CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (http://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Community (http://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit (http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=38880)

Tate Rivera 11-19-2008 10:51 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Dunston (Post 450420)
Man... you guys might have convinced me to go to 501# by 7/7/09. My affiliate opened on 7/7/07, so that would be 2 years of regular CF WODs.

When I found CF I was just a 36 year old, out of shape attorney, who was totally untrained on the DL, Presses and Squats. I still have not attended a barbell Cert - just a Level I and Gymnastics Cert.

If only I wasn't a lazy 38 year old guy who works for a living by sitting at a desk 10 hours per day - maybe I'd have a better chance to increase my DL.

Do ANY of you think I can do it by just maintaining my 4 on, 1 off, 1 on, 1 off schedule of WODs?

Ohh - and I have absolutely no need or desire to gain extra mass/bulk/weight. A 501# DL would be over 300% of my current body weight... but it is only 61# higher than my current 1RM.

Remember - my 1RM DL when I started was low 200s. I don't remember the exact number - I'll have to check the paper log at my gym.

If I did it, could we put this thing to bed? Or would it fall outside the confines about which we are speaking since it wouldn't be 750#?

DO IT!! That would be sweet! As long as its in the range...

Phillip Garrison 11-19-2008 11:25 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat McElhone (Post 449941)
Every study I have ever read! Even the orinigal Tabata study, wasn't the N=9. 9 total subject, seriously, 9 subjects. How can anyone base any scientific decisions on a study with an N=9.

The initial study prompted other studies with more samples all of which have suggested the same thing. High intensity intervals with a 2:1 work/rest ratio increase anaerobic and aerobic capacity. You honestly mean to tell me not a single study ever done in science was of any value?

Phillip Garrison 11-19-2008 11:29 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin B. Sandberg (Post 449917)
Philip

On the VO2max question: the C2 site has a calculator estimating VO2max based on 2k time.

A 2k row comes up periodically in the WOD. Why don't you study the 2k postings from a variety of angles to get a sense of how VO2max is affected by the CF protocol?

I was a rower (a mediocre one) when I was younger and now at 39, training CF, 16 years after I'd stopped training for rowing, my times dropped to equal that of those when I was 23 years old and training specifically for the sport. I fully expect to drop my time further. In my estimation there is no question VO2max is effectively utilized and improved following the main site.

In addition, to that there is no question I'm also stronger and generally more capable then I've ever been in my life. Anecdotal to be sure, but when you're the anecdote, it's pretty convincing. Would I have reached it on some other permutation of GPP? I don't know. Probably not b/c I probably would not have found another program as easily and if I had I would not have been able to implement it on my own in my garage or have all the resources available online to help progress without killing myself.


As a side note: I number of years ago the men's national rowing coach, Mike Teti announced that anyone with a confirmed sub 6:00 C2 2k would be eligible to try out for the national team. Previous rowing experience was not a prereq. He did not, however, put out there "Anyone with a VO2max of such and such or better."

So, you have a fairly good VO2max estimate available that can easily be determined from a common benchmark piece. You can research it without a grant. The only cost is your time and your computer. You can call it "Estimated VO2max changes over time and across varying populations in a popular GPP program."


Good luck. Let me know how it works out.

PS You don't need to acknowledge that it was my idea. :)

It will be our little secret. No one here is suggesting that VO2 is the be all end all metric of fitness. It's only one metric of many that make of the contiuum of fitness. For some sports VO2 is very important, for some it matters almost not at all. What me and others are stating is that for us to make the claims that CF provides the greatest all around fitness gains, we need to verify that CF'rs have the highest average measurements in many measurable metrics of fitness (power, strength, speed, agility, balance, flexibility, endurance, etc)

Robert Wolf 11-19-2008 12:37 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Aye...work on my book or peese away time arguing with people who just want to argue? Can I just blanket statement that all links are WFS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 447092)
last I checked, crossfit was a fitness system, not a sport. Saying that doing WOD's make you really good at CF, as proof of it's superiority is like saying rowing is the best, because nothing else will get you as good at a rowing race as rowing training

Phil-
You love this rowing analogy...are you aware that CF'ers routinely rank in the Olympic calibre level when tested on the erg? Talk to Angela Hart from C2 about it. Can these same CF'ers win in an actually skull? Of course not, one pull, capsize and done...but they have the engine to crush.

Also...not everyone is clueless to the fact that VO2 max is worthless and work capacity reigns...just some folks apparently:
VO2

A nice money shot quote from that article:

So, if you’ve been training well for the past year and your VO2max is in the 50’s, don’t hold your breath to be the next Lance. The good news is that your lactate threshold is highly trainable, and elevating your LT will put the hurt on your friends or fellow racers. Since many elite athletes share comparable VO2max values, lactate threshold is often a better measure of fitness and endurance performance. And that is a perfect segue into our discussion next week….

