View Single Post
Old 11-30-2008, 09:59 PM   #35
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan View Post
Being able to measure results is not what makes CF great, it is what they measure. By using Work Capacity as their definition of fitness you are able to then measure and track your ability to do Work through the WODs. Even if you do not repeat the same workout ever, you can still boil every workout down to a few basic physics equations and track your Power output and Intensity through every workout. As your Power output increases, CF argues, that your fitness increases with it.

Balancing on a fitness ball and playing with a body blade is cool, and I am sure very difficult, but how do we a) distribute that to lots of people so they can get fitter and b) measure how that is increasing our fitness?

What these guys are saying is there are a ton of things out there that are very difficult and can be done in a way that makes you sweat and "feel the burn" but that that does not make them productive workout tools. Seeing some guy do a really intense workout thing is cool but if they don't know what he is using as his metric for progress it doesn't mean anything.
Lots of programs have measurable metrics, that doesn't make them as good as CF. Run a mile everyday, eventually you'll run it faster, does that make it as good as CF?
  Reply With Quote