CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (http://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Fitness (http://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Lyle McDonald on Crossfit (http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=55494)

Sean J Hunter 02-13-2010 12:37 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hardy (Post 738937)
While Crossfit may be a good way of building general fitness and decent all rounders, I think the problem comes from that "forging elite fitness" banner at the top. I know someone has a product they have to sell but thats always going to be contentious.

Define Elite fitness?
CF defines it as area under curve, arguable CF achieves greater returns on investment then any other fitness methodolgy in the world. Due to its smart programming / principles.

If we got some of the fitest guys in the world ans measured their area under curve, no doubt CF Games winners would come out at the top along with some other GPP orientated sportsmen and woman.

It's why the quote isn't "Forgin elite Rugby Players / O-Lifters / Sprinters"

Crossfits methodolgy forges elite fitness as defined by the 10 areas of fitness measured as the area under the curve work capacity.

Yeah it probably should say forgin elite general fitness, but you have to gave marketing some wiggle room. :D

Sean

Shane Skowron 02-13-2010 02:16 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kirkland (Post 738914)
I also liked how in that thread Lyle said any power lifter or olympic lifter could do CF for a couple of weeks and quickly beat elite CFers in performance.

I'm going to agree with him on that one. It's a bit exaggerated, but it's true, at least for the majority of the workouts Crossfitters consider to be benchmarks.

I hate to break it to you, but a fast Fran time does not take elite fitness. It takes some strength, a little muscular endurance, and a little cardio. The less strength and muscular endurance you have, the more cardio you need. If 95# is featherweight to you and you can bust out 40+ kipping pullups with ease then it takes basically no specific training to get a fast time on that workout. I think there are some elite level powerlifters, gymnasts, and weightlifters who could surprise all of you with a sub-3 minute Fran on their first try.

As for the other workouts, it only takes a few weeks to establish a decent level of conditioning (read: endurance) for a particular modality. If you can clean and jerk 400#, then it only takes a few weeks of metcon training to be able to do 30 reps of 155# in 2 minutes. If you can deadlift 500# and can strict press 1.5x your bodyweight, then you could probably get a 2:00 Diane with only a few weeks of handstand work. If you can snatch 350#, then you could probably score a 200+ on the Secret Service Snatch Test with only a few weeks of kettlebell metcons. And the list goes on...

The exception of course are the pure endurance events like distance running and 150 burpees and distance swimming where I don't think a strength athlete would fare well.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter (Post 738945)
CF defines it as area under curve, arguable CF achieves greater returns on investment then any other fitness methodolgy in the world.

How? Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter (Post 738945)
If we got some of the fitest guys in the world ans measured their area under curve, no doubt CF Games winners would come out at the top along with some other GPP orientated sportsmen and woman.

It's not like you can just take a blood sample, run a lab test, and get the integral of the fitness function.

It's a made-up construct. There's no way to measure it. It's easy to argue something when it's not measurable.

Robert Callahan 02-13-2010 02:21 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Why is it that anytime someone suggests that maybe Crossfit is not the end all be all of improving fitness, no matter their level of credibility, everyone assumes they don't know what they are talking about.

Is it a coincidence that the last two crossfit games winners did so after a very short exposure to crossfit? Which means they came in and won having trained their "fitness" using another method than crossft.

And as for the skepticism that elite level strength and power does not translate immediately to elite level preformance in crossfit....

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/C...ankleGrace.wmv (WFS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boLl8rGhJvE (WFS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VibpuFIJU68 (WFS)

(second two videos are the same guy)


You think these guys couldn't come in and immediately beat many elite crossfitters? You think with 2-4 months training with WODs just to get used to the Sport Specific part of CF (yes CF has SPP) they couldn't be contenders at the CF games?

I understand the loyalty to the program, and I am not saying that CF is a bad program, but lets be real people it is not the only or even necessarily the best way to gain fitness out there. The work and time put in by professionals for decades now is not all poppycock and bs, and there is a lot of legit stuff we can use and learn from. Isn't that what CF is all about?

