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)

George Noble 11-13-2008 05:11 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
If this is the same Poliquin piece I read, it's so stupid it kinda rebuts itself.

Douglas Chapman 11-13-2008 06:54 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
My perspective is a little different: The more people who talk about CrossFit, the more curious, intelligent and open minded people will check it out. The more people who check it out, the more people I train, the better my kid's education fund gets. The more people who check it out the more people who will sign on and it grows.

Can someone link to the Poliquin article, I would like to read it.

Derek Maffett 11-13-2008 02:14 PM

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

Originally Posted by George Noble (Post 445620)
If this is the same Poliquin piece I read, it's so stupid it kinda rebuts itself.

That's what I thought at first, but he has a more specific article.

http://www.nickmitchellblog.com/2008...sfit-training/ (mostly wfs, one cuss word).

I don't quite disagree with his points, but I'm not satisfied with his conclusions.

Kevin Perry 11-13-2008 02:30 PM

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

Originally Posted by Derek Maffett (Post 445943)
That's what I thought at first, but he has a more specific article.

http://www.nickmitchellblog.com/2008...sfit-training/ (mostly wfs, one cuss word).

I don't quite disagree with his points, but I'm not satisfied with his conclusions.

He made some good points but he brought it out in an ignorant manner which is usually how people will always view Crossfit without actual exposure to it. People always like to knock on things they have never tried before.

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-13-2008 03:35 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
What are "inappropriate exercises? Says who? What is improper exercise order? Says who? Just because Mr. Poloquin disagrees with CrossFit doesn't make CF wrong. And professional/elite athletes shouldn't use CF vice sport specific training? Wow, that's a shocking grasp of the obvious. Next time I decide I want to be an Olympic shot putter or NFL star I'll keep that in mind. This is rehashed Boyle stuff which is irrelevant and overtaken by events, Next.

Jamie J. Skibicki 11-13-2008 06:53 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Agreed, I love these article that say crossfit won't help you become a workd class weightlifter, powerlifter, etc. I don't think anyone has has ever said it would. Also, all this talk about muscle imbalances. Shouldn't using full body excersizes through a full range of motion eliminate or prevent muscle imbalances.

Bob Long 11-14-2008 05:18 AM

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

Originally Posted by Jamie J. Skibicki (Post 446160)
Agreed, I love these article that say crossfit won't help you become a workd class weightlifter, powerlifter, etc. I don't think anyone has has ever said it would.


Well, maybe someone sorta has done just that:

"Today, we are a leading force in elite physical conditioning with a growing influence in military, police, and martial arts communities and a growing roster of national, world, and Olympic champions from more than a dozen sports."


Source:
http://www.powerathletesmag.com/arch...ewglassman.htm

Jamie J. Skibicki 11-14-2008 06:29 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
and from the same source
"If you come to us with a 4-minute mile, six months into it you are going to be 30 seconds slower but a whole hell of a lot fitter. Similarly, if you come to us with a 900-pound squat, in six months it's going to be 750 pounds, but you, too, will be much fitter. A 4-minute mile and a 900-pound squat are both clear and compelling evidence of a lack of balance in your program. This doesn't reflect the limitations of our program but the inherent nature of flesh and blood. "

If your sport is based on only one energy path way (straight endurance or strength, what have been called fringe sports by CF), Crossfit will be less effective as a training protocol. But if you play a sport or are engaged in an activity that requires many energy pathways (field sports, combative sports, law enforcment) then Crossfit becomes much more useful.

Robert Wolf 11-14-2008 11:58 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
I finally finished my review of the Poliquin Biosignature seminar and my thoughts on his Case Against Crossfit. You can find that here:
http://*************/?p=285
I think it's WFS.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 12:38 PM

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

Originally Posted by Derek Maffett (Post 445265)
Based on what I'm seeing in that SPARQ test, I would be inclined to disagree with the idea that it's a good test of fitness. It seems mostly geared towards sprinting and related heavily to sports like football or basketball. It's not the worst test in the world, but hardly an extensive one such as could be used to test all-around fitness. For instance, picking up a heavy object (which will always be an important time and modal domain) is completely ignored in the SPARQ.

