CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (https://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Workout of the Day (https://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before? (https://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=72847)

Chris DeCarlo 01-20-2012 06:40 AM

Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
my question is this--

is it better to rx for a slower time or drop weight and things to have a faster time?

i am always close to last were i train, but i try to rx as much as possible obviously not on heavy lifts that will cause loss of form... for example--i can do but pull ups(no band) HSPU(no box)..deadlifts call for 225 which i can do for sure buy may take longer than others,,what should i do...should i use the bands and box to post better time/score?, seams like a bad idea!

these are just general examples and i hope you understand were i am going with this

Eric Montgomery 01-20-2012 07:22 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
It's not the time or score that's the the issue, it's the fact that if you're trying to go fast with too much weight you're a lot more likely to get hurt, develop bad habits on form, or best case be extremely sore the next day.

Using a metcon as an attempt to get stronger is generally a bad idea. Use strength work to get stronger and metcons to work on conditioning. It's hard to improve conditioning if the weight is too much for you to move it fairly quickly and consistently with minimal rest.

Shawn M Wilson 01-20-2012 07:33 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
I RX everything I can safely do and don't worry about time on the things I can't

When we hit the WOD with 315 lbs for the rx dead lift for 12,9,6 I lower the weight. 315 is close to my 5 rep max and form starts to drop if I try to 'race' through this

I'd rather do 275 or so and do it with good form AND speed

I had to do singles before I could do double unders

There is a difference between pushing ourselves and risking injury over a time that really doesn't matter.

Now if your box offers $1000 for the best time for each RX WOD then perhaps the risk has a value, but while I enjoy beating others I won't sacrifice my wellness for it

Of course if I made it to the finals I'd give all she's got captain!

Willie McLendon 01-20-2012 07:58 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
I think it is wise to scale down the weights to keep the intensity up. With the small group that I train I don't even post weights for the WOD's and will assign them individually before we get started. I base the numbers off of previous WOD's or their strength numbers for that movement. I woud rather have everyone be able to go all out during the met-con and be able to finish with similar times instead of taking long breaks or letting their form go out the window because the weight is too heavy.

Chris DeCarlo 01-20-2012 11:03 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
Using a metcon as an attempt to get stronger is generally a bad idea. Use strength work to get stronger and metcons to work on conditioning. It's hard to improve conditioning if the weight is too much for you to move it fairly quickly and consistently with minimal rest.[/QUOTE]


makes total sense..this is what i am looking for --clarity

i was trying to use wod to get stronger/bigger rather than better at conditioning and overall stamina..i like this explanation a lot, separating the conditioning to wod and strength training to other times.

thanks again

Chris DeCarlo 01-20-2012 11:04 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Eric Montgomery;1025241]It's not the time or score that's the the issue, it's the fact that if you're trying to go fast with too much weight you're a lot more likely to get hurt, develop bad habits on form, or best case be extremely sore the next day.

Using a metcon as an attempt to get stronger is generally a bad idea. Use strength work to get stronger and metcons to work on conditioning. It's hard to improve conditioning if the weight is too much for you to move it fairly quickly and consistently with minimal rest.[/QUOTE]



makes total sense..this is what i am looking for --clarity

i was trying to use wod to get stronger/bigger rather than better at conditioning and overall stamina..i like this explanation a lot, separating the conditioning to wod and strength training to other times.

thanks again

Charles Golden 01-25-2012 03:27 PM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
It depends on what you're goal is as well. When I started I was fairly strong but really needed to drop some weight so my coach would normally scale some of the body weight movements so that I could keep the intensity up.

For example even after I could string together a couple pullups, he could put me in a band for WOD's so that I wouldn't be stuck doing a couple pullups then taking a break and so on. We did the same thing for ring dips. It worked pretty well considering the weight that I did drop the weight and am now RX'd more than 90% of the time.