Alex Europa 02-13-2010 02:27 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738907)
Absolutely not looking for a fight. My questions may seem circumspect because that's how you have to ask questions around here to avoid getting your thread locked.

Every single "question" that you've been bouncing around has been discussed and answered, ad nauseum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738907)
There are a lot of good people here, but not a lot of challenging questions being asked about a methodology (mainpage) that seems haphazard to not just me, but to most experts in the field (hence the Lyle comments).

The challenging questions HAVE been asked...repeatedly. You think you're the first person to come in here and disagree? Try spending some time with the search feature.

Also there really aren't very many experts in the GPP field. All of the "experts" that bash CrossFit are sport specific trainers that use a small about of GPP stuff, but if they immediately dismiss CrossFit because it doesn't look like it makes any sense, and haven't ever tried using it for a period of time - either with themselves or a small portion of their athletes - then they really have no place to talk. If these guys (Boyle, Cook, McDonald, etc...) actually came out and said, "You know, I tried using CrossFit WODs as the metabolic conditioning portion of my training program with 20 of my athletes for 3 months: X number got injured, and there was a quantifiable decrease in the following fitness markers (which, if they were going to do things right, they would do before/after tests of various benchmarks). Therefore I don't feel that it is a good addition to an athlete's/team's S&C program." Then they would probably gain some respect around here. Instead they refuse to give it a chance because it flies in the face of what they believe to be true.

You say that the randomness seems haphazard to you, which is a fair assessment, however what do you base this on? What is your prior experience in training yourself and others? What are your goals or the goals of your clients? More background about yourself will help us to attempt to explain and elaborate on your questions and concerns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738907)
I really am curious what the CF specific principles are that you refer to.

Have you read all of the articles on the page What Is CrossFit? (W/F/S) Have you read through the CrossFit Journal - most notably the older stuff? The CF principles are outlined numerous times throughout the literature. If you have read them, then start a thread asking questions about the stuff that you disagree with or don't understand. I'm sure that will yield you more answers than trying to be coy and dropping little one sentence "rebuttals," which is about the extent that nearly every single one of your posts amounts to.

- Alex

Sean J Hunter 02-13-2010 04:24 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

CF defines it as area under curve, arguable CF achieves greater returns on investment then any other fitness methodolgy in the world.
Quote:

How? Why?
Arguably CF is the leading methodology on GPP
GPP = Highest ROI due to nature of deminshing returns as we approach genetic potential across broad modes and systems


Quote:

If we got some of the fitest guys in the world ans measured their area under curve, no doubt CF Games winners would come out at the top along with some other GPP orientated sportsmen and woman.
Quote:

It's not like you can just take a blood sample, run a lab test, and get the integral of the fitness function.

It's a made-up construct. There's no way to measure it. It's easy to argue something when it's not measurable.
Sure you can, but it aint a blood test, it's a fitness test. I'm a little out of my reading here but my understanding is that CF measures "fitness" as Work Capacity under the curve over braod systems and movements.

Arguable the CF Games is something getting close to a GPP fitness test. But perhaps pver a longer period, i.e. over a month instead of a weekend.

However the point I wanted to make was what everyone else is saying, the problem with McD is not that he's wrong but that he failed to remeber that the basis of ANY and ALL PT Methodology is what is the goal. Body building aint bad...if you're a body builder...but if you're not....


Sean

Alex McRobie 02-13-2010 08:15 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Europa (Post 738710)
Evan, you win the (old) new troll award by a landslide. The most helpful thing that you've posted in your 2+ years as a member is how best to search for weight training equipment on craigslist. Maybe you should hold your opinions until you actually have something of value to add.