Well what tests would you suggest? The sparq tests lower body power, upper body power, speed, agility and anaerobic endurance. Those are several of the metrics for which we feel CF improves.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 12:52 PM

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

Originally Posted by Christian Gotcher (Post 445288)
First off, it's good to see you posting on the boards, Coach. Your contributions are always... lively, to say the least.



Why is an improved Fran time not a reliable metric when done consistently under the same conditions by the same person multiple times? It's not accepted by the academic community only because of its arbitrariness, but then again so is the vertical jump, VO2 max (which changes depending on the modality being performed), etc.

My metric is the Navy Physical Strength Test. After 1 year of Crossfit (with slight modifications because the CF mainpage has no swimming, unfortunately), my times and numbers on all events improved dramatically. I was not a sedentary populace before beginning CF and was participating in what would be considering your average 'Milfit'-style doctrine.

I could not do a swing on the parallel bars into handstands before. I can now. My CFT max has raised by 100 points from its beginnings. These are all metrics, and although they are insignificant from one person, taken from thousands of people in affiliates all across the nation, they establish a startling conclusion. These improvements are not only happening in a lot of people, they are happening over a broad range of activities and they are happening quickly.

Are we raising the bar in powerlifting? No. But all across the board, CF'ers are getting stronger in their deadlift, squat, bench press, and press than their counterparts in the "Spin," "TaeBo," and "Fitboxing" communities certainly as well as those in most competitive bodybuilding and other communities.

Is your argument illogical? Perhaps no, but it's disconnected, and you haven't really answered Glassman's challenges. If Glassman poses that Uncle Rhabdo functions in the exact same role as Kima and Smokey, you must establish either than UR is different, somehow, or that Kima and Smokey are tasteless. You question that Crossfit has not undergone any other tests except the Canadian MilFit comparison, but you haven't challenged that test, and it was a rather effective one, I think. You claim that Glassman uses a hearsay argument (from my personal experience, CF produces more hypertrophy than bodybuilding), and then go on to say that your personal experience of having heard of rhabdo before CF debunks Glassman's point (that CF has done more to spread knowledge of rhabdo than anyone else). If he's making logical errors, so are you.

Also, how would you compare training protocols for something like this? How is the Sparq test a measure of broad, general, inclusive fitness? 2 of the five tests are running dependent, and all but one are in a completely anaerobic range. As soon as you design a test that includes all the aspects of fitness, it starts to look vaguely similar to CF, and the athletes involved complain like hell. The pentathlon is close, as well as the goals of Milfit, to the goals of CF. CF has already proven itself in the Milfit field, are you suggesting a pentathlon for the next CF Games?


My stating that I've heard of rhabdo before learning about CF doesn't debunk anything about CF educating people about it, I never stated otherwise. Glassman simply speculated whether or not I had heard of rhabdo before coming to CF and I stated that i had in fact learned about it during both my undegraduate and graduate research. You're making two completely different arguments that i didn't make, I don't understand why you're trying to link my argument about not having data to back up glassmans supposition that CF is better than BBing for hypertrophy, with my stating I'd heard about rhabdo before Cf and staing that one has anything to do with the other, or that i'm somehow trying to debunk one argument with other.

The problem with using WOD times, or Milfits, etc is that these measurments have not been shown through rigorous research to predictably and reliably show a correlation between various metrics of fitness and performance in that particular activity. The bruce protocol is strongly correlated and reliably predicts VO2max and performance in endurance activities. The windgate anaerobic power test strongly correlates to and predicts anaerobic power and anearobic endurance. The CMVJ and VJ accurately predict lower body power. The medball chest throw accurately predicts upper body power. Using WOD's as "evidence" that you are improving "broad modalities of fitness" is the same as using an improved batting average as "evidence" that baseball training improves fitness, since hitting also requires above average "fitness" in several things (timing, eye hand coordination, rotational strength speed, etc). The sparq isn't a great test but it reliably tests multiple dimensions of fitness. A better test would be the Mens heptathlon which would test upper and lower body power, speed, aerobic and anaerobic endurance.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 12:54 PM

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

Originally Posted by John Filippini (Post 445493)
First, UC Riverside did have that as a recommended attribute... but wouldn't your boss in that position have been Josh Everett? If he'd gotten away with making it required, I might have agreed that it meant something, since he had to get that by the university. As it is, it just shows his preference.



