Charles Poliquin on Crossfit

[Charles Whitworth]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

Ahhh yes the old, if you don't agree than you obviously don't understand CF argument. Let me ask you specifically, what is the main reason for doing an explosive movement like cleans and snatches and learning proper technique in these lifts?

AKA: Why would anyone do something extra? LOL Seriously, with a questions like this, you are only pushing people away from Poliquin ("mainstream") and towards CF. You see, it really is as simple as we say it is. In fact, your points have devolved into "why do anything at all?" questions.... Going by your responses, it is quite obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about . I would agree that closing this thread is a good idea. There is no point allowing people like Phillip the opportunity to perpetuate mindless drivel.

[Phillip Garrison]

Well if you want to do something extra, why not run a half marathon after a WOD or a full marathon, or a century bike ride.

NEWS FLASH! I'm not trying to convince people to do things Poliquins way, i even stated several times I DON'T EVEN LIKE HIM.

My points have never devolved into "why do anything at all" My point has always been, why are we doing this, and is it the best to do it, or just something we do, because we always have. Others on the board agree with me as witnessed by the emails i often get from people asking advice and stating they agree with me on many issues

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud

Phil,

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?

[Brandon T. Taylor]

my two cents...

ath·lete
Pronunciation: \ˈath-ˌlēt, ÷ˈa-thə-ˌlēt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin athleta, from Greek athlētēs, from athlein to contend for a prize, from athlon prize, contest
Date: 15th century
: a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina

Crossfitters aren't athletes? By that definition, how can you say CF does not produce elite ATHLETES?? The top guys/girls seem to be elite athletes and everybody else is working there way to become one!! Keep pushing everybody.

[Simon Nainby]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

Exactly how is the NSCA doing more harm than good? They are an organization which is actively sharing info and reseaerch and constantly trying to improve the science and practical application of sports performance.

Just wanted to refer you to 2 Journal articles - February 2007 "Conventional Wisdom and the Fitness Industry" by Mark Rippetoe and April 2007 "What is Meaningful" by Lon Kilgore Ph.D. Have a read (or re-read).

I understand your thinking for researching and studying exercise protocols but as came out in your discussion with Robb Wolf there are very few effective and well produced studies especially by the NSCA.

To quote Mark Rippetoe on Strength Mill......"I have a study on my desk that claims to investigate the effectiveness of the valsalva during training, the exercises of which consist of knee extensions and flexions, shoulder abductions and adductions, and elbow extensions and flexions. All done on machines. All composed of single-joint pattycake bulls**t. None of which have any component of spinal loading, the very thing the valsalva stabilizes.

This is the kind of s**t that caused me to drop my CSCS."

Also there are issues of who is producing these studies....

To quote from "Conventional Wisdom"...."For example, Volume 20, number 4 of the NSCA’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research published a total of 42 papers, five (12%) of which list the editor-in-chief as a co-author, and 17 (40%) of which list associate editors (the ones doing the peer reviewing) as authors, either singly or in groups. One associate editor is listed on five papers. Another associate editor has 11 of his 14 published papers (according to the National Library of Medicine’s catalog) published in the JSCR. The editor-in-chief has published 11 of his past 25 authored or co-authored articles in this journal. This level of cronyism is not
the norm for most reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, most of which are concerned less about the number of papers they publish and more about their quality and academic reputation."

"What is Meaningful" also demonstrates through numerous examples that many studies produce programs far less effective than being carried out by people coaching in the real world.

I think Crossfit is one of the few programs producing a huge quantity of easy to understand, open and useful information from an outstanding and ever expanding pool of top quality experts.

[Alex Europa]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

My point has always been, why are we doing this, and is it the best to do it, or just something we do, because we always have.

Are you really saying this about CrossFit?

I hope I don't need to spell out the irony of this statement.

- Alex

[Tim Luby]

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm getting really sick of seeing this thread at the top of the fitness section every day.

The CrossFit forum has really gone down hill lately.

[Ryan Whitley]

Why does this conversation continue? Who cares? If Crossfit works for you, do it. The more you try and justify your methods the less people will take you seriously. Just drop it.

[Charles Whitworth]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

Well if you want to do something extra, why not run a half marathon after a WOD or a full marathon, or a century bike ride.

NEWS FLASH! I'm not trying to convince people to do things Poliquins way, i even stated several times I DON'T EVEN LIKE HIM.

Others on the board agree with me as witnessed by the emails i often get from people asking advice and stating they agree with me on many issues

Like I previously posted, Poliquin represents a "mainstream" mindset, so once again you are not paying attention or are just posting this crap to **** people off for the hell of it--not the way to go if you want to be taken seriously. Either pay attention or don't participate.

My points have never devolved into "why do anything at all" My point has always been, why are we doing this, and is it the best to do it, or just something we do, because we always have.

Not suprisingly you have just made my point on your position--Why do anything at all? If you want a philisophical discussion on why human beings decide to do anything related to fitness, start up a thread with a similar title. This thread has nothing to do with what you want to know. It requires that you at least have a basic understanding of kinesiology and training programs.

[David Wood]

The wheels have come off this one, and it's sitting there helplessly, spinning it's axles and burning up people's energy.

Time to put it out of its misery.