CrossFit Discussion Board  

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

Community Catch all category for CrossFit community discussion.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-21-2009, 05:41 PM   #121
Kirez Reynolds
Affiliate Kirez Reynolds is offline
 
Kirez Reynolds's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Litchfield Park  AZ
Posts: 936
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

I just read the following in the Camp Pendleton newspaper, The Scout.

SAFE/WFS:
http://scoutnewspaper.com/index.php?...803&Itemid=202

I often feel that the most ingenious aspect of CrossFit is using the Olympic lifts, which are unequaled among movements for training power, at high reps for metabolic conditioning. Nothing simulates the demands of fighting, combat and sport better. This is why the chart in WHAT IS FITNESS? shows the metabolic pathways used in so many sports: they're all power. I usually feel that nothing is more brilliant than our use of power moves for high reps.

Note that the article above has a "RATE" feature --- check out the article and let him know what you think of it. It's the usual tripe: he's writing that the military is turning against CF, and with good reason, because using the Olympic lifts for high reps is dangerous. I wish there was a comment section on the article, but there isn't.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:50 PM   #122
Amber Mathwig
Member Amber Mathwig is offline
 
Amber Mathwig's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Chesapeake  VA
Posts: 1,148
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

My "poor" rating has been duly submitted. Even the linear progression of his writing is entirely off, without even getting into his views on CrossFit.

I thought Marines were WARRIORS, not athletes.
__________________
I'm on a boat.....
 
Old 02-22-2009, 10:46 AM   #123
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

To be clear, there is no easy way to do CrossFit. Even scaled, you need to work hard. I personally have some bad nutritional habits, so I wind up getting the dry heaves just about every Metcon I do. I'm used to it. It's no big deal.

What I guess I'm indirectly referring to is our marketing package. Now, for the people that are naturally attracted to what we do, Pukie and Uncle Rhabdo are funny.

But for people for whom doing a pullup, or running a quarter mile is a challenge, if we're not careful we create an appearance of an unbridgeable gap between our "culture", and their committment to fitness.

For the office folks in the various services, they have not only the reality of CrossFit to evaluate, but the appearance, next to their name and recommendation. To the extent we APPEAR to be "psycho-fitness", or a cult, we damage the likelihood that people that are often--let's be honest--somewhat timid in their constitutions, will recommend us. No person who takes regular and uncalculated risks can thrive in any large burocracy. This is simple reality.

Now, the case is overwhelming that that intensity does more for fitness and cardiac health than outmoded ideas like "cardio", and that functional movements are so much more useful than machine movements that no further discussion is possible among informed people.

Ken Cooper concepts are disappearing at roughly the rate that Pritikin and Ornish's ideas are