- Alex

dude... thank you! someone had to say it :D


Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane Skowron (Post 738979)
I'm going to agree with him on that one. It's a bit exaggerated, but it's true, at least for the majority of the workouts Crossfitters consider to be benchmarks.

I hate to break it to you, but a fast Fran time does not take elite fitness. It takes some strength, a little muscular endurance, and a little cardio. The less strength and muscular endurance you have, the more cardio you need. If 95# is featherweight to you and you can bust out 40+ kipping pullups with ease then it takes basically no specific training to get a fast time on that workout. I think there are some elite level powerlifters, gymnasts, and weightlifters who could surprise all of you with a sub-3 minute Fran on their first try.

As for the other workouts, it only takes a few weeks to establish a decent level of conditioning (read: endurance) for a particular modality. If you can clean and jerk 400#, then it only takes a few weeks of metcon training to be able to do 30 reps of 155# in 2 minutes. If you can deadlift 500# and can strict press 1.5x your bodyweight, then you could probably get a 2:00 Diane with only a few weeks of handstand work. If you can snatch 350#, then you could probably score a 200+ on the Secret Service Snatch Test with only a few weeks of kettlebell metcons. And the list goes on...

The exception of course are the pure endurance events like distance running and 150 burpees and distance swimming where I don't think a strength athlete would fare well.


i do not agree with most of this...

im not sure to many powerlifters good bust out 40+ kipping pull ups
this guy is an exception of course:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Konstant...19/boLl8rGhJvE - WFS


im gonna use Rob Orlando as an example.. (sorry Rob)
this im pretty sure is his first fran for those of you who dont want to watch the time was 4.35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P2Ma6jg9dk - WFS

now im pretty sure we all know who Rob is, beastly strongman competitor turned elite crossfitter, 600 pound deadlift all of that. :notworth:
i would argue that strongmen would have better conditioning than powerlifters and weightlifters,
so by what you are saying he should have done a sub 3 fran? not quite.

also regarding the grace comment i saw a video from Catalyst Athletics of Jolie Gentry and Aimee Anaya (world class weightlifter) doing grace.
if memory serves me right Jolie beat Aimee only just but neither had an extremely good time.

id say there is the exception of lifters like Konstantinovs and id say also a decent number of high level gymnasts (like you mentioned)

just my 0.2 not completely sure if im right or not because i dont KNOW what someone with a 1000lb squat would do a fran in after 2 weeks....

Evan Anderson 02-13-2010 10:34 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Europa (Post 738989)
Try spending some time with the search feature.

Not sure what I should have searched for. My post was to point to Lyle's post. Has it already been posted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Europa (Post 738989)
Try spending some time with the search feature.You say that the randomness seems haphazard to you, which is a fair assessment, however what do you base this on? What is your prior experience in training yourself and others? What are your goals or the goals of your clients? More background about yourself will help us to attempt to explain and elaborate on your questions and concerns.

There is a lot of anger here. I'm not sure what giving my bio would do to clarify Lyle's post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Europa (Post 738989)
The CF principles are outlined numerous times throughout the literature. If you have read them, then start a thread asking questions about the stuff that you disagree with or don't understand.

My point in mentioning these "CF specific principles" was to point out that the principles are neither specific to crossfit, nor applied in a systematic way.

Alex, sorry I offended you.

Drew Cloutier 02-13-2010 10:39 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

You might think that you lose the old adaptations by doing that, but block training or conjugate-sequence training (the real conjugate training...not the one that Louie Simmons promotes...which is more like concurrent training)
How about an overview of this supposed "real" conjugate method.

Donald Lee 02-13-2010 11:20 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew Cloutier (Post 739131)
How about an overview of this supposed "real" conjugate method.

It's written about in many books. This article hear explains it a bit:

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/re...e_training.htm (WFS)

If you'd like more details on it, you can read about it in this book:

http://www.ultimateathleteconcepts.c...surinbook.html (WFS)

Alex Europa 02-13-2010 11:38 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Evan, you completely missed my point. My post had nothing to do with this thread, and everything to do with the fact that you've added NOTHING to any conversation that you've been a part of since you've been here.

