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 03-29-2009, 04:17 AM   #131
Remco Heerdink
Member Remco Heerdink is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Utrecht  Netherlands
Posts: 121
Re: Natural Movements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibreel Freeland View Post
Very different but very similar. Compared for instance, to any other non primate in the animal kingdom.
Yes and the point is what exactly?

They are stronger because of different genetics, not because they 'trained' natural movements...
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 07:34 AM   #132
Bryan Back
Member Bryan Back is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 69
Re: Natural Movements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibreel Freeland View Post
Bryan-



So you are refuting the laws of physics? Do you understand levers? Angles? Degrees? No matter what you say, the closer the tibia and fibia get to a ninety degree angle with the femur, the more stress is going to be placed on the joint. This is the reason why a pyramid, structurally, is more sound than a skyscraper (given that they are made from the same material).

Jibrieel,

You seem to disagree with almost everything CrossFit believes about weightlifting. It is not the law of physics I am disputing, it is YOUR understanding of the laws that I dispute. Perhaps CrossFit is not for you? Not sure. Or perhaps you will do CF but not squats. Remember what is heavy for you is not for others. It is still all about you. You will not change many minds here with your argument as we have already been squatting safely for months or years depending on who you are.

Before I ever did a barbell squat I had to qualify in various positions with a rifle under a time constraint. One of the positions was sitting, kneeling or squatting (my choice.) I was not even able to hold a 90 degree kneeling due to pain and sitting was difficult due to the time constraint (took too long to get into due to pain.) They suggested I try squatting as a last resort even though almost no one there ever used it. I could see on their faces that I was on my way to not qualifying with the rifle. Squatting ATG was the most comfortable position I had used in the school and quick to get into. ACL didn't give me any problems. I was looked on as a freak during the school but I passed just fine. I still had a bad knee and I ****ed and moaned once I was getting up (past 90) but that wasn't timed.

Later as I learned about squatting and what various sides of the argument espoused. I knew which side I believed because I had lived beyond the 90 degrees for years with my knee locked together in an ATG squat. I have a squared away knee now but squatting is still the way to go for my old knees but I don't groan getting up anymore, I just do a squat. I know, I know not with two times body weight... but it was locked together perfectly never the less so the coaches like Rip talking about the knee locking together after 90 and the science behind it is easy for me to believe. It is not easy for you to believe so I suspect you will not be doing full ROM squats. It is your body and you will do as you believe is best. Just don't get mad at us because we don't agree. We can just agree to disagree.
__________________
Bryan
41/M/6'1"/187
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 07:36 AM   #133
Brian Stone
Member Brian Stone is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norwich  CT
Posts: 158
Re: Natural Movements

I was not going to get involved in this discussion, but just wanted to add that I think there are a lot of instances in life where the knee is loaded eccentrically with a heavy load (ask any fireman pulling victims or colleagues out of a high-rise building, or a mountain climber with an injured companion).

As for sub 90 loads, this is seen in sport, particularly grappling sports. Lineman in American football, wrestlers / Jiu Jitsu practitioners that have someone leaning against them and need strength at very close proximity, etc. Sport and competition are by no means new concepts. Granted there are probably very few instances that replicate the specific loaded deep squat, but training strength through a full ROM is extremely utilitarian for a variety of circumstances in life and sport.
__________________
.:Better than yesterday:.
Log
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 08:55 AM   #134
Steven Webster
Member Steven Webster is offline
 
Steven Webster's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Huddersfield  Yorkshire UK
Posts: 294
Re: Natural Movements

Look at it this way, all you're doing is telling you body you now weight 300lbs or 500lbs and, for some strange reason you now have to squat 10 times a day instead of just once.

Your body doesn't know WHY you squat, maybe you wanted to sniff a flower or pull a carrot from the ground! All is knows is the fact that you suddenly seem to weigh up to three times as much when you're doing a 'real life' activity that involves squatting.

So squatting with a bar replicates what would happen if you started eating loads and putting on some poundage. Trouble is, if you're obese, walking around constantly with that kind of weight is not good for the joints and heart and you may have trouble doing one bodyweight squat.

So there.
__________________
...
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 10:02 AM   #135
Marcel Zwinger
Member Marcel Zwinger is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Podersdorf  Burgenland
Posts: 327
Re: Natural Movements

If odd objects are so much better than why don't you just use them?
Make a test with lottsa people who share your interest and then bring back the data.
If all of this turns out to be better than eg barbell training, we are happily going to implement it into our regims and WODs.

but just argueing the sake about something because I WANT it to be better is not going to help anyone.

and to the "eccentric" argument.
the problem with eccentric is that you can overload your body very easily when doing a high percentage of eccentrics.
Nothing new nothing fancy.
Your point would be valid, if we'd only execute the down movement in the squat, though.

and to "below parallel": running has the highest number of injuries...
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 03:33 PM   #136
Jibreel Freeland
Member Jibreel Freeland is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 548
Re: Natural Movements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Remco Heerdink View Post
Yes and the point is what exactly?

They are stronger because of different genetics, not because they 'trained' natural movements...
So chimpanzees don't do anything that exercise their muscles to make them bigger? Would you say then too that gymnasts are so physically fit because they just have good genetics?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 03:39 PM   #137
Jibreel Freeland
Member Jibreel Freeland is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 548
Re: Natural Movements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Stone View Post
I was not going to get involved in this discussion, but just wanted to add that I think there are a lot of instances in life where the knee is loaded eccentrically with a heavy load (ask any fireman pulling victims or colleagues out of a high-rise building, or a mountain climber with an injured companion).
In nearly all such examples of eccentric loading baring heavy weight the lifter/rescuer will not be going below ninety upon descent of the hill/mountain. Hikers take smaller steps going down than going up. I feel that this is because they know intuitively that their body was not designed to do full ROM eccentrics, with heavy weight especially. Also it is a matter of control. Maintaining control upon descent is more difficult than ascent. In order to maintain control, baby steps are taken.

