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)

Evan Anderson 02-12-2010 11:50 AM

Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
I like this guy's nutrition stuff (Rippetoe always recommends him).

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

Sean J Hunter 02-12-2010 01:02 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
There's a bit of science in what he says, but mostly all the comments show a remarkable ignorance of what CF claims and doesnt claim to do as well as what CF is and what it is not.

S

hugh driscoll 02-12-2010 02:15 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter (Post 738562)
There's a bit of science in what he says, but mostly all the comments show a remarkable ignorance of what CF claims and doesnt claim to do as well as what CF is and what it is not.

S

He is questioning if main page randomness and all workouts at 90%+ intensity is productive for competitive athletes. He thinks not. And I think he is right.

Really it relates to goals, sport vs GPP. Main page Crossfit is not the best way to excel at sports.

(i know, I know.. learn and play new sports...)

cheers

Lawrence "Bo" Boland III 02-12-2010 02:21 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hugh driscoll (Post 738601)
He is questioning if main page randomness and all workouts at 90%+ intensity is productive for competitive athletes. He thinks not. And I think he is right.

Really it relates to goals, sport vs GPP. Main page Crossfit is not the best way to excel at sports.

(i know, I know.. learn and play new sports...)

cheers

I think that the fact of the matter is that most people outside of this site compare "Crossfit" to only what appears on the main site. The reality is that MANY people, including Crossfit Affiliates, have created programs that are just in the "spirit" of Crossfit, but have more included (linear progression, sprint training, etc). These programs work better... yes.

People get defensive when someone rolls in and makes generalizations like "Crossfit is ****".

Mainpage programming, in my opinion, is just an idea that gets the ball rolling.

Gerhard Lavin 02-12-2010 02:25 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence "Bo" Boland III (Post 738604)
I think that the fact of the matter is that most people outside of this site compare "Crossfit" to only what appears on the main site. The reality is that MANY people, including Crossfit Affiliates, have created programs that are just in the "spirit" of Crossfit, but have more included (linear progression, sprint training, etc). These programs work better... yes.

People get defensive when someone rolls in and makes generalizations like "Crossfit is ****".

Mainpage programming, in my opinion, is just an idea that gets the ball rolling.

If these programs work better then what is the purpose of .com

Lawrence "Bo" Boland III 02-12-2010 02:27 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ger Lavin (Post 738607)
If these programs work better then what is the purpose of .com

Like I said... it's an idea. It gets a lot of beginners started.

Darrell E. White 02-12-2010 02:35 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ger Lavin (Post 738607)
If these programs work better then what is the purpose of .com

Crossfit.com is one version of a Crossfit program. One could think of it as a "pure GPP" program. There are affiliate gyms that program their own version of GPP, others that lean toward more strength bias, and still others that do GPP for most of their members but program sport-specific programs that integrate CF principles.

--bingo

Darrell E. White 02-12-2010 02:39 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hugh driscoll (Post 738601)
He is questioning if main page randomness and all workouts at 90%+ intensity is productive for competitive athletes. He thinks not. And I think he is right.

Really it relates to goals, sport vs GPP. Main page Crossfit is not the best way to excel at sports.

(i know, I know.. learn and play new sports...)

cheers

Main Page Crossfit as a single modality is probably not the best route to maximize specialized sport performance. Agreed.

You paint with a rather broad brush, though. "He thinks not and I think he is right?" Do you have data to support your general statement that MP CF is "not the best way to excel at sports"? Might not Main Page Crossfit be a more than adequate foundation, even an EXCELLENT foundation of fitness upon which to build your sport-specific skills?

--bingo

Evan Anderson 02-12-2010 02:49 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ger Lavin (Post 738607)
If these programs work better then what is the purpose of .com

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?

Sean J Hunter 02-12-2010 03:21 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hugh driscoll (Post 738601)
He is questioning if main page randomness and all workouts at 90%+ intensity is productive for competitive athletes. He thinks not. And I think he is right.

Really it relates to goals, sport vs GPP. Main page Crossfit is not the best way to excel at sports.

(i know, I know.. learn and play new sports...)

cheers

I disagree. Main page is designed for one of the primary goals of CF...to bring usable actionable fitness to the general public. The avg Joe just wants to be fit and enjoy life. IMHO it is designed so folks can be fit and let there fitness serve them.

This whole "not good for specialist" thing is correct. If they read the damn site it says so itself. Sure its god for excelling at sports, define excelling.

Sean

Sean J Hunter 02-12-2010 03:24 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on 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?

If by that you mean, my twin brother doesn't resemble me even slightly, then I agree. :rolleyes:

The hybrid programs STRONGLY utilize CF principles and are identical twins in regards to principle but not execution. If thhey where the same principle and execution then they wouldn;t be different.

