CrossFit Discussion Board  

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

Testimonials CrossFit's successes / your achievements

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-24-2012, 11:13 AM   #31
Rob Samuels
******
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Berger View Post
Rob, that's strike 2.

The farther you go down this road the less seriously anyone reading this is going to take you. You can either:

1) explain to us how you have reasoned that CrossFit programming is ineffective in achieving its stated goals, or...

2) provide us no arguments for that opinion and keep mindlessly talking about how everyone is too unqualified to talk to you.

The latter option will force me to assume you don't even know what your own arguments are. Don't embarrass yourself bud, take option 1 or stop whining.
You can stop your attacks its not going to get you anywhere. If you have something to add to the discussion feel free but diarrhea of the mouth is not a legitimate reason to post.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 11:36 AM   #32
Russell Berger
Member Russell Berger is offline
 
Russell Berger's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 92
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

Sam,

Iíll try to reason with you one more time on the Dave Castro bit. Your criticisms are related to the discussion of programming, but expertise or credentials do not ultimately have any bearing on whether what that person says is true or false. Period. Itís a red herring and you probably realize this.

From you last post, I got something we can really work with here:

Quote:
The argument (one of them) is that CrossFit programming doesn't follow any accepted practices for physiological adaptation. The exercise selection, the volume, the frequency etc... is not conducive to athletic progression in an efficient manner.
These are two distinctly different claims, the first one is completely true, but is just another version of the genetic fallacy you fell into with Castro- that an ideaís origin has no direct bearing on whether or not the idea is true or false. Is it possible that something could be highly effective AND fall outside of ďaccepted practicesĒ? Yes. In this case, because CrossFitís goals are also outside of the norm, I would argue that it is essential that itís methods fall outside of ďaccepted praciticesĒ.

The second part of your argument is just the conclusion youíve drawn based on your false assumption that being outside of the norm = uneffective. Since that was wrong your conclusion is probably wrong to. I think you would have to define ďathletic progressionĒ first. My bet is that it has very little to do with what CrossFit is attempting- GPP.


Quote:
Can you get fitter by following it vs. sitting on your couch? Yes. Is it optimal? No.
I think this is true of many fitness programs, but you cannot define optimization without defining a goal. If your goal is GPP, please cite examples or evidence of a different programming providing more efficient and effective GPP results. Thatís all your argument needs and your gold.




Quote:
More importantly the programming does not appear to follow the guidelines taught in the level 1.
Thatís funny, Iíve worked directly for the CrossFit training department and taught the L1ís for years now and I can tell you that is not the case. So what is more likely, I have no idea what my own job is and have been teaching misinformation without anyone catching it for the last few years, or you just donít understand CrossFit programming well enough to see that youíre wrong? ...Honestly?

Quote:
You see what happens here? Anytime anyone questions anything CrossFit it turns into an argument where the person questioning spends his/her time defending the fact they dared question things in the first place. From there it degrades to, your a troll, your a hater and eventually.....pukies bucket.
If you havenít noticed, Iíve been perfectly willing to discuss your points when they are relevant to programming. Keep the conversation in this realm and we have no problem. I will however continue to call you out on silly bull**** like that mentioned above and in my previous post.

Quote:
The questions NEVER get addressed they are ALWAYS avoided by attacking the person questioning as opposed to just simply answering the damn question.
Thatís funny, the only reason I jumped in on this conversation was BECAUSE YOU WERE ATTACKING A PERSON instead of dealing with relevant issues. Again, Iíve tried to answer your relevant arguments above, and I hope you can respond to those so we can keep this dialogue going, but you are being an enormous hypocrite if you donít see that you are doing exactly what you just claimed happened to you.

Quote:
So again just to be clear. can you explain the template which is used to select exercises, sets reps weights(Wod) and how CrossFit factors in recovery and progression within the framework of its programming.
This is a very big question, did you ask this at your L1 course? I can tell you right now there is no template, but there are firm guiding principals (CV HI FM) that if used with common sense and good coaching get great results. If you want the full explanation you can PM me and Iíll give you my cellphone. A better explanation would take a long time and since your L1 was apparently a while a go it would probably help you to hear it again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 12:15 PM   #33
Rob Samuels
******
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

I still don't understand why it seems wrong to question someones creditably when they are charged with potentially affecting so many lives. I never said Castro didn't know what he was talking about I simply asked for some information to support that he did. At any rate no matter.