Shawn M Wilson 01-25-2012 08:48 PM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
I think during a WOD you also have to be willing to sometimes take weight off as the WOD progresses. Today was a great example of that as our 3rd round of 9 handing cleans @ 155lbs was producing terrible form

Ppl desire the rx by their name so badly that the risk of injury vs doing a weight they can handle at the end

Tricia Magrini 01-26-2012 05:01 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
I like Erics advice and have definitely applied it for myself. I do think however there is a place for heavy in a metcon situation. It depends on the intent of the written wod. Sets of 10 power cleans are likely meant to be relatively light and fast. a WOD with sets of 3 deadlifts are more likely to be heavy. Not always but often. Your trainers should have an idea of the goal of the workout and be able to help you scale up/down accordingly. Additionally we have lots of girls at our box that do very little to no separate strength work whose numbers are going up consistently....sure they'll top out well below their capabilities if they were too do strength work, but it is possible to get stronger with just metcons......for a while anyway.

Jason Wallis 01-27-2012 08:37 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
Also, there's a difference between finishing near last and finishing 15 minutes after everyone else. RX if you can maintain good form and keep the intensity up. If not, scale. If you have little trouble through the beginning of the workout and fall apart in the later rounds you may have a muscular endurance problem more than a strength issue. When I was going to a box, I was the strongest person in my class on every lift, consistently. Yet, I usually finished the conditioning portion of each WOD in the bottom 25%.

Katherine Derbyshire 01-27-2012 03:59 PM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Jason Wallis;1027791]Also, there's a difference between finishing near last and finishing 15 minutes after everyone else. .[/QUOTE]

This. If you're finishing in the top 5-10%, the scaling is probably too easy for you. Bottom 5-10%, maybe too hard. But other than that... Someone's got to finish last. :shrug: It's not an exact science.

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire 01-27-2012 04:05 PM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
One way to think of it is like handicapping in golf. The goal of handicapping is to let people with disparate abilities enjoy a competitive round. But if Tiger Woods is playing someone who couldn't find a green if he dropped a ball on it, Tiger is still going to be pretty bored.

Katherine

Bryan Spillman 02-15-2012 09:28 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
A lot of WoD's I have no idea if I should attempt RX weight for some movements because I don't know how all these movements fit together. Sometimes the weight is just a pickem..

For Example:

7 Rounds For Time (20 min cap.)
5 HSPU = I was banded
10 Toes2Rings
15 Thrusters with Dumbells

I picked up the 40's for thrusters, made it two rounds, and was destroyed. I dropped to 30's, still bad news.... So I time capped at 4 rounds + some....
So not only did I not finish the WoD, I picked incorrect weight..

Peter Villa 02-15-2012 01:25 PM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
Yesterday I went RX'd on a WOD that I knew I was going to suck on. It involved Front Squats. And anything with FS, and I suck.

400m run then 4 rounds of:
15 FS 135#
12 SDHP 135#
9 GS push Ups
Finish with 400m run.

15 min cap.

Needless to say, I didn't finish in time. I was like 2 minutes over. (pathetic).

But I think I needed it. At the end, I was very happy I did go RX because I needed it. My FS suck so bad, that maybe I needed that.

No regrets going RX on this one. :)

Katherine Derbyshire 02-15-2012 11:49 PM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
If you need to work on your front squat, then work on your front squat. Doing a few sets before your main workout a few times a week will do much more for you than grinding through a workout like this.

Katherine

Tony Sutton 02-16-2012 08:16 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Peter Villa;1034155]Yesterday I went RX'd on a WOD that I knew I was going to suck on. It involved Front Squats. And anything with FS, and I suck.

400m run then 4 rounds of:
15 FS 135#
12 SDHP 135#
9 GS push Ups
Finish with 400m run.

15 min cap.

Needless to say, I didn't finish in time. I was like 2 minutes over. (pathetic).

But I think I needed it. At the end, I was very happy I did go RX because I needed it. My FS suck so bad, that maybe I needed that.