Sean

Evan Anderson 02-12-2010 03:40 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J Hunter (Post 738640)
If by that you mean, my twin brother doesn't resemble me even slightly, then I agree. :rolleyes:

The hybrid programs STRONGLY utilize CF principles and are identical twins in regards to principle but not execution. If thhey where the same principle and execution then they wouldn;t be different.

Sean

Interesting. What are these "CF principles"?

Mauricio Leal 02-12-2010 03:59 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on 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?

I'm not sure what programs you're referring to specifically, but you're misrepresenting the "better programs" that are, in fact, basically MP + Strength. They may have additional strength work because it turns out that maximal strength may be an attribute with great carryover, but they still include WODs because the only way to IWCABTAMD is to do CF-type WODs regularly. Again, broad time and modal domains. If and only if your goal is to increase your performance in that, then CF basically stands alone as the best program. If, on the other hand, you're an specific athlete and need only a very specific subset of modal and time domain performance improvements, then of course you can do better than CF. It's annoying how critics don't get this; GPP is not SPP.

Also, the athletes who typically do a lot of extra work have crossed a volume threshold, as most people can't even do the MP WODs as RXed, and adding more volume to that would be detrimental. It's all about goals and current fitness level. If an athlete can handle more volume then MP, sure give it to them. Personally, I tend to agree that all levels of trainees would benefit from doing a periodized strength routine alongside WODs, with further scaling to address the added MEBB fatigue being of utmost important in this case.

Short version: know your goals, and know your rank.

Evan Anderson 02-12-2010 04:08 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mauricio Leal (Post 738655)
"better programs" that are, in fact, basically MP + Strength.

Really? Isn't MP 3 on 1 off?

Justin McCallon 02-12-2010 04:15 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Lyle is very good as far as diet is concerned, but he really misses the boat on all his CF comments. This isn't at all uncommon. Top O-Lifters/PLers/Strongmen generally don't fully understand the philosophy behind CF. Part of the problem, I think, is that crossfit.com makes it seem like 100% of the people that train CF use the main site workouts.

Lyle's actual comments were:
1 - To build good cardio ability, you should only dedicate about 10-20% of your cardio work to high intensity work, and instead dedicate the rest to long distance work.
2 - Training only above 90% is bad
3 - Strength athletes can make the switch to CF fast, and not vice versa.

#3 has the most merit, but it's not really accurate. #1 and #2 are just him missing the boat.

Evan Anderson 02-12-2010 04:39 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin McCallon (Post 738664)
Top O-Lifters/PLers/Strongmen generally don't fully understand the philosophy behind CF.

LOL at this.

Rafe Kelley 02-12-2010 04:50 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
I think its funny that every time some authority in strength and conditioning world opines on crossfit everyone is quick to dismiss it as of course crossfit isn't the best for specialists thats the whole point. What lyle claimed was much more substantive then that, he claimed, that crossfit was not the best way to get good at anything including crossfit. Here are the points I extract from his posts.

1. Aerobic Base is not developed effectively over the long run by interval based conditioning. Elite athletes including power athletes spend significant time in low intensity exercise base building.
2. Strength Work is Primary in GPP strong athletes adapt to crossfit quickly the converse is not true.
3. Traditional strength and conditioning methods are have been successful for a 100 years we know largely what works crossfit has not produced anything new.

I think these are fair point and ones that he has some data to back up himself up with particularly on the point about strength. The problem with it is most people do not have time to do hours of tempo work on top of hours of strength work on top of hours of skill work. The appeal of crossfit is the idea you can get most of the these benefits from 5-30 minutes 5.5 days a week plus warm up and warm downs.

Crossfit + Zone/paleo works for most people purposes, losing fat, feeling fit enough to accomplish most daily tasks and adding a bit of muscle. It is not clear to me that the potential for injuries and adrenal fatigue that come with the program are necessary to attain those benefits. As far as developing elite fitness or performance I think crossfits claims of achieving that are underwelming, I would listen more to coaches who have produced and work with olympic and NFL/NBA major sport league level athletes for how to achieve that.

Mauricio Leal 02-12-2010 04:53 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

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

You're mistaking MP as representing the quintessential CF program in practice instead of its methodology. Consistently varied functional movements at high intensity has little to do with training frequency (be it 3/1, 3/1/2/1, 2/1, 2/1/2/2) and everything to do with training modalities and intensity. CF has 5k runs and rows for WODs sometimes, and MEBB sometimes. Individually they don't make CrossFit, but together they do, and this, again, does not relate to the training frequency.

Evan Anderson 02-12-2010 04:53 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Rafe wins the reading comprehension award in a landslide.

Mauricio Leal 02-12-2010 05:19 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafe Kelley (Post 738680)
I think its funny that every time some authority in strength and conditioning world opines on crossfit everyone is quick to dismiss it as of course crossfit isn't the best for specialists thats the whole point. What lyle claimed was much more substantive then that, he claimed, that crossfit was not the best way to get good at anything including crossfit. Here are the points I extract from his posts.

