CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-2008, 01:19 PM   #31
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
Better is a vague term. What does it mean to do water aerobics better?
Longer deals with endurance, and endurance is merely an aspect of fitness. Additionally, since there is no metric, it is impossible to determine the quality of the longer session. If you run 1 mile longer than you normally do but you have to slow down to a crawl to do it, does that mean you are really getting fitter because you can run more? In running there is the metric of minutes per mile. That way you can gauge whether or not you are really getting fitter by going longer.

CF's metrics are measurable and specific. If you deadlift more weight than another guy, you are stronger at deadlifts, period. There is no way to dispute that. It is easy to make generalizations with regard to metrics in water aerobics, like Person A is ready to puke whereas Person B feels fine, therefore Person B is fitter. But when Person B and Person C appear the same, what is the metric to differentiate them?
getting faster at WOD's or lifting more is also a byproduct of fitness. The point is, what makes CF great is not a measurable outcome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2008, 02:42 PM   #32
Robert Callahan
Member Robert Callahan is offline
 
Robert Callahan's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Zzyzx  CA
Posts: 1,626
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
getting faster at WOD's or lifting more is also a byproduct of fitness. The point is, what makes CF great is not a measurable outcome.
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.
__________________
"I swear by my life and by my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2008, 04:06 PM   #33
Donald Lee
Member Donald Lee is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cypress  CA
Posts: 1,124
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

I don't think we should become so obsessed with metrics that we automatically discount something. Stability exercises are used for that purpose-stability. It's as simple as that. For the everyday fitness enthusiast, such exercises are probably unnecessary. Stability exercises have their place in rehabilitation and sports performance.

Swiss balls and bosu balls have been marketed to death, but they're not meant to make you strong. As long as that's understood, they can be incorporated into a good program.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2008, 04:43 PM   #34
Scott Clark
Departed Scott Clark is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
 
Posts: 507
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

I like a lot of what Chek has to say, but I'm always skeptical of the alternative medical community. Not that the conventional medical community is without fault and error, but all of the "life force" and "yin and yang" talk is too much quackery for me. The basic principles he teaches I fully agree with. High quality food, proper exercise, plenty of rest and relaxation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2008, 09:59 PM   #35
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

Quote:
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
Old 12-01-2008, 12:07 AM   #36
Shane Skowron
Member Shane Skowron is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queens  NY
Posts: 3,800
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
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?
Nobody said metrics was the only reason CF was good, it's just one of the reasons.

Personally I'd rather just do a program that improves my mile times so that I can see tangible, real changes, rather than do a program that has me break a sweat and feel the burn without any tangible results. And sweating is not a tangible result.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 09:02 AM   #37
Scott Spencer
Member Scott Spencer is offline
 
Scott Spencer's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: freehold  NJ
Posts: 196
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

I'm going to chime in. I havent read all the above post yet.

I have my NLC from CHEK and have seen several of his videos. Chek's personal trainer program is called a corrective exercise coach. And thats what i like about his work. He addresses small things that might be effecting the persons performance. He also is a believer in Paleo diets. He doesnt like machines, long slow cardio or drugs. If you go on Mercola.com (FWS) you can find some of his articles.
__________________
go farther, go further, go harder. Is that not why we came? If not, then why bother? Jay-Z
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2008, 11:19 PM   #38
Robert Callahan
Member Robert Callahan is offline
 
Robert Callahan's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Zzyzx  CA
Posts: 1,626
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
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?
did you even read my post??? I agreed with you that measuring results is not what makes CF great, but WHAT CF actually measures that makes it different.
__________________
"I swear by my life and by my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2008, 11:29 AM   #39
Mike Mallory
Member Mike Mallory is offline
 
Mike Mallory's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Denver  CO
Posts: 694
Re: Opinions on Paul Chek?

Like I said earlier, I've taken some of the CHEK practitioner certs.....And to clarify:

Everyone's goals are different, so I don't know any chek practitioners who only sell one goal. Of course the workout doesn't suit you......I give everyone very unique programs......may fall into crossfit style, may not

If I'm training a football player, they will have a much different program from that of a dancer. Likewise, their level of fitness, or goals, might not be sustained effort, or power, or vice versa, or both.

It's not to say that a lot of chek practitioners don't dole out crossfit style programs, it's just evaluated on a case by case basis
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paul Chek interview Mike ODonnell Community 13 12-20-2011 04:29 PM
Paul Chek Chris Hogg Fitness 16 01-11-2007 10:14 PM
Chek vs stiff: belly in or out while squating ? Israel Halperin Fitness 9 01-11-2007 01:19 PM
Helping Paul! Coach Community 9 04-01-2004 06:49 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.