No regrets going RX on this one. :)[/QUOTE]

In my mind, I would have suggested lighter weights. I approach all workouts with rounds as needing to be able to crush the first round, if not the second. It should become more difficult in the following rounds. Given that you had two 400m runs, this should take around 4 minutes, 11 minutes should be more than enough time to finish this. I think the SDHP should have been a lower weight or a much lower number of reps.

So in regards to RX, did you go unbroken through the first round? If not, then a lighter weight would have been a good choice. I agree with Katherine, work on your weaknesses before the workout.

Tony Sutton 02-16-2012 08:19 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Katherine Derbyshire;1027951]One way to think of it is like handicapping in golf. The goal of handicapping is to let people with disparate abilities enjoy a competitive round. But if Tiger Woods is playing someone who couldn't find a green if he dropped a ball on it, Tiger is still going to be pretty bored.

Katherine[/QUOTE]

I haven't even read the whole post, but I agree with this 100%. It returns to what is the goal of the workout. If my gym runs fran, I don't want people to rx it if they are taking over 10 minutes. To use the golfing analogy, we would use the handicap to put everyone closer to the same level to enjoy a competitive round (or meet the goals of the workout). That's what is important, not RX.

Brian Blaston 02-16-2012 11:49 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
How much slower than the fastest Rx person are you as the last place finisher on WODs?

Maybe you should start scaling to be within say 20% of his / her time. 20% is somewhat arbitrary, but personally when I look at a WOD I base scaling on the desired stimuli.

Peter Villa 02-17-2012 08:50 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Tony Sutton;1034434]In my mind, I would have suggested lighter weights. I approach all workouts with rounds as needing to be able to crush the first round, if not the second. It should become more difficult in the following rounds. Given that you had two 400m runs, this should take around 4 minutes, 11 minutes should be more than enough time to finish this. I think the SDHP should have been a lower weight or a much lower number of reps.

So in regards to RX, did you go unbroken through the first round? If not, then a lighter weight would have been a good choice. I agree with Katherine, work on your weaknesses before the workout.[/QUOTE]

I blew through my first round actually. It's my work capacity after multiple rounds that sucks when it involved FS.

We actually started out with Max Effort FS. I only weigh 170, and I have a 245 FS. Not too shabby actually, but as soon as it involves a WOD, I'm done. Which is why I thought, it would be good for me.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the outcome.

Tony, I'd like to see you do this WOD in 4 minutes. Video please if you do. The 400m buy in and buy out alone should take you 30-40 seconds a piece. Theres 1 minute gone right there.

Charles Golden 02-22-2012 09:47 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Peter Villa;1034813]
Tony, I'd like to see you do this WOD in 4 minutes. Video please if you do. The 400m buy in and buy out alone should take you 30-40 seconds a piece. Theres 1 minute gone right there.[/QUOTE]

Yea I'd love to see someone finish that workout in 4 min. Maybe he didn't see the 400's at the beginning and end, without them I could see a fire breather finish in 4 min.

Eric Montgomery 02-22-2012 11:04 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
Pretty sure he meant that the two 400m runs would account for about 4 minutes, seeing how he said 11 minutes should be enough to finish the whole workout.

I'm also not sure where 30-40 seconds for the 400m came from, seeing how the world record is a hair over 43 seconds.

Peter Villa 02-23-2012 08:01 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Charles Golden;1036377]Yea I'd love to see someone finish that workout in 4 min. Maybe he didn't see the 400's at the beginning and end, without them I could see a fire breather finish in 4 min.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't think so either.

Peter Villa 02-23-2012 08:02 AM

Re: Better To Rx And Lost, Then Never Rx'd Before?
 
[QUOTE=Eric Montgomery;1036419]Pretty sure he meant that the two 400m runs would account for about 4 minutes, seeing how he said 11 minutes should be enough to finish the whole workout.

I'm also not sure where 30-40 seconds for the 400m came from, seeing how the world record is a hair over 43 seconds.[/QUOTE]

I guess I was leaning towards, even if he was the fastest guy in the world, it would still take him like 40 seconds.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.