1. Aerobic Base is not developed effectively over the long run by interval based conditioning. Elite athletes including power athletes spend significant time in low intensity exercise base building.
2. Strength Work is Primary in GPP strong athletes adapt to crossfit quickly the converse is not true.
3. Traditional strength and conditioning methods are have been successful for a 100 years we know largely what works crossfit has not produced anything new.

I think these are fair point and ones that he has some data to back up himself up with particularly on the point about strength. The problem with it is most people do not have time to do hours of tempo work on top of hours of strength work on top of hours of skill work. The appeal of crossfit is the idea you can get most of the these benefits from 5-30 minutes 5.5 days a week plus warm up and warm downs.

Crossfit + Zone/paleo works for most people purposes, losing fat, feeling fit enough to accomplish most daily tasks and adding a bit of muscle. It is not clear to me that the potential for injuries and adrenal fatigue that come with the program are necessary to attain those benefits. As far as developing elite fitness or performance I think crossfits claims of achieving that are underwelming, I would listen more to coaches who have produced and work with olympic and NFL/NBA major sport league level athletes for how to achieve that.

With all due respect to the elite coaches, this program is still in its infancy, and there are still no Games competitors who do not have a background in something else because they're too old to have been raised on CF. Further, the program is changing as weaknesses are addressed.

In response to your points:

1. I agree, but it is still arguable what is most beneficial to these athletes. "They've been doing it for decades" doesn't prove anything. Also, interval training ~= CrossFit. If the test subjects are just repeating the same interval workouts then comparing to LSD, that kind of interval training is not CrossFit (consistently varied, hello?). Of course there will be diminishing returns on both sides, and specificity will result in the LSD practitioners coming out on top in aerobic capacity either way.

2. This has been argued about in another thread ad infinitum. The typical argument is that you could train a guy who can DL 500# to run a marathon in short order, but no way a marathoner could DL 500# anytime soon. This is a biased, false comparison and has been pointed out as such. The criterion for DLing 500# is binary (you can either lift it or you can't), while completion of a marathon is open-ended (if you can walk the whole thing that counts, apparently). It would be more instructive (and fair) to examine it in a relative, percentage-based comparison context where we look at how long it takes the DLer to improve his marathon to X time (or by X percent), and how long it takes the marathoner to analogously do the same with the DL. All start and end points being measured fairly, I would suspect it takes about the same amount of time to take a strong man and turn him into a sub 3-hr marathoner as it does to turn the marathoner into a 500# DLer. Years.

3. No basis for comparison here. Successful by whose measurement? We're still breaking world records with regularity across broad ranges of sports, and genetically we're no different than 100 years ago, so what has changed? One might say it is just a larger pool of competitors. No, otherwise China would be kicking our *** in everything. The methods have evolved, and will continue to.

You make a good point about time investment, but that doesn't mean CF is only for the average joes and weekend warriors. There is a continuum of scalability, and good coaches will scale and periodize volume and intensity carefully, even in a pseudo-random program.

Alex Europa 02-12-2010 06:10 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

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

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

Donald Lee 02-12-2010 08:11 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
All,

Lyle has a Masters in Exercise Physiology. He does not have a Nutrition degree. He wrote diet books because he felt like it and because he is interested in dieting. He has written a lot about exercise in his articles and even a bit in his diet books. He chooses not to explain complicated physiology because it usually goes over the top of the head of layreaders.

I shall attempt to explain a bit of the physiology.

1. In regards to aerobic development, low intensity work develops the slow twitch muscle fibers, eccentrically hypertrophies the heart so that it can pump out more blood and hence more oxygen, increases mitochondrial density, increases capillary density, increases fat utilization, increased number of aerobic enzymes, etc. High levels of aerobic capacity/power takes a long time to develop, as with maximal strength. Both aerobic capacity/power and maximal strength are general adaptations that require many different adaptations; hence, these are the adaptations that take the longest to develop and are the longest to go away.

2. High intensity interval-type training increases the strength of the heart, which is necessary for Crossfit-type training. Glycolytic capacity cannot be improved very much, even with training. Also, glycolytic and aerobic adaptations are contradictory, so prolonged glycolytic work takes away from aerobic adaptations. Aerobic adaptations are needed for glycolytic work though in order to buffer metabolic acidosis, as your slow twitch muscle fibers and fast twitch muscle fibers that have become more oxidative are the main buffers. Also, as Lyle insinuated, glycolytic adaptations come and go very quickly (some adaptations within 2-3 weeks or so).

3. Low level athletes do well on traditional periodization plans in which all qualities are developed at once. Once they advance, however, they require concentrated blocks on separate qualities to create further adaptations. 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) is organized in a way to maximize all the adaptations in a sequence that maximizes the needed adaptations for the sport. Sometimes, some work is done in maintenance amounts in other blocks. Some qualities last longer than others, which also comes into play in block training.