Which leads to the next piece, Lactate Threshold.

This all mirrors EXACTLY what has been said by John, Tony, myself...but this will simply be dismissed with "IT does not reflect the literature..." Well, I guess I loose.

I tagged a bunch of quotes so this may get a little redundant...but obviously the message is not sinking in. Phil, there are thousands of firefighters (to name but one sub-group) who have at some point: run 5-10k, tinkered with bodybuilding, and done crossfit in the hopes of improving performance. Our very own Adam Lambert (firefighter Fran) is a perfect example of this. He taught a special firefighter only class yesterday with folks from all over california...the topic? CrossFit. Not 5K's, not bodybuilding, not strong-man. So what you are saying, is that Adam and all the people like him...SEALS, SWAT etc...all these folks are suffering some kind of mass-delusion and YOU have the goods? This I so preposterous I feel silly for even giving this the credibility of a response.


Quote:

Originally Posted by George Noble (Post 447902)
It's hard to say, and it's speculation. CrossFit has shown that work done in the anaerobic pathways has a carryover to the oxidative pathway. CrossFit is only just responding to the fact that Gant's hybrid worked very well for increasing fitness, and CF certainly isn't the only way to train. It could be that more strength work is needed for optimum fitness. As you say, it's speculation.

I agree with you about speculation. That's why I don't think anyone should claim that a routine can add 550 lbs to someone's deadlift when it never has (at least, nobody has answered my question about where these 750 DLs are), especially not in the same breath as calling for "evidence based fitness." I really did think CF was above this ridiculous muscle mag hyperbole.

This is interesting that folks seem to think tinkering with the base concepts of functionality, intensity and variation is somehow a vast departure. Most of my clients roll in the door with no experience in the basic lifts and are woefully deficient in strength. Solution? We squat, DL, Press and pull in nearly every session. Then we wrap things up with a short-medium WOD. This is the job of the coaches to tailor the training to the needs of their clients.

As to the 500-750lb DL's- The contest of this statement was when Coach Glassman was still at the old Santa Cruz box. I made my first trip down to SC in March '03 if I remember correctly. My first session there we worked DL, then wrapped up with a WOD in which you: Found your 500m row time, rested 3 min, found your time for completing 30 reps of thrusters with 95lbs, rested 3 min, then found time to completion for 30 pull-ups. Of my subsequent visists, this was very typical programming. One time when we had like 40 people at the old original box we did a chipper...but the bolk of training was core lifts, couplets, and triplets. Off the top of my head I saw 3 people with 500lb+ DL's and one guy, a BJJ black belt, who pulled 695 for a double like it was filled with helium. I left before he foudn his top end for that day, but he obviously had more in him. His first exposure to the DL stopped at ~185 lbs due to orthopedic and recruitment issues...he was plenty strong to pull more but his tightness and form precluded loading him up beyond this point. This was ~ 2 years before the day that I saw him pull the 695. I believe this is the refrence for the much hated 500-750DL stats.

In the past few months I've shifted focus to OL'ing and sprints, with occasional forays into things like fran, grace and shorter WOD's. I'm at a 400lb BS, knocking on the door to a 500lb DL.

The issue y'all seem to have is whether the WOD as posted at CF.com will produce these results...yes it will...if properly tailored to YOUR needs. Tens of thousands of people follow the main page WOD. HOW exactly is it reasonable to tinker the programming to meet EVERYONES needs? If it is beyond your intelects that you might need to modify the base programming I think you might be beyond help.


Quote:

Originally Posted by John C. Brown (Post 447934)
No, you said that VO2 max is a predictor for successful firefighting. If that is the case then these bike riders would be successful at firefighting. I say they wouldn't be even if I spot them another 200 points on their VO2 max testy thingy.

And Fires aren't a hypoxia problem either, fire fighters wear air tanks. The question becomes how many times will they have to get a new tank during the duration of the fire. In which case VO2 max has some relevance, but only if they are strong enough to carry the tanks... plus an axe, hose, potentially a buddy or a burn victim. For that situation riding a bike is not going to help much.

Look, all people are trying to tell you is that CrossFit's definition of fitness is clear. He who can do the most work (in all time domains and presumably any task) is the fittest. These are the demands of life. The caveman that could crush competitors with the biggest rock would only survive if he could out run the mammoth too, the guy that could do both would survive longest.