My "conclusions" are not just mine. As I stated previously many well respected coaches and experts in their field have come to the same conclusions. You can call me wrong if you like but if you are going to call them wrong you should be prepared to defend your claims. If I'm saying "this is what is commonly accepted as true" Do I need to defend that or do you who is saying "we dont care what is commonly accepted this is how we do it because it works" need to defend YOUR position?

That said lets make this easy. I never said anything was wrong at my cert or that I didnt understand what was taught at my cert. In fact I said the information was pretty good. I am saying what was taught at the cert doesn't appear to me to be the framework applied to the mainsite programming.

I'm not attacking the information I received at the cert which is in fact Crossfit programming. So in that respect there is no argument. I understood it and for the most part thought it was pretty good for a basic certification

The issue I'm trying to get a clear answer on is, how does what was taught in the cert correlate to what we see on the mainsite? There are things which were discussed at the cert which are not following suit in practice.

I mean certainly you can make it fit from time to time but more often than not it makes no sense. Even if you take 3 adequately programmed wods individually, that is to say the wods by themselves make sense and accomplish something tangible, those 3 individually great wods are often strung together in a sequence which makes them less effective cumulatively.

We see wods that hammer away at a specific bodypart 3 days in a row repeatedly. Why? The life isn't fair argument holds no water in an athletic program. Its not unlike a discussion I had regarding BUD's. BUD's is not an athletic conditioning program it is a selection program, a test of mental will more so than physical preparedness. You are not going to improve your level of fitness at BUD's because its not designed to make you fit, its designed to break you down. There is little in the way of recovery its simply a matter of your mind pushing your body to do more than it really should be doing and you making it to the end before your body breaks down and quits. I see this a lot in CrossFit programming, perhaps this is Castro's doing?

I have no issue with wods designed to kick your a$$ metal fortitude is important but you can't program every week to just drive you into the ground and expect that it be effective. Or is your argument that you can? Aslo I just went to test in December although my actual cert was years ago. However I have no issue with what was taught just that what was taught does not appear to be what we see. You said there is no framework only guiding principals, that I understand, but maybe those guiding principals can be explained and shown how they correlate to what we see on the mainsite?

Just to add here, this is not a me vs. CrossFit. Read through the forum MANY, MANY people here have the same questions, I just happen to be the one asking them at this point in time on this specific thread.

Last edited by Rob Samuels; 02-24-2012 at 12:24 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 01:58 PM   #34
SP
******
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

I have been enlightened. Thank you Russell G. and Russell B.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 04:00 PM   #35
Michael Buzny
Member Michael Buzny is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toronto  ON
Posts: 102
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

I guess to boil it down what Rob (and others) are asking

1) Why was Castro, tapped to be Program Director? Why not Greg Amundson, or one of you Russells, or who ever. What where/are his quals/and experience that made him the most desirable candidate for the position. And its not a slag on a persons character or reputation (although in the wrong context and tone it can be construed that way) to ask why they were chosen for the job they do, its simple curiousity. My guess (and this is only my guess) is people can immediately see why CF tapped people Burgener for the Oly cert (many years of experience coaching people right up the Olympics etc.) Simmons for powerlifting (Again developed a highly training method adopted by large numbers of people in that particular area, coached people to numerous chapionships in their field). The reasoning for them doing the job they do for CF is readily seen by looking at their bio's. People around here aren't seeing those same connections with Castro, and they would simply like to have some insight on the matter.

2) What is the template/thought process being used to program the mainsite, and why doesn't it jive with the suggested template included in the L1 cert manual.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 04:18 PM   #36
Russell Berger
Member Russell Berger is offline
 
Russell Berger's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 92
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

Quote:
My "conclusions" are not just mine. As I stated previously many well respected coaches and experts in their field have come to the same conclusions. You can call me wrong if you like but if you are going to call them wrong you should be prepared to defend your claims. If I'm saying "this is what is commonly accepted as true" Do I need to defend that or do you who is saying "we dont care what is commonly accepted this is how we do it because it works" need to defend YOUR position?
Sorry bro, this is called appealing to authority and is just as falacious as saying an idea is wrong simply because of who it comes from. Sure, experts are experts for a reason, and we are more inclined to trust people in their fields of expertise, but that doesnít mean they are right. Experts are often very very wrong. Poliquin is a shining example of this. His ďexpert opinionĒ is based off of an incorrect view of CrossFit. As for me being prepared to defend this... thatís not how arguments work Bud. The burden of proof is implicitly on the person making the claim. In this arena we are just hanging out doing what we do best- CrossFit. Poliquin, and to a degree you, are claiming that our programming has a problem. Itís on you to prove this. Our job is to keep pumping out athletes that have amazing GPP.