Also... that's not how science works. The scientific method is that if you want to state something is true... you do everything in your power to disprove it, thus showing it's robustness.

That being said, there's certainly no harm in trying to get funding for such a study from an agency that would have some sort of interest and likely has more money. Hell, given more time in my life, I think this would be a lot of fun to do.

Exactly

Sara Fleming 11-14-2008 01:02 PM

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

Good rebuttal. I find there is a lot of posturing in the fitness community about "expertise" and absolutes regarding what is the "best" certification or education to have. If someone doesn't agree with an ideology, they attack the structure of the teaching and try to make it appear inadequate.

I especially liked your point about the value of the Crossfit seminar certification. My cert. was available on-line and was a home study course with essays and case study clients for whom I had to write periodized programs. I have been told time and time again why my cert is not adequate, or the most popular, etc., etc., but I know, from being in the medical research field, your education is what you make of it. (Like you, I am a former research biochemist, but I have only just begun my foray into the art of fitness training as a profession instead of a hobby.) I got a LOT of value from my certification because I made it a point to learn the material, use outside research to supplement what I didn't get, and apply it in new ways.

I look forward to attending a Crossfit certification in the near future mainly because my experience with Crossfit trainers is that they are very polished in their ability to assess for deficiencies and individualize the training based on that assessment. Maybe a blithering idiot could attend a certification seminar, but the truth is, if they don't know how to apply it, they're not going to be successful at training. This is the case no matter what the certification is, or discipline for that matter. Bad biochemists don't get published, bad actors don't get parts, and bad trainers can't quit their day job.

Sara

By the way, the biosignature stuff is pretty fascinating.

Brandon Oto 11-14-2008 01:41 PM

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

Originally Posted by Bob Long (Post 446418)
Well, maybe someone sorta has done just that:

"Today, we are a leading force in elite physical conditioning with a growing influence in military, police, and martial arts communities and a growing roster of national, world, and Olympic champions from more than a dozen sports."

Better yet,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Girevik Magazine
[http://www.powerathletesmag.com/arch...ewglassman.htm wfs] But here's the fascinating part. We can take you from a 200 pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years while only pulling max singles four or five times a year. We will though work the deadlift, like most lifts, approximately once per week at higher reps and under grueling conditions. It may intuit well that if you can pull a 250 pound deadlift 21 times coming to the lift at a heart rate of 180 beats per minute, then 500 pounds for a single at a resting heart rate is perhaps manageable.

My 750 pound deadlift is for some reason still in the queue.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 02:45 PM

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

Originally Posted by Brandon Oto (Post 446750)
Better yet,



My 750 pound deadlift is for some reason still in the queue.

I have mine on lay away:welcome:

John Filippini 11-14-2008 03:00 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Rob, good responses to his article. It seems in general he was interested mostly in picking out the talking points of CrossFit that sound bad out of context.

I feel like some of his points (and your responses) bring up a common theme: While using an rx'ed weight for the WODs is simpler in some ways, it also allows for confusion and misinterpretation.

While no system is perfect, and I realize why HQ switched to simpler descriptions for their WODs (not the least of which is the need for benchmarks), it seems like there may be a better method for the day-to-day. Poliquin and others see a workout with a fixed number and think it is a prescription for strength. We know better as to its purpose and often respond that they're missing the point. But maybe the point would get across better if the format were different, say by prescribing the weights as a % of one's max ability.

The logistics of this don't seem too hard. We already have max effort days worked in, so after a certain period of training most newcomers will have an idea of their abilities. If they don't know their max or that percentage falls below a certain point, the prescription could be for them to instead work on form and/or max effort depending on the lift. This already is the prescription for complete rookies unfamiliar with things like the oly lifts. The lifts we use are varied, but certainly some of them are correlates to each other (the presses for example).

