Charles Poliquin on Crossfit

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by Patrick Janes

while I'd also rather stay right away from these kinds of "discussion", I'd tend to agree, with a slight modification; I'd prescribe something like sandbag cleans; actually... maybe just go read and do everything someone like coach rut ever wrote about sandbags.

I hadn't thought about sandbag cleans, but that would be a good option, good call

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by Barry Cooper

Here's the basic problem. First, you are either trolling or defending Poliquin because he's your hero. I really don't care which.

Second, I want to be a part of a program where people like Kallista Pappas, Jason Khalipa, and Josh Everett (with severely torn hands) gut it out through a demanding workout like that. CrossFit is 90% mental. The other half is physical.

Finally, the basic problem Poliquin has is that he doesn't understand what we do. Let's say you go up to him and say "Oh Guruji, these CrossFit people are having a competition. I want you to prepare me for it." He will say, "OK, what are the events?" You will respond "Oh Master, I don't know. They won't tell you until a few days before." He will respond "How can you possibly prepare if you don't know the events? Specific adaptation to imposed demands and all that."

The answer, of course, is CrossFit. And if the Master had prepared you for the last games without doing high rep squat clean and jerks, you would have embarassed yourself.

This is the difference between what he does and what we do.

Frankly, I could care less about your concerns. You're standing on the sidelines while the rest of us are doing. If you want to wet your pants every time you think about doing something somebody says is dangerous, then you are not in the right place with the right group. As far as I can see, there is no sound purpose for continuing this discussion other than to annoy people, or do what you can to diminish CrossFit.

Either way, I'm done commenting on this thread.

1.) I'm neither trolling nor defending Chuck, in fact I don't particularly like him.

2.) I do crossfit everyday

3.) If you're using those handful of athletes as the argument for why CF is better you're barking up the wrong tree, becuase as annoying and arrogant as Chuck is he's trained alot more elite level athletes than CF has at this point.

4.) Asking valid questions about why we do something or don't doe smore to serve improving CF than blindly following it. If it weren't for valid concerns CF will still be doing almost purely high rep work and not the regulary interspersed strength/power WOD's we have now which obviously have improved CF, not deterred from it.

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by George Noble

You asked what good high rep olympic lifts do as opposed to high reps of a less technical exercise. The answer

he demands of those workouts is well beyond a simple metabolic conditioning stimulus: the ability to maintain explosive power, balance, coordination, agility, etc... while facing ever increasing levels of fatigue is unparalleled due to the HIGHLY TECHNICAL NATURE of the lifts.

is a perfect answer to your question, and you haven't addressed it.

If increasing your ability to maintain moderate power production is your goal there are more effective and less complicated ways of doing it than 30 rep power cleans. Why learn a power clean or snatch if moderate power is your main goal. Like I asked earlier running a 10k will have a greater total power production than a 400 meter sprint, so why not do those instead of sprints?

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by Alex Europa

How does it avoid the question? The question was, "What does a high rep O-lifting workout offer other than metcon?" I gave you several items to ponder over.

But discussing anything CrossFit related with you is worse than standing in front of a closed store: you waste a lot of time and get nothing accomplished. (Sorry for the lame analogy, I had a few more colorful ones in mind, but they most definitely aren't PC)

Hell, I've seen you disagree with a quote about CrossFit from GREG GLASSMAN.

I should probably be careful so that you don't complain that I'm harassing you again. Oh well, if that's what I get for rebutting every wrong post that you make, then it'll be worth it.

- Alex

I've given up on having an intelligent conversation about exercise science or physiology with you since you're only source info seems to come from blindly following the WOD's.

You haven't given me anything to ponder over.

Do you do cleans and snatches to increase peak power production, or just as a means to produce moderate power over broad reps? YOu can one or the other but not both. If moderate power production is your goal why not do weighted jumps, or dumbbell swings and snatches, or kettlebells? Why specifically power cleans. Please tell me oh clueless one.

[David Reed]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

3.) If you're using those handful of athletes as the argument for why CF is better you're barking up the wrong tree, becuase as annoying and arrogant as Chuck is he's trained alot more elite level athletes than CF has at this point.

I think his point was that the only way to train for the CrossFit games would be to Crossfit. Poliquin's athletes aren't any more "elite" than Crossfit's than basketball players are than baseball players. It's like comparing apples and grapefruit.

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by David Reed

I think his point was that the only way to train for the CrossFit games would be to Crossfit. Poliquin's athletes aren't any more "elite" than Crossfit's than basketball players are than baseball players. It's like comparing apples and grapefruit.