4. The ideal training plan for an elite CrossFitter would focus on aerobic training and maximal strength training. Of course, it's all relative to the specific athlete. Some people are naturally aerobically gifted. Some may already have high levels of strength or high levels of aerobic development. Muscle endurance and CrossFit metcons would be incorporated later closer towards competitions because they do not take as long to develop. Of course, CrossFit exercises would need to be practiced, whether it be closer toward the competition or earlier, depending on the specific CrossFitter of course.

5. Work capacity is largely aerobic.

hugh driscoll 02-12-2010 11:10 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darrell E. White (Post 738618)
Might not Main Page Crossfit be a more than adequate foundation, even an EXCELLENT foundation of fitness upon which to build your sport-specific skills?

--bingo

Yes, and tomorrow I will do my sport and drills drills drills for six hours. :)

cheers

Evan Anderson 02-12-2010 11:36 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

2+ years? Time math fail.

Sean J Hunter 02-13-2010 12:18 AM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Um..yeah evan...Was gonna answer your questions but youre looking for a fight my friend. So here a different answer.

McDs comments shows an excellent understanding of fitness and a very poor understanding of Crossfit. Period. What he suggests is GREAT for HIS goals.

Regarding "what these principles are". I have a sneaking feeling that's a retoricle question.

S

Evan Anderson 02-13-2010 10:24 AM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
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.

Nic Kirkland 02-13-2010 10:58 AM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
Quote:

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

Preparing for the unknown and unknowable. Improved work capacity across broad time and modal domains.

I read the thread referenced by the OP. Folks talk about CFers compared to power lifters and olympic lifters. Yeah, no doubt CFers are not as strong, but I guarantee that if you asked them both to go out tomorrow and run a 5K those muscle bound gym rat types would get smoked. Do those strength types particularly care about running 5K's? I doubt it, but that's the difference. Unless you have specific goals, CF is going to provide you with a truly multi-faceted level of fitness that will have you prepared for whatever life throws at you, as long as it's not running a sub 4 hour marathon or squatting 500 lbs.

CrossFit has gained popularity among a certain sect of the population who is disenchanted with modern ideas about health and wellness and especially in the firefighter/LEO/Military communities because nowhere else is the unknown and unknowable more prevalent than in the demands of those jobs. And performance in the face of that unknown and unknowable is not just a matter of winning a PL competition or setting a PR. It's life or death.

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. Then one of the guys on his forum (who, admittedly, did not sound like a great athlete) talked about how he tried CF for 4 months and constantly felt sore and worn out the entire time, despite scaling the WOD's. But I digress.

Katherine Derbyshire 02-13-2010 11:10 AM

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.

:shrug: Did he have any of his athletes at the regionals last year? How'd they do? Because making a claim like that without proof is just asking to be called on it. (And yes, I know Glassman has made equally wild claims. It's foolish when he does it, too.)

Katherine

Dave Hardy 02-13-2010 12:27 PM

Re: Lyle McDonald on Crossfit
 
I don't believe the that guy is an elite power or weight lifter, he says of his time doing crossfit

Quote:

I began it with a 1 rm deadlift of about 320 lbs. at a bodyweight of 205. After about a month and a half doing the mainpage WOD, I was only able to perform a single of 285.
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.

Sean J Hunter 02-13-2010 12:31 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.

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.

The ggeneral CF principles, (which BTW are nothing new they've just been packaged in a way that makes them useful)
Here's my thoughts.
1) Steer away from isolationist movements and towards functional movements. I like to call it multi joint vs single joint.

2) Stop isolating energy systems from movements from movement focus (power, speed, regular). I like to call it Multi System

3) Create a better mouse Trap with excellent Bencjmark setting and team workabaility.

4) There are a few semi-orignial ideas that I think are based around the fact that CF is so focused on GPP that it's learning a few new things. One being that doing little to no LSD still enables you to get to very good run times, good enough for Mil / LEO stuff. Bigger return on investment leaving training resource for other areas.

5) Another semi orignal idea is area under the graph priciple for measuring GPP fitness as well the understanding that intensity provides enough ROI for GPP goals and beings a much high ROI comapred to GPP goals then other traditional methods.

I'm not even CF1 cert'd this is just my thoughts from coming from an typical sport oriantated isolationaist back ground.

To answer your question, all CF proggrams use these principles, but different versions are achieving different goals.

I don't beleive CF knocks other methidologies as long as they measurable achieve their goals. I don't hear Bodybuilding knocked alot at all. It's a valid methidology considering the goals.

Where it gets knocked is when people put it on a pedistol as the peak of avg joe fitness.

Hope that answerrs your question

Sean

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 03:00 AM.

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