Quote:
he issue I'm trying to get a clear answer on is, how does what was taught in the cert correlate to what we see on the mainsite? There are things which were discussed at the cert which are not following suit in practice.
Great letís look at what youíve got

Quote:
I mean certainly you can make it fit from time to time but more often than not it makes no sense.
please, at least for the sake of argument, entertain the idea that you might just not understand mainsite programming. If that isnít a possibility for you then there is no reason we are even having an argument right?

letís keep going...

Quote:
Even if you take 3 adequately programmed wods individually, that is to say the wods by themselves make sense and accomplish something tangible, those 3 individually great wods are often strung together in a sequence which makes them less effective cumulatively.
We see wods that hammer away at a specific bodypart 3 days in a row repeatedly. Why? The life isn't fair argument holds no water in an athletic program.
1) This is an example of the principal of Constant Variance, so yes, if this happened on the mainsite it would be internally consistent with our teachings in the L1.

2) This specific objection was addressed in the original response Russ Greene put up. Did you read it? There is no ďlife is not fairĒ argument. Life demands, by definition, work from the body that does not fall into perfectly organized patterns of stress. Football players must have explosive power not just in the gym but in the 4th quarter when they are fatigued. This is one of the main benefits many athletes who use CrossFit find the program gives them. Please go back and re-read.



Quote:
Its not unlike a discussion I had regarding BUD's. BUD's is not an athletic conditioning program it is a selection program, a test of mental will more so than physical preparedness. You are not going to improve your level of fitness at BUD's because its not designed to make you fit, its designed to break you down. There is little in the way of recovery its simply a matter of your mind pushing your body to do more than it really should be doing and you making it to the end before your body breaks down and quits.
I agree completely. This is not productive for fitness.

Quote:
I see this a lot in CrossFit programming, perhaps this is Castro's doing?
CrossFit mainsite is explicitly written to challenge the most elite athletes in the world. If you scale and modify appropriately for you and your athleteís needs, you will not ďseeĒ this...
What is it about Dave Castro that makes you think he crawled out of Satanís *******? Did the guy do something to personally offend you?


Quote:
I have no issue with wods designed to kick your a$$ metal fortitude is important but you can't program every week to just drive you into the ground and expect that it be effective. Or is your argument that you can?
No, CrossFit programming is not designed to break people down. If you have had this experience you did not properly implement it for your ability levels or needs. Its like sex. If itís a pain in the *** youíre doing it wrong.

Quote:
Aslo I just went to test in December although my actual cert was years ago. However I have no issue with what was taught just that what was taught does not appear to be what we see. You said there is no framework only guiding principals, that I understand, but maybe those guiding principals can be explained and shown how they correlate to what we see on the mainsite?
That is the subject of an entire weekend seminar. I really donít have the time to answer such a broad question. If you want, get with me offline and I will explain in detail.

Quote:
Just to add here, this is not a me vs. CrossFit. Read through the forum MANY, MANY people here have the same questions, I just happen to be the one asking them at this point in time on this specific thread.
Have you been on the internet much? There is at least a 15:1 ratio of people how have no idea what they are talking about to normal, reasonable human beings. You seem like an intelligent guy and yet youíve missed some of the biggest concepts in CrossFit. It doesnít surprise me that a bunch of other people are out there complaining about the same stuff.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 04:23 PM   #37
Russell Berger
Member Russell Berger is offline
 
Russell Berger's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 92
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

Thanks for the breakdown Michael. Let me see if I can give you two quick responses:

1) The real answer, as irrelevant as it is, is that Dave Castro is a smart ****ing dude who has been doing CrossFit for a long time and worked extensively with Coach Glassman early on. Funny you draw a parallel to Burgener. If we were an Olympic lifting program, that would make sense. He was a great athlete in that sport and now an outstanding coach. As a GPP program, why doesn't it make perfect sense that our "expert" would be someone who needed and probably appreciates GPP more than a lot of other people- a Navy SEAL.

2) There is no template, and the principals are CF,FM executed at HI. These principals are in full effect on the mainsite and not being able to see that is mostly a misunderstanding of these principals.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 06:25 PM   #38
Rob Samuels
******
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

I absolutely agree that sometimes experts are wrong. But expert or not some things just are. I'm not talking about anything that would be controversial in any other arena except CrossFit. Things like the concept of Periodization as an example, or adaptive stress.

