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 08-05-2009, 12:46 AM   #11
Blair Robert Lowe
Member Blair Robert Lowe is offline
 
Blair Robert Lowe's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sacramento  CA
Posts: 7,948
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

No, I did not intimate that she was, just many aiki people are as the soft arts tend to crossover a lot in the states. Where there is aiki, there is yoga or taichi and sometimes, gods forbid they are into JSA. The higher-ups are usually ok but the mudansha make me want to hit myself with a bokken. Heavens forbid they go to the floor and have to do dynamic ukemi.

We've dealt with about half a dozen over the past few months trying out our group and it was noticeable that these people were just not used to effort and contact. I go to aiki seminars sometimes and the aiki ppl are so damn soft that I'm glad I can usually go with a friend and stick with them as my partner.

Mainly, I just can't stand anyone in a JSA with hygiene issues. That's very verboten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 07:00 AM   #12
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Nainby View Post
I understand that nothing is ever 100% safe but if I had 1 or 2 injuries whenever I took novices for tackling there would be serious questions asked about how I was coaching.
True, and if there were one or two serious injuries resulting from each WOD that an affiliate runs, there would rightfully be plenty of questions about what was going on. In my year and a half of training at two fairly large affiliates, the only serious injury (serious, as in worse than a rolled ankle, pulled muscle, or torn hands) that I'm aware of was one of our trainers tearing his pectoral muscle at a CFFB cert. And that was just a freak injury that wasn't due to overly heavy weights or stupid intensity.
__________________
Training Log (WFS)
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 08:34 AM   #13
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blair Robert Lowe View Post
We've dealt with about half a dozen over the past few months trying out our group and it was noticeable that these people were just not used to effort and contact. I go to aiki seminars sometimes and the aiki ppl are so damn soft that I'm glad I can usually go with a friend and stick with them as my partner.
It's extremely dojo dependent. Bad West Coast aikido goes limp and fades away. Bad East Coast aikido tries to tear your arm off and beat you with it. Good dojos try to be somewhere in between.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:23 AM   #14
Steven Matheson
Banned Steven Matheson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Petaluma  CA
Posts: 629
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee Lee View Post
Blair, you owe me a new keyboard! I can't believe you just intimated that Katherine's a yoga bunny! I'd be fearing for my well-being at this particular moment if I were you.
Why? Do you actually think Katherine is going to beat someone up IRL over a post on an internet forum?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:47 AM   #15
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Matheson View Post
Why? Do you actually think Katherine is going to beat someone up IRL over a post on an internet forum?
Actually, a very senior aikido instructor once showed up at someone's door asking to discuss a mailing list email in person.... But the email in question was far more inflammatory than the (sad, but true) implication that some dojos are populated by yoga bunnies.

As for any suggestion that *I'm* a yoga bunny? *shrug* Come train with me and then we'll talk. I've been online too long to care what people who've never met me might think.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:59 AM   #16
Steven Matheson
Banned Steven Matheson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Petaluma  CA
Posts: 629
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire View Post
I've been online too long to care what people who've never met me might think.

Katherine
Which of course was my inference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 12:14 PM   #17
Patrick Griffin
Member Patrick Griffin is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Washington  DC
Posts: 13
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

I think the important word in the passage "perfectly safe is perfectly ineffective" is the 'perfectly,' hence the repetition. The purpose of that particular formulation is to show that, at the extreme, safety and efficacy are opposed to one another, and that it's somewhere in the middle that CrossFit hopes to strike the balance. This is vitally important when one formulates a fitness program because it is the single determinant of goals and therefore programming.

I think I recall a discussion, perhaps it was at the War College, where Glassman recounted an armed forces trainer who responded that safety was the prime goal of the PT regimen that he employed. Glassman's response, at least as I remember it, was that if safety was the number one goal then the training would be worthless and that the number one aim was to prepare soldiers for the **** they'd be coming across in combat. If that's the case, then we must honestly admit that some rate of injury is acceptable, right?

It turns out that is in fact the case. But what if the 'best' training program -- the one that, if completed, would make for the best soldiers -- what if that caused too much injury? CrossFit heard that complaint and realized that there was an implicit answer and then made it explicit: they define fitness as work capacity over broad time and modal domain... the area under a curve, so to speak. More recently (but it's not news anymore) is that age has entered the equation; you take the volume under a surface now. It's what your cumulative work capacity is for the span of some years. In other words, how does this program work right now and how will it treat you five years from now?