I agree the only way to do get better at CF is to do CF, but to compare most of the CF athletes to the world class athletes in sports like baseball and basketball and football is a far cry. I'm not putting down our top CF gamers, but being in terrific broad based shape is not the same as being a great athlete.

[Paul Sousa]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

I agree the only way to do get better at CF is to do CF, but to compare most of the CF athletes to the world class athletes in sports like baseball and basketball and football is a far cry. I'm not putting down our top CF gamers, but being in terrific broad based shape is not the same as being a great athlete.

It is if CF is your sport of choice. IF CF was ONLY a training methodology I would agree, but there are now CF games which to me makes anyone competing in them an athlete in that sport. The top CF athletes train specifically for the CF games, so although it is for broad based fitness, they have turned it into sport specific training since CF is now considered a sport.

[Phillip Garrison]

Originally Posted by Paul Sousa

It is if CF is your sport of choice. IF CF was ONLY a training methodology I would agree, but there are now CF games which to me makes anyone competing in them an athlete in that sport. The top CF athletes train specifically for the CF games, so although it is for broad based fitness, they have turned it into sport specific training since CF is now considered a sport.

I'm not debating the is CF a sport or not topic. I'm simply stating that the level of athleticism required for most elite pro sports is beyond whats needed to be a really good CF gamer.

If you view CF as a sport, than Poliquin is contradicting his own argument of specific response to implied demands argument. Since if very broad fitness is required for your "sport" than training with a wide range of exercises, energy systems, and rep/power schemes is the best training.

[Barry Cooper]

Phil,

You may CrossFit every day, BUT YOU HAVEN'T DONE GRACE.

Bottom line: when the Chuckster sends some athletes to the Games and they dominate, I'll stand up and pay attention. For now, you keep asking questions you ignore the answers to, and have not even apparently had the guts to try one of the high rep O-lifting WOD's.

Intentional or not, this is being obtuse past the point where troll is the most relevant word. You have received a dozen answers to your question, but the only one that appears acceptable is to say that there is no exercise physiology textbook we can point to which validates our position.

Speaking for myself, people like you are the precise reason organizations like the NSCA do more harm than good. Not only are you criticizing something you don't understand, you don't WANT to understand. You want us to come back around to your way of thinking, and are uncomprehending that we might somehow continute to be obtuse, as seen from the porthole you look out of.

[Alex Europa]

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

I've given up on having an intelligent conversation about exercise science or physiology with you since you're only source info seems to come from blindly following the WOD's.

A conversation requires both parties to contribute, all you've done is keep asking the same question over and over. A question that was answered 5 pages ago.

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

Do you do cleans and snatches to increase peak power production, or just as a means to produce moderate power over broad reps?

To quote Coach Glassman, "Yes."

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

YOu can one or the other but not both.

Why? Many CrossFitters have proven otherwise. What's ironic about this whole conversation is that the only dogmatic blindness that is being spewed are "facts" that have been dispelled countless times by the CrossFit programming. Or maybe we shouldn't do pull-ups two days in a row either?

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq

If moderate power production is your goal why not do weighted jumps, or dumbbell swings and snatches, or kettlebells? Why specifically power cleans. Please tell me oh clueless one.

Newsflash, we do all of those things. For someone that "does CrossFit every day," you REALLY don't get it. Our goal isn't just moderate power production. It seems really stupid that I have to keep going over this, but clearly you continue to lose the forest for the trees. The objective of CrossFit is to develop increased work capacity over broad time and modal domains while developing competency in the 10 components of fitness. We use the C&J and snatch (both the KB and barbell versions) as one means to accomplish this.

Yes, KB versions of the snatch and C&J also work to the same end, which makes them a valuable tool in the toolbox, right next to the barbell version. The top CrossFitters certainly have no problem stepping from a 1RM C&J to "Grace." Take Pat Barber for example, he has a 270ish C&J (BW 165), and can hold his own in the high-rep department. The same can be said of many others that aren't as gifted/well-trained as Josh Everett. The point is, with the proper implementation and additional skill work (which, I probably need to remind you as well, is considered a part of the CrossFit programming) high-rep O-lifting doesn't create the problems that the "experts" continue to claim.

You aren't being derided for questioning CrossFit, you're being derided because you aren't asking anything new. Answers to every single question that you have ever asked has been addressed at some point by the powers that be. Forgive me if I expect someone to do their homework before questioning the rationale. Several months ago I suggested that you spent more time reading the archives and less time questioning. That suggestion still stands.

- Alex