View Single Post
Old 12-18-2008, 01:46 AM   #253
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Charles Poliquin on Crossfit

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud View Post

What about the fact that this organization is against lower than parralel squat and show studies that squats ( or squat-ish movement ) are really bad for the knee joint health and is an exercise that should be avoided at all cost.
What about the fact that the same organization is against overhead work stating that they are detrimental to your shoulder's health.

This is where Barry was heading when saying such organization does more bad than good for the fitness community and development.

Trainers in globo-style gyms all over the world read those and say: "Ok no more squat for my clients, leg press machine will do the trick..." when the solution is actually squating deeper and more frequently.

I don't think anyone here is against the fact that questioning crossfit and the methodologies and exercise behind it is in fact a sane and proper way to develop crossfit.

Einstein once said that "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". I think this is were Alex and Barry are trying to get you to understand.

In our opinion we don't want to use the same old metrics used by the scientific communities because those metric led to such outrageous conclusion ( squats are dangerous for knees, and overhead work will create problems in your shoulders , for example ). This training regimen has develop its owns metrics, and with such, has developed tremendous GPP in a repeatable and measurable way.

We understand high rep Olift seems madness to you, you made it pretty clear. But it seems we don't care. That same madness is seen as goodness over here. As Barry pointed out, it's just one other variable, that is mathematically bound to happen one day in life, that is covered by such combination of high rep and highly technical lifts like O-lifts. We don't do it to cover the "peak-production" metric, nor the "moderate power production" metric. We do it to cover the "work" metric.

There is one job. We do it. Work has been done. end.

Let me end by telling that I'm someone that life is led by science, objective thinking and realistic views. I don't advocate crossfit because it's a religion to me. I advocate it because scientifically speaking it has proven many time its measurable and repeatable goodies.

Excuse my english . I'm French.

I don't know what organization you're talking about, because it is not the NSCA. The NSCA has advocated full depth squats for years depending on the athlete and the sport.I also don't know which organization you are talking about since the NSCA also recommends over head work especially the C&J, The Push Press, and The Push Jerk. I would like to know where or who told you that the NSCA is against either of those movements as a standard mission statement. In fact to become and NSCA CSCS, one has to be proficient in those lifts. What you may find in the journals is specific studies focusing on specific athletes for whom certain over head movements were contraindicated.

In fact every single exercise upon which CF is based has been validated and thoroughly researched and promoted by the NSCA for years. Tabata's, plyometrics, over head squats, Olympic Lifts, interval training, daily undulating periodization, all of the things that CF promotes. So I ask you again, exactly what is the NSCA doing that is a disservice?