I think this also serves as a good compromise between those that believe that newbies need strength work before CrossFit and those that think that early metcon is good. It improves the whole scaling process by making it fluid and removing much of the guesswork behind which level of brand-x someone should do (though I'm eternally grateful to their scalings).

The clarity of purpose should also be even faster to pick up on. I like to think that no one who looks at a WOD using descriptors like 50% (or maybe less) will think that the main goal of that WOD is strength, whereas XX lbs may look like a strength workout depending on who reads it.

I have enough faith in Coach and the rest of HQ that I don't think I'm necessarily coming up with a truly novel idea. Any reasons why this was never adopted?

PS: I'm aware that Poliquin was referring to Linda, which is based off bodyweight, and isn't a perfect match for my case against the majority of WODs having RX'ed weights. Not that I don't really like bodyweight scaling, but I would say it resembles an RX'ed weight for demanding a level of fitness. Also, clearly there are still kinks in this system revolving around bodyweight exercises, it just seems like percentages would leave one less thing to worry about.

George Noble 11-14-2008 03:21 PM

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

Originally Posted by Brandon Oto (Post 446750)
Better yet,



My 750 pound deadlift is for some reason still in the queue.

We can take you from a 200 pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years while only pulling max singles four or five times a year.

I'm wondering if the upper bound has ever actually happened. It's similar to the quote about natural bodybuilders never approaching the mass that CrossFitters do - which CrossFitters? Can I see them?

And here's my rebuttal to the Poliquin piece: PARAGRAPHS

Tony Budding 11-14-2008 03:22 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Many of you have misunderstood the concept of increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains. VO2, Anaerobic power, lactate threshold, lower leg power, VJ etc. are irrelevant. These are all correlates. Instead, we're talking about the ability to get real world tasks done.

Pick a real world task, any task. First, can you accomplish the task? Second, how long did it take you? The fittest will be able to accomplish the largest number of tasks, each in the shortest period of time. If you can't get the task done, you don't have the capacity. Simple.

For example, if you have a 900lb back squat and a 300lb press, what is your overhead squat? We have no idea. You might be able to find general correlates between back squats, presses and OHS, but there will always be exceptions. I'm sure there are folks out there with those numbers who can't overhead squat 135lbs to full depth. There are also folks out there with 300lb back squats, 150lb presses, and 200lb OHS. Which person would you say is more likely to be a competent firefighter or soldier? I'd put a lot of money on the second athlete. We are not looking for metrics like VO2 because measured VO2 has no predictive capability in sport (or life). I can increase my VO2max without improving my real world capacity. But, I can't imagine a scenario where I improve my Fran, Diane and Helen times without demonstrating a significantly improved real world capacity across broad time and modal domains.

The metric of work capacity across broad time and modal domains is legitimate even if we don't have an excellent means of testing it. Testing is a different discipline. We have talked about and engaged in a wide variety of testing metrics over the years. None of them is perfect. But going to a test tube is never going to be the answer because life doesn't demand test tube capacity. It demands real world capability.

How do we measure the capacity of an engine? Horsepower. Does the vehicle with the highest horsepower always win the race? Of course not. VO2max (which I'm using as a representative of all things consumptive or at least independent of real world capacity), is like horsepower. Who won the race is a better question. Asking who is fittest is like asking which is the best race car? To answer that question, you have to ask for which race?

The race that CrossFit is talking about is life in the real world. CrossFit is a GPP program designed to give a broad, inclusive, fitness (real world capacity) that carries over into all human activities. Brandon Oto wrote, "And you certainly can't change it to say "physical competence across broad time and modal domains," which is a radically different thing." Actually, it's the identical concept. You can't have work capacity without physical competence, and physical competence is nothing other than work capacity.