OK, I'll actually play your game, but I'm not sure why I can't stop feeding the trolls. But just to make a point, let's look at your contributions to this thread (your other posts in other threads have been just as vapid, btw).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738907)
Absolutely not looking for a fight. My questions may seem circumspect because that's how you have to ask questions around here to avoid getting your thread locked.

There are a lot of good people here, but not a lot of challenging questions being asked about a methodology (mainpage) that seems haphazard to not just me, but to most experts in the field (hence the Lyle comments).

I really am curious what the CF specific principles are that you refer to.

Actually, if you look through the archives, it's very clear that one can have dissenting views and opinions. In fact, countless "dissenting" threads have gone on for 10+ pages and don't get shut down until things get nasty and personal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738648)
Interesting. What are these "CF principles"?

You want to have a real discussion and get answers? Then demonstrate that you have at least some basic knowledge regarding the topic you are asking questions about. This post doesn't say, "My point in mentioning these "CF specific principles" was to point out that the principles are neither specific to crossfit, nor applied in a systematic way." It says, "I don't know anything about CrossFit, can you tell me what the principles are?" Whether or not you actually know them is irrelevant, because your post makes it APPEAR that you have zero knowledge about the topic, therefore you're NEVER going to get an answer. You have to at least be willing to demonstrate a minimal amount of self-help to get some respect around here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738658)
Really? Isn't MP 3 on 1 off?

Maybe you weren't being a smart-*** and actually had something to add to the discussion. So instead of being lazy and typing 7 words, maybe you should've actually said what you meant instead of being coy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738671)
LOL at this.

Give an example or at least something tangible or don't waste everyone's time. This is worse than an opinion because you didn't even give us something to debate. Instead, we're left speculating and just get even more annoyed with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738685)
Rafe wins the reading comprehension award in a landslide.

Again, how about you actually explain what you mean instead of being coy. What specific points did Rafe touch on that you thought all of us moronic, illiterate people missed? If you don't have something OF VALUE to add, then don't bother posting at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738519)
I like this guy's nutrition stuff (Rippetoe always recommends him).

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showt...light=crossfit (Work/Family safe)

How about you give us an opinion regarding the ACTUAL SUBJECT that you linked to: maybe point out the parts that really jumped out at you, and why. It's like college, they don't just want you to find a research paper that agrees with your point, they want you to find multiple research papers that support YOUR POSITION-which you actually have to explain. All you told us is that you and Rippetoe like his nutrition info, which means jack**** when it comes to his opinions on training/CrossFit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan Anderson (Post 738621)
That's a great question. If these "better programs" (which don't resemble the main page even slightly and can't even truly be called Crossfit IMO) are generally accepted as superior by even devoted xfitters, then what is being implied?

This was what really set me off. For starters, which "better programs" are you SPECIFICALLY talking about, the cryptic-ness gets old fast. Next, how SPECIFICALLY do they not resemble the mainpage and WHY can't they truly be called CrossFit? What examples do you have that these nameless "better programs" are generally accepted as superior?

Since you weren't clear, I (and probably most other people reading this thread) assumed that you meant CrossFit Football and CrossFit Endurance. Maybe CrossFit Strength Bias. Therefore I can't see how they a) don't resemble the mainpage and b) can't be called CrossFit. So now I'm stuck thinking that you are only here to cause trouble instead of being an active member of the forums.

Lastly, my previous post wasn't angry, and you didn't offend me, that was simply me being about as helpful as I'm willing to be for someone that has "challenging questions" yet bounces around them and makes one-sentence, snide comments instead of actually saying what he means.

Either man up and ask your questions (or better yet, search for them, because I can almost guarantee they've been discussed before) or stop wasting everyone's time.

- Alex


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:03 PM.

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