Spoken from a point of experience in the field...and completely ignored by these guys. What John is talking about is not just VO2 max, but VO2 MIN...what is the most you can accomplish with the minimum oxygen consumption? CrossFit dramatically improves this number...but it's not been published in Phil's ex-phys journals yet so it's just mass-hypnosis...again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Noble (Post 447949)
You personally have nothing to apologise for. I'm taking issue with Glassman's statement that Brandon Oto pointed out, claiming that CF could take a deadlift from 200 to 500-750 lbs in two years (and thus making CrossFit better for making world class powerlifters than any specific powerlifting/strength routine - I don't even think Mark Rippetoe has ever claimed such feats). Until I hear of that actually happening I say it's BS.

Call it BS, call it spam-ala-mode...you are simply wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Donahey (Post 447962)
I agree. Crossfit won't take your deadlift to 500-750 in two years without some specific training. Crossfit has you maxing out on deadlift maybe 1-2x a month, so let's say we max out on deadlifts maybe 18x a year. That means you'd have to add an average of 8-15 lbs to your 1RM every time you deadlifted (36x) over a two year timespan. I just don't think that's feasible outside of a strength program.

I could be wrong though. Anyone here done this on Crossfit only training?

More frequent exposure is totally reasonable. Lots of work, but reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darrell E. White (Post 447968)
Tim:

Coach Glassman addressed that in one of his posts here. The questions that were emailed were inflammatory and not designed to foster a frank and open discussion of CF, or even of the differences in opinion about CF held outside of the community. If you've also been reading elsewhere here on the Message Board and on the Main Page Comments you would see that Coach has had an ongoing dialog with the author; my bet is that we will see a follow up article.

Gant Grimes "Hybrid" is Crossfit. Go back and read "What is Crossfit", as well as everything in "Start Here" on the Main Page. Gant has combined focused strength work with doublet and triplet WOD's that are shorter and heavier than the typical Main Page WOD, but the met-con WOD's are Crossfit. Any statement to the contrary is inaccurate. Crossfit is more than the Main Page WOD.

Exactly.

Robert Wolf 11-19-2008 12:37 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Donahey (Post 448093)
It incorporates principles from Westside Barbell, Bulgarian Training Manuals, and The Texas Method. These are concepts outside the scope of Crossfit's Theoretical Programming Template.

So CrossFit is incapable of growth and development? Bummer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Powell (Post 448279)
Actually, VO2 max is not a good indicator at all. At the Fire Fighter Challenges the CrossFitters have been known to use LESS air than their counter-parts for the same amount of work completed even when time in the mask is settled out.

A big VO2 max is big engine and big Fuel/oxygen mix... this is being turned on it's head with the amount of air left in the bottles by CF'ers.

VO2 max may indeed be a by-product of fitness, but evidence supports that it maybe not even that, wnen you train to make the engine more efficient using CF protocols.

So is it a good way of measuring fitness?? Only if you think the CF'ers who win the Fire-fighter challenges are LESS fit than their losing competetors...

Good stuff Joey, spot on.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Donahey (Post 448515)
If I came up with a Crossfit/Yoga hybrid would that still be Crossfit just because we Samson Stretch?

To put a clearer point on it, the GG Hybrid has less to do with Crossfit than it has to do with strength. Yes Crossfit and GG Hybrid both use sets of 1/3/5 in the major lifts, but GG didn't borrow that from Crossfit, Crossfit borrowed that from the same place GG did. Not Crossfit. Yes both Crossfit and the GG Hybrid use gymnastics and bodyweight movements, but GG didn't borrow that from CF either, CF borrowed it from the same place GG did. Again, not Crossfit. The only singular aspect that Crossfit and the GG Hybrid share are the met-cons, which are significantly shorter and heavier than most anything on the front page. In fact the metcons are so different that they necessitated that new ones be made up altogether.

HOW is this different? If your goal lies in short time domains, time index appropriately. If your goal is a "broad, general inclusive fitness" program appropriate to this goal. Why is a line in the sand drawn saying "this is CF, that is not"? Is a shorter, strength oriented focus consistent with the Defn of fitness? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps this is a period of focus...seasonality in training. But wait! We can't change things in the "constantly varried" program! Yes, we can and smart coaches/athletes do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448569)
What I'm saying is an above average VO2 according to research is one of the predictors of succes as a firefighter. Not the only predictor

Bullocks. VO2 is modality specific...these people are preparing for the unknown and unknowable. Time to extricate yourself from the index card files and go spend some time with people who actually DO this for a living.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448626)
The research would suggest otherwise. It's not my research if you disagree talk to the authors of the studies.