Physical competency is the ability to move your body and external loads through space. Fitness is this in a compressed time frame (faster than the less fit). To test this precisely is difficult at best, though most likely impossible. A thorough test would require assessing max output (real work/time) for a wide variety of modes and skills at each time domain. Given that each assessment would be max output, there must be recovery time between assessments. In that recovery time, the athlete would adapt. Do that over a 100 assessments, and you have a completely different athlete at the end of the test than the beginning.

The bottom line is that fitness is the highest level of competence or dominance in the real world. The notion of increased work capacity across broad time and modal (and age) domains is the best measurable, observable, repeatable metric we know of that represents that real world competence/dominance. While there is no adequate test out there that precisely measures this broad capacity, your sum total of CrossFit workouts is by far the best predictor we know. But that is far from complete. Agility tests, MB tosses, strength tests are all part of it, but none of them is even close to containing it. See the Hopper lecture by Coach Glassman http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/C...alCapacity.mov or http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/C...alCapacity.wmv to understand how broadly we're talking. In fact, the anecdotal reports of firefighters, soldiers, cops, wrestlers, fighters, grandmas, etc. who come back to us after doing CrossFit (constantly varied functional movements at high intensity) and report undeniable gains in their existing life tasks are much more relevant to our metric than anything a blood draw can measure.

Brad Thompson 11-14-2008 03:47 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Thank You!

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 03:50 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tony Budding (Post 446848)
Pick a real world task, any task. First, can you accomplish the task? Second, how long did it take you? The fittest will be able to accomplish the largest number of tasks, each in the shortest period of time. If you can't get the task done, you don't have the capacity. Simple.

What real world scenarios exactly are the WOD's mimmicking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Budding (Post 446848)
We are not looking for metrics like VO2 because measured VO2 has no predictive capability in sport (or life). I can increase my VO2max without improving my real world capacity. But, I can't imagine a scenario where I improve my Fran, Diane and Helen times without demonstrating a significantly improved real world capacity across broad time and modal domains.

Really VO2 has no predicitibliaty in sport or real life? Would you be willing to wager that a person with a VO2 of 65ml/kg/min would not outlast in a footrace against a person with a VO2 of 35ml/kig/min. Metrics like VO2, VJ, Anerobic power are not irrelevent. These are proven measurements of key components of fitness. We say crossfit improves fitness across many modalities, but we continue to only focus on average work rate, which is only one component of fitness, granted a very large one. There are many training protocols which can illicit high total outputs over the course of a workout (rowing for example or mountain biking or apline skiing) but do we define these as improving fitness through many modalities?

We keep supossing our fitness prowess through WOD's which we haven't proven strongly correlates to improved competency in other aspects of fitness both functionally and in sports and in life.

Brandon Oto 11-14-2008 04:22 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tony Budding (Post 446848)
Brandon Oto wrote, "And you certainly can't change it to say "physical competence across broad time and modal domains," which is a radically different thing." Actually, it's the identical concept. You can't have work capacity without physical competence, and physical competence is nothing other than work capacity.

If that's all you're saying, then I have no objection. My beef is with the reduction of physical competence to NOTHING MORE than work capacity, because while all physical tasks require "work" in a banal sense -- otherwise they wouldn't be "physical" -- not all of them use work as their fundamental metric, insofar as doing more work is how they're improved. "Conditioning"-type activities like metcons and marathons fit this metric well; if you do more work faster, you're more fit. But the point of the examples I've been throwing out, like walking a tightrope or winning a football game, is that while work is involved in these, it is quite beside the point. The way you excel in these activities is not by improving your ability to do more work, and the guy who did the most work is not the winner. Trying to reduce these activities to "volume of work" or "power" is literally missing the point; it's like measuring a car's performance by how many times the wheels rotate.

If "physical competence" is all you're getting as, as you seem to suggest above, then I have no problem with this definition... except that by using the work capacity definition, you tend to bias the program towards protocols that emphasize, well, work. Which is why CrossFit is characterized by sweaty metcons rather than anything else. It's not that it does nothing else; it's that it focuses on that aspect, which makes perfect sense if your definition of fitness is "work capacity."