If you think about it, that's the entire safety versus efficacy debate in a nutshell and it's offered up in a manner amenable to emperical analysis. All you need to do is answer two questions: 1) what's your work capacity now and 2) what's it going to be after some interval of time. So yeah, injury might sideline you for a couple of weeks here or there, but if you're more fit in total over five years, was injury acceptable? I think most people would say yes, because the local disruption (a week off with a fubar-ed ankle) lead to globally greater performance. A perfectly safe program, that allowed for absolutely no temporary injury, would leave you pretty impotent if done as prescribed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 01:14 PM   #18
John Praeuner
Member John Praeuner is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Spring Hill  KS
Posts: 95
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Griffin View Post
I think the important word in the passage "perfectly safe is perfectly ineffective" is the 'perfectly,' hence the repetition. The purpose of that particular formulation is to show that, at the extreme, safety and efficacy are opposed to one another, and that it's somewhere in the middle that CrossFit hopes to strike the balance. This is vitally important when one formulates a fitness program because it is the single determinant of goals and therefore programming.

I think I recall a discussion, perhaps it was at the War College, where Glassman recounted an armed forces trainer who responded that safety was the prime goal of the PT regimen that he employed. Glassman's response, at least as I remember it, was that if safety was the number one goal then the training would be worthless and that the number one aim was to prepare soldiers for the **** they'd be coming across in combat. If that's the case, then we must honestly admit that some rate of injury is acceptable, right?

It turns out that is in fact the case. But what if the 'best' training program -- the one that, if completed, would make for the best soldiers -- what if that caused too much injury? CrossFit heard that complaint and realized that there was an implicit answer and then made it explicit: they define fitness as work capacity over broad time and modal domain... the area under a curve, so to speak. More recently (but it's not news anymore) is that age has entered the equation; you take the volume under a surface now. It's what your cumulative work capacity is for the span of some years. In other words, how does this program work right now and how will it treat you five years from now?

If you think about it, that's the entire safety versus efficacy debate in a nutshell and it's offered up in a manner amenable to emperical analysis. All you need to do is answer two questions: 1) what's your work capacity now and 2) what's it going to be after some interval of time. So yeah, injury might sideline you for a couple of weeks here or there, but if you're more fit in total over five years, was injury acceptable? I think most people would say yes, because the local disruption (a week off with a fubar-ed ankle) lead to globally greater performance. A perfectly safe program, that allowed for absolutely no temporary injury, would leave you pretty impotent if done as prescribed.
seriously
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	standing-ovation-0907-lg.jpg
Views:	165
Size:	33.7 KB
ID:	4754  
__________________
Come at me bro.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 02:49 PM   #19
Simon Nainby
Member Simon Nainby is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Buckhurst Hill  Essex
Posts: 33
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

I did say that I understand that it is impossible to be 100% safe but the rugby analogy is an extremely bad one with no understanding of how the sport is coached especially with novices.

Sessions for novices should have safety as the emphasis which will be highly effective in the short and long term.

I would also say that accredited sports coaches have a lower tolerance for risk than commercial gym trainers given the fact I rarely (if ever with accredited coaches) see dangerous practices but see them almost daily with gym trainers (trainer teaching thumb-less bench press just yesterday).
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 03:04 PM   #20
Andrew H. Meador
Member Andrew H. Meador is offline
 
Andrew H. Meador's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Williamstown  MA
Posts: 917
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Nainby View Post
I did say that I understand that it is impossible to be 100% safe but the rugby analogy is an extremely bad one with no understanding of how the sport is coached especially with novices.
That's what everyone says about their own sport - it's different, you can't use it as an analogy, we're not after the same goals, there's a right way to teach it and only accredited coaches know that way. It's freaking rugby. People get hurt playing rugby, especially novices, despite their best efforts otherwise. You can spend a year solid only teaching proper tackles and as soon as you start a scrimmage, somebody gets hurt.
__________________
I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings. -W. Mozart
  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
Does a perfectly-rested person feel pain from foam rolling? Ryan Whipple Injuries 6 03-14-2009 04:51 PM
safe? Xavier Iturriagagoitia Exercises 2 06-21-2008 04:11 PM
Help with W/F safe joke Alain Latour Stuff and Nonsense 5 04-11-2008 08:52 AM
Is this safe? Lisa Sanfilippo Nutrition 8 01-28-2008 10:19 AM
Safe situps? Kevin McKay Starting 26 02-20-2006 01:45 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 PM.


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