Stop everything folks! The research indicates high carb diets are the cure to cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It also indicates that 5-10 runs are a better preparation than CrossFit for fighting fire, MMA and well, apparently everything but strong man which also apparently trumps CrossFit. Phil, train a group of fighters and make them do strong man MWF, with 5-10k runs T/TH/Sat...then lets see who has the goods?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Walls (Post 448629)
That is exactly what everyone here is trying to tell you, the research is wrong. If it's not yours why are you fighting so hard to defend it? Why is it all you post is just a quick "nope you're wrong. I am a scientist. Prove it."


And not only is the research wrong, but these "measures" of fitness that you demand we test, we argue are not valid measures. VO2 max doesn't mean anything as far as CrossFit's definition of fitness is concerned.

Because Chris, when you have no leg to stand on in the real world ( like Phil) you cite the western equivalent of VooDoo: Scientific Research. Only in academia can we see lies, fabrications and buffoonery gain a "Peer Reviewed" stamp of approval. The CrossFit approach has ALWAYS been: Here is how we define the terms of fitness, here is how we go about achieving those aims. It's all available for free on the web, if you have something better or a way to improve the programming, do it

Phil, Brandon-
I've taken a LOT of time from a very busy schedule to answer the main issues you have raised. Buy it, Don't buy it. I could give a phuck. My question or thought though runs along this line: What have YOU two done to promote ANYTHING of value here or elsewhere? I really get the sense that this is about looking like smarty-pants, being contrarian for the sake of...being contrarian. I'm all about spirited debate...I've gone around with people like Mcdougal and T. Colin Campbell on nutrition topics but once the two camps have made their cases and it's obvious no one is really budging on a topic...it's time to just call it quits.

Sean Dunston 11-19-2008 12:52 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Thanks, Robb. Great post.

Wait. Does this mean I no longer need to see if I will hit a 500#+ DL by next July?

:rofl:

Chris Walls 11-19-2008 12:54 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Why wouldn't you? ;)

Ganine Vanalst 11-19-2008 01:00 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Wolf (Post 450639)
I've taken a LOT of time from a very busy schedule to answer the main issues you have raised

Thank you for taking the time. Nice point-by-point rebuttals and clarifications.

Phillip Garrison 11-19-2008 01:23 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Wolf (Post 450638)
Aye...work on my book or peese away time arguing with people who just want to argue? Can I just blanket statement that all links are WFS?


Phil-
You love this rowing analogy...are you aware that CF'ers routinely rank in the Olympic calibre level when tested on the erg? Talk to Angela Hart from C2 about it. Can these same CF'ers win in an actually skull? Of course not, one pull, capsize and done...but they have the engine to crush.

Also...not everyone is clueless to the fact that VO2 max is worthless and work capacity reigns...just some folks apparently:
VO2

A nice money shot quote from that article:

So, if you’ve been training well for the past year and your VO2max is in the 50’s, don’t hold your breath to be the next Lance. The good news is that your lactate threshold is highly trainable, and elevating your LT will put the hurt on your friends or fellow racers. Since many elite athletes share comparable VO2max values, lactate threshold is often a better measure of fitness and endurance performance. And that is a perfect segue into our discussion next week….

Which leads to the next piece, Lactate Threshold.

This all mirrors EXACTLY what has been said by John, Tony, myself...but this will simply be dismissed with "IT does not reflect the literature..." Well, I guess I loose.

I tagged a bunch of quotes so this may get a little redundant...but obviously the message is not sinking in. Phil, there are thousands of firefighters (to name but one sub-group) who have at some point: run 5-10k, tinkered with bodybuilding, and done crossfit in the hopes of improving performance. Our very own Adam Lambert (firefighter Fran) is a perfect example of this. He taught a special firefighter only class yesterday with folks from all over california...the topic? CrossFit. Not 5K's, not bodybuilding, not strong-man. So what you are saying, is that Adam and all the people like him...SEALS, SWAT etc...all these folks are suffering some kind of mass-delusion and YOU have the goods? This I so preposterous I feel silly for even giving this the credibility of a response.



This is interesting that folks seem to think tinkering with the base concepts of functionality, intensity and variation is somehow a vast departure. Most of my clients roll in the door with no experience in the basic lifts and are woefully deficient in strength. Solution? We squat, DL, Press and pull in nearly every session. Then we wrap things up with a short-medium WOD. This is the job of the coaches to tailor the training to the needs of their clients.