When you say keep churning out athletes, Can you give some examples of competitive games athletes who follow main site exclusively? I dont really follow any of the athletes or the games just thinking out loud that competitive athletes are not using mainsite. I could be wrong.

CrossFit (like Paleo) seems to be sort of a catch-all for many variations of the original. Meaning for instance there are many CrossFit Affiliates who will openly criticize mainsite programming, they do their own thing which is not exactly "CrossFit" yet they are an Affiliate so anything they do is labeled as CrossFit. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying there its a bit convoluted.

If I opened a Crossfit Affiliate yet you walked in to my gym and saw a bunch of Nautilus machines that had my clients working out on doing 21-15-9 that would be assimilated into "CrossFit" even though its not what the original program intended. So when people talk about the effectiveness of CrossFit or elite athletes who CrossFit, I think it warrants a closer look because how do you really define what is or is not CrossFit?

For me I think mainsite is CrossFit and for the most part everything else just uses some of the same principals but its not exactly CrossFit. I know many would disagree, its just an opinion.

I feel that if CrossFit (speaking exclusively mainsite) was such an effective program, we wouldn't find so many affiliates who have felt the need to develop something different. They saw there were weaknesses and began programming to shore up the holes. True or no?

I stated early on that I didn't understand the programming, could it be the programming is utter genius and my criticisms come from my lack of understanding about the programming? Sure that's what we are trying to determine.

Dave Castro. I don't know him and I have nothing against him personally I'm not the one that brought him into this, he was brought in to supposedly address the programming on the video which was posted, I just asked for his qualifications.

But back on topic.

You mentioned CrossFit workouts are designed to provide explosive power when fatigued. Can you explain this? If you are fatigued continued training is not going to do anything but further fatigue you. By your account a good workout would be mixing high rep burpees with heavy snatches.

I don't see how that provides you anything but an increased potential for injury and re-enforcing sloppy form.

The way you perform better when fatigued is to get fitter and delay fatigue in the first place. Training in a fatigued state isn't going to provide you anything more than a strong mind. Physically once your tapped your tapped. If I'm wrong or I misunderstood please correct me.

Take a look at today's wod for example. run 400m backwards? Russ, bro, seriously? It's things like that which make me confused because I ask a simple question, what is this workout, this exercise, going to do for me? What do I want to accomplish with this? So when I apply it to run 400m backwards I can't figure it out. If you want to do some short shuttle backwards fine I will go for that but a whole lap around a track? For what?

Ok, thats enough for now I do enjoy the discussion though so time permitting please continue to post perhaps one or both of us will find something useful within each others posts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 08:36 PM   #39
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

Sorry, but it's strength and conditioning, not quantum mechanics. The idea that programming "to produce the world's fittest athletes" requires an understanding so profound that it eludes everyone except Dave Castro is just ridiculous.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 10:02 PM   #40
Elizabeth Ruiz
Member Elizabeth Ruiz is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boise  Idaho
Posts: 18
Re: Charles Poliquin likes CrossFit

Not to create a bigger argument, but this is how I see it. As stated before Crossfit is intended to create GPP. As someone that holds many certifications and a degree I can see the method to the madness. You mentioned running backwards and not really understanding why we would do this. One reason could be that it works different muscles. If you think it's stupid do something else that you like that gives the same outcome. I came from a bodybuilding background and one of the things I liked about Crossfit was the fact that it wasn't Mon-Back day Tues-Bi's and Tri's Wed-legs... and so on. The mainsite, if followed for any given time can show us where our weaknesses are, which is in fact a great thing. You probably learned this at your level 1, but to refresh, Crossfit has always said to do things other than mainsite. Whether it be a new sport, or more cardio, or maybe even work on your weaknesses.

The mainsite is not bad or flawed. It's perfect for those wanting GPP. Top athletes still follow Crossfit methods. They program to their weaknesses to get better quicker. Nothing wrong with that.
  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

BB 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
Charles Poliquin on CrossFit again! Patrick Vuong Fitness 74 11-03-2009 08:19 PM
Charles Poliquin on Crossfit Ryan Hagenbuch Fitness 259 12-18-2008 08:27 AM
Charles Poliquin on Crossfit. Boris Terzic Community 2 10-08-2008 08:29 PM
Charles Poliquin: A question of strength Kristofer Shamloo Fitness 21 04-24-2008 07:04 PM
Charles Staley copies CrossFit? Neal Winkler Community 16 11-12-2006 07:06 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:40 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.