Quote:
As for sub 90 loads, this is seen in sport, particularly grappling sports. Lineman in American football, wrestlers / Jiu Jitsu practitioners that have someone leaning against them and need strength at very close proximity, etc. Sport and competition are by no means new concepts. Granted there are probably very few instances that replicate the specific loaded deep squat, but training strength through a full ROM is extremely utilitarian for a variety of circumstances in life and sport.
Maybe it is extremely utilitarian but my argument is that it puts excessive strain on connective tissues due to the laws of physics.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 05:02 PM   #138
Greg Pieris
Member Greg Pieris is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Melbourne  VIC Australia
Posts: 163
Re: Natural Movements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibreel Freeland View Post
Maybe it is extremely utilitarian but my argument is that it puts excessive strain on connective tissues due to the laws of physics.
You need an understanding of anatomy to understand how the laws of physics impact on that anatomy.

Rippetoe has already eloquently explained why squatting below parallel reduces loads on the ligaments of the knee in Starting Strength, but essentially, when you squat below parallel with an properly angled pelvis, the hamstrings tighten and apply a rearward force to the patella which perfectly balances the forward sheering force applied by the quadriceps. When hamstrings are strong, the result is zero force on the knee ligaments. Squatting below parallel further protects the knee by isometrically strengthening the hamstring and quadriceps tendons in a balanced manner. Constantly squatting above parallel will create a quad/hamstring imbalance that over time has the potential to increase the risk of knee injury in sports.

This is another example why squatting to proper depth is a functional movement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 06:52 PM   #139
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Natural Movements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Pieris View Post
You need an understanding of anatomy to understand how the laws of physics impact on that anatomy.

Rippetoe has already eloquently explained why squatting below parallel reduces loads on the ligaments of the knee in Starting Strength, but essentially, when you squat below parallel with an properly angled pelvis, the hamstrings tighten and apply a rearward force to the patella which perfectly balances the forward sheering force applied by the quadriceps. When hamstrings are strong, the result is zero force on the knee ligaments. Squatting below parallel further protects the knee by isometrically strengthening the hamstring and quadriceps tendons in a balanced manner. Constantly squatting above parallel will create a quad/hamstring imbalance that over time has the potential to increase the risk of knee injury in sports.

This is another example why squatting to proper depth is a functional movement.
Yes.

Theoretically, you should be able to squat full ROM without an ACL which is responsible for preventing forwards translation of the tibia (via the quads).

The fact that the hammies are engaged much more strongly in the bottom of the squat while the quads in the top is a damn good reason to squat *** to grass.


Quote:
So you are refuting the laws of physics? Do you understand levers? Angles? Degrees? No matter what you say, the closer the tibia and fibia get to a ninety degree angle with the femur, the more stress is going to be placed on the joint. This is the reason why a pyramid, structurally, is more sound than a skyscraper (given that they are made from the same material).
No. You're "wrong" in the sense that you're not looking at the big picture. Your information is correct BUT:

1. As long as the muscles are taking the force you're fine. If the joints/ligaments/connective tissue start to take the force you're gonna have problems.

The same is true of landings in Parkour/gymnastics/etc. You want to minimize the sound made because that means the muscles are taking the torque rather than the joints.

2. Increase in torque/force is good. That means you're getting stronger. Especially moreso with disadvantaged leverage & longer muscle length ESPECIALLY at the bottom of a squat.

-------------------------------------------


ANYWAY, I wanted to ignore this thread, but hell it keeps on getting bigger. So I figured I'd put my 2 cents in.


Okay so functional... seriously. Say I am a gymnast working iron cross. Is this a "functional movement"....... no.

Does it build strength that I can use functionally to say climb a wall outside and/or make me able to move better outside in my environment. The answer is always going to be hell yes.

The same is true for planche, front lever, and many other full body movements. The same is true for squats, pistols, whatever. Evaluating the "functionality" of a movement based on the movement itself is a load of crap. To evaluate something functually you need to see how applicable the strength/power/endurance is to other things. And you better damn well know that squats as well as other weird movements like planches, crosses and such are as functional as it gets.

Anyone wanna doubt that elite gymnasts aren't really freaking strong AND can apply their strength outside of the gym? Same with Oly weightlifters?

No? No one? Didn't think so.


Also, monkeys are strong (hell, like every animal is stronger than us) because they have better genetics for muscles.....
__________________
Posts are NOT medical, training, nutrition info
Bodyweight Article, Overcoming Gravity Book
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2009, 07:42 PM   #140
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Natural Movements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibreel Freeland View Post
So chimpanzees don't do anything that exercise their muscles to make them bigger? Would you say then too that gymnasts are so physically fit because they just have good genetics?
Swinging from trees is pretty good exercise, I would imagine.

But trying to use cross-species comparisons to support an argument about human training is just ridiculous.

Katherine
  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
Why No Twisting Movements? John M. Holcomb Fitness 14 04-28-2007 03:13 PM
Kettlebell Movements William Henniger Exercises 5 10-17-2006 04:56 AM
One rep of many movements Alex Dixon Exercises 12 10-08-2006 08:03 PM
Lateral Movements Charlie Reid Exercises 5 09-16-2005 08:42 AM
ROTATIONAL MOVEMENTS Michael Halbfish Fitness 1 09-04-2003 09:47 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:37 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.