As to the 500-750lb DL's- The contest of this statement was when Coach Glassman was still at the old Santa Cruz box. I made my first trip down to SC in March '03 if I remember correctly. My first session there we worked DL, then wrapped up with a WOD in which you: Found your 500m row time, rested 3 min, found your time for completing 30 reps of thrusters with 95lbs, rested 3 min, then found time to completion for 30 pull-ups. Of my subsequent visists, this was very typical programming. One time when we had like 40 people at the old original box we did a chipper...but the bolk of training was core lifts, couplets, and triplets. Off the top of my head I saw 3 people with 500lb+ DL's and one guy, a BJJ black belt, who pulled 695 for a double like it was filled with helium. I left before he foudn his top end for that day, but he obviously had more in him. His first exposure to the DL stopped at ~185 lbs due to orthopedic and recruitment issues...he was plenty strong to pull more but his tightness and form precluded loading him up beyond this point. This was ~ 2 years before the day that I saw him pull the 695. I believe this is the refrence for the much hated 500-750DL stats.

In the past few months I've shifted focus to OL'ing and sprints, with occasional forays into things like fran, grace and shorter WOD's. I'm at a 400lb BS, knocking on the door to a 500lb DL.

The issue y'all seem to have is whether the WOD as posted at CF.com will produce these results...yes it will...if properly tailored to YOUR needs. Tens of thousands of people follow the main page WOD. HOW exactly is it reasonable to tinker the programming to meet EVERYONES needs? If it is beyond your intelects that you might need to modify the base programming I think you might be beyond help.




Spoken from a point of experience in the field...and completely ignored by these guys. What John is talking about is not just VO2 max, but VO2 MIN...what is the most you can accomplish with the minimum oxygen consumption? CrossFit dramatically improves this number...but it's not been published in Phil's ex-phys journals yet so it's just mass-hypnosis...again.





Exactly.


I never said it was mass hypnosis. What I said was, if we want greater legitamecy and also to improve CF over time we need to hold Cf to the scrutiny of real research. You guys seem to be hung up on VO2 as if it's the only metric for which I think we need to be concerned. If you actually look through my posts you will find I've stated it's one of many many metrics we need to look at and test for increased improvement in, along with anaerobic power, anaerobic endurance, LT, muscular power, muscular endurance, speed, agility, flexibility and so on and so forth. I never stated having a high VO was the only determinant in success in rowing, firefighting or any sport. The example you pose that doing CF doesn't guarenteee succes in real rowing proves my point. We make claims that CF improves fitness over 10 dimensions of fitness, yet we also argue that work capacity if the definition of fitness from our terms. These are two opposing mindsets.

I also have and do currently teach firefighter fitness classes both for current and recruit firefighters. We test VO2 max, along with many other metrics. While an above VO2 is a correlate, it is by no means the only correlate. Which is the whole point of CF, that no one metric is the ultimate definition of fitness

Phillip Garrison 11-19-2008 01:35 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Wolf (Post 450639)
So CrossFit is incapable of growth and development? Bummer.





Bullocks. VO2 is modality specific...these people are preparing for the unknown and unknowable. Time to extricate yourself from the index card files and go spend some time with people who actually DO this for a living.


I'm not a researcher by trade I'm a working S&C coach for a college, and among the classes I teach are firefighter training, so I'm not talking from just purely theory. Aerobic fitness and VO2 is not specific to only one modality of training. If firefighting training is designed to prepare the firefighters for the unknown and unknowable, than shouldn't we prepare them for all metabolic pathways and increased efficiancy in all them including VO2 max and aerobic fitness as well as alactic anaerobic and lactic aerobic respiration?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Wolf (Post 450639)
Stop everything folks! The research indicates high carb diets are the cure to cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It also indicates that 5-10 runs are a better preparation than CrossFit for fighting fire, MMA and well, apparently everything but strong man which also apparently trumps CrossFit. Phil, train a group of fighters and make them do strong man MWF, with 5-10k runs T/TH/Sat...then lets see who has the goods?

The research also indicates that high protein low carb, and paleo diets reduce cancer and heart disease and diabetes, and that interval training can increase aerobic capacity as well or better than traditional slow paced aerobic training. I've worked with MMA fighters and train many modalities and metabolic systems in fact I'm currently doing research on MMA for publication.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Wolf (Post 450639)
Because Chris, when you have no leg to stand on in the real world ( like Phil) you cite the western equivalent of VooDoo: Scientific Research. Only in academia can we see lies, fabrications and buffoonery gain a "Peer Reviewed" stamp of approval. The CrossFit approach has ALWAYS been: Here is how we define the terms of fitness, here is how we go about achieving those aims. It's all available for free on the web, if you have something better or a way to improve the programming, do it
.

If I don't have a leg to stand on in the real world, than who does? All of the training principles upon which CF is based have been validated in the gym, on the track, and in the lab, otherwise why would we be doing them? Exactly how do you define fitness is 10 modalities like the main page says, or just one?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.