Quote:

Originally Posted by George Noble (Post 446846)
We can take you from a 200 pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years while only pulling max singles four or five times a year.

I'm wondering if the upper bound has ever actually happened.

Absolutely unquestionably never ever.

Tom Woodward 11-14-2008 04:23 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 446866)
What real world scenarios exactly are the WOD's mimmicking?

Catch a flight with your family while carrying all the bags.
Help your friend move into third story apartment with no elevator.
Jump a fence to save time.
Carry someone out of a burning building.
Whatever.

Greg Amundson can do all those things more efficiently than me.

Really enjoyed your post, Tony.

Tony Budding 11-14-2008 05:06 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Phillip,
Show me any correlation in any sporting event that has finish ranks identical to VO2max ranks. That's my point. You can have a huge VO2max and finish poorly in all competitions.

The CrossFit WODs are excellent predictors of real world capacity. I guarantee that anyone with a sub-3 Fran, sub-4 Diane, sub-8 Helen, +400 Fight Gone Bad, sub-12 Nancy will be quite competent in almost any real world activity. These examples of tightrope walking and sword fighting are not in my world. I don't know of a single person who has needed to walk a tightrope or fight with a sword involuntarily or in the course of their daily life.

Any single test of fitness is just one single test. It is necessarily at a single time domain and with a limited number of modes. It is only in a wide variety of modes and time domains that we get an approximation of a genuine fitness capacity. And this, as I said earlier, cannot be done in a single assessment.

Metrics like VO2, VJ, Anerobic power are irrelevant because they are correlates only. Can you have someone with a huge VO2max as measured on a bike who can't complete Diane as Rx'd? Of course. Do you have someone who can complete Diane as Rx'd who can't ride 100miles on a bike? I doubt it. Are they going to beat the cyclist at a bike race? Probably not (but maybe!). Of course, most athletes with huge capacity are going to have great VO2 etc. But VO2 is not the goal, fitness, or capacity, is.

Brandon Oto 11-14-2008 05:35 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tony Budding (Post 446915)
Phillip,
Show me any correlation in any sporting event that has finish ranks identical to VO2max ranks. That's my point. You can have a huge VO2max and finish poorly in all competitions.

The CrossFit WODs are excellent predictors of real world capacity. I guarantee that anyone with a sub-3 Fran, sub-4 Diane, sub-8 Helen, +400 Fight Gone Bad, sub-12 Nancy will be quite competent in almost any real world activity.

Tony,

Do you know of any sporting event that has finish ranks identical (or correlated at all) with CrossFit WoDs?

Not confrontational, just curious; it seems to me the same principle you applied to VO2 can be applied here.

Thanks for dropping in here, by the way.

Justin Z. Smith 11-14-2008 06:27 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tony Budding (Post 446848)
...
Who won the race is a better question. Asking who is fittest is like asking which is the best race car? To answer that question, you have to ask for which race?
...

Hi,

In this cool video from 10/27/08, http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/C...ssWhooping.wmv (safe for family, work, etc.), both competitors did great, and the child won. From this, do people conclude that the child is more fit than the man?

Another question is, with all the modifications the man had to do (run while carrying plate, pullups with extra weight), how do you compare the times anyway?


Thanks,

Justin

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 07:07 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tom Woodward (Post 446890)
Catch a flight with your family while carrying all the bags.
Help your friend move into third story apartment with no elevator.
Jump a fence to save time.
Carry someone out of a burning building.
Whatever.

Greg Amundson can do all those things more efficiently than me.

Really enjoyed your post, Tony.


Lots of protocols will prepare for you that as well or better. I'd rather have a powerlifter or weightlifter help me move than cf'r. How often when carrying bags to the terminal do you do repeated cleans with it for time?

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 07:09 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tony Budding (Post 446915)
Phillip,
Show me any correlation in any sporting event that has finish ranks identical to VO2max ranks. That's my point. You can have a huge VO2max and finish poorly in all competitions.

