I read about the tabata project as well. You continue to inspire, and your programs are well thought out and provide a crossfit-like balance of gymastics, power, brute strength, and metcon, but IMO at a more advanced level than the main-page WOD.

I think your beginner program fits the sport I train for (4-way formation skydiving) well. The gymnastic/grip strength/balance aspect will highly benefit the exit (imagine trying to hang by one hand and one foot in an off-balance position outside an aircraft travelling at 90 knots for 10-20 seconds). The benefit of pure power and CNS/body awareness in freefall cannot be overstated.

I like the short, heavy metcon concept as well... much easier to truly be "intense" when you know it'll be over in 5 minutes vs. when you're looking at another half-hour of pain. Since you're into nearly 100% aerobic energy by 2 minutes into a metcon, it makes sense that in 5-10 minutes you'll challenge the hell out of all 3 energy systems... it goes back to the rule that you can usually get 80% of the benefit from the first 20% of the work, provided intensity is *truly* maximal.

Keep it up and thanks again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 01:52 PM   #39
Joey Powell
Member Joey Powell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Prescott  AZ
Posts: 569
Re: Hybrid programs

Quote:
Are you referring to sets/reps in the strength training or the metcons? I'm not sure. I like rounds of 10s and 15s for metcons at whatever weight you're able to use. I may not understand the question.


Reps in the MET-CON. Since the weight must move quickly, then the weight must move quickly for up to 15 reps. This implies that the weight may, perhaps, need to be selected such that the athlete could execute a 25-30RM (if not more) with that weight as an independent event. This may help the athlete select a proper weight in order to keep with the intent of your RX. Follow?

As a side note I agree with your RX, of more weight with less reps still executed quickly. I just have the opposite problem, I move weight just fine (and people), but I just don't move quickly, so that my focus is more Speed-Strength/Explosiveness.

I am renound for grinding through moderate weights closer to my 1RM and have nothing to show for it, but a lot of extra muscle mass and fast twitch fibers which have dampened over the years, due mostly to inappropriate training methods based from lack of knowledge.

Since maximal strength and strength endurance are not an issue for me, but speed is, that is my reasoning for keeping the weight light and fast. So anything that might lead to me pushing into the weight range that will slow down the movement, I avoid. If it does not possitively effect my Fast Twitch and CNS, I ain't doing it.Either HEAVY or FAST only, and it is paying off.

My questions were based off of my understanding that you were saying keep the RX weight and push through the 21 reps and damn the bar speed or the sets it took to accomplish that number of reps. This I know does not work effectively and gets people overuse injuries if their minds are well stronger than their bodies. Common experience in my line of work.

Thanks for clarifying.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 02:56 PM   #40
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: Hybrid programs

Gant,

I saw the post over at PeformanceMenu as well. I was reading through the description of the programming and it seemed that if I added in an ME day or 2 to the PerformanceMenu WOD and did some gymnastics progressions on the days with no Metcon, I would get pretty close to your program. I really don't want to design a program from scratch, so I thought this might be a good way of going about it. Am I close or way off base on this one.

Great work, both in your fitness and experiment.
  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

vB 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
Warm up programs Matt Rodgers Starting 18 08-06-2007 08:56 PM
Various sqt programs Mike Burgener Exercises 6 12-14-2006 08:37 AM
Stretching programs Brooks Dennis Ross Starting 9 03-07-2006 08:33 AM
Jumping programs Kevin Roddy Fitness 9 02-11-2004 04:24 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.