Ok every tour de france Lance Armstrong or Gregg Le Mond won, or every national record held by Steve Prefontaine. Show me endurance races won by people with low to moderate VO2 maxes, or anaerobic races won by athletes with low lactate thresholds. The metrics you claim prove nothing have been shown to predict athletic success far more than a Fran has. Unless you can show me a study or anecdotal evidence correlating Fran time to performance in an athletic event. Not doing well on a Fran can be likely due to inexperience doing it. Would a excellent Fran score automatically correlate to an excellent rugby performance?

Casey Raiford 11-14-2008 07:11 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 446995)
Lots of protocols will prepare for you that as well or better. I'd rather have a powerlifter or weightlifter help me move than cf'r. How often when carrying bags to the terminal do you do repeated cleans with it for time?



I've routinely deployed with ten or more parabags weighing 50+ pounds each on commercial air. I've also seen a lot of families carry damn near as much luggage as well. Hauling bags of mulch is in the same ballpark.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 07:15 PM

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

Originally Posted by Casey Raiford (Post 447000)
I've routinely deployed with ten or more parabags weighing 50+ pounds each on commercial air. I've also seen a lot of families carry damn near as much luggage as well. Hauling bags of mulch is in the same ballpark.

Doing strongman training would better prep you for that. Why not train in the 3000m steeple chase just in case you have to run for your life through the woods jumping over small logs and bushes, or cross country in case you're house catches on fire and you need to escape into the forrest.

Casey Raiford 11-14-2008 07:17 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Nice try.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 07:21 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
they are just as realistic as the often used "In case I need to save someone from a burning building".

Casey Raiford 11-14-2008 07:26 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Sure they are, but soon as anyone cites a real life example of one of the hypothetical situations you're using, you'll just whip out another and tie it to a specific sport or training technique. Nice chatting, I'm done here.

PS: I have pulled someone out of a burning building.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 07:28 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Good for you, and I mean that sincerely. I've pulled someone out of a burning car.

Donald Clarkson 11-14-2008 09:47 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Phillip, I once saved some toast from burning :pepper:

Lewis Dunn 11-14-2008 10:07 PM

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

Originally Posted by Donald Clarkson (Post 447063)
Phillip, I once saved some toast from burning :pepper:

Yeah, but could you have done that before Crossfit?

Jamie J. Skibicki 11-14-2008 10:52 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
What is a CFer doing with toast, so not Paleo

Shane Skowron 11-14-2008 10:57 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 446998)
Ok every tour de france Lance Armstrong or Gregg Le Mond won, or every national record held by Steve Prefontaine. Show me endurance races won by people with low to moderate VO2 maxes, or anaerobic races won by athletes with low lactate thresholds. The metrics you claim prove nothing have been shown to predict athletic success far more than a Fran has.

Lance has one of the highest VO2 maxes ever. Why isn't he one of the world's best marathoners? Specificity of training, which VO2 max does not measure. Fran measures the most basic movements: push, pull, squat in rapid succession at an all-out speed. Proficiency in these movements is applicable to most human activities, whereas the VO2 max of a cyclist is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 446998)
Not doing well on a Fran can be likely due to inexperience doing it.

No, that's rubbish. A Fran consists of very simple movements, and it is essentially an 800m sprint. You wouldn't say a runner isn't good at the 800m because he is inexperienced at it, would you? No, it's simply because he's not fast enough. The argument may hold for a technical movement like the muscle-up, the snatch, or the double-under. Not a Fran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 446998)

Unless you can show me a study or anecdotal evidence correlating Fran time to performance in an athletic event.

Those with a good Fran time tended to score near the top of the 2008 Crossfit Games. Fact.

Phillip Garrison 11-14-2008 11:46 PM

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

Phillip Garrison 11-15-2008 12:05 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
I once saved some vegetables from being slightly overcooked.

Shane Skowron 11-15-2008 07:36 AM

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

That's debatable, but I meant my comment in jest anyway.

My real point was that a lower Fran time is much more indicative of overall fitness than a measurement of VO2 max. Additionally, the VO2 max is dependent upon the weight of an athlete, whereas the Fran time is not. Fran is an absolute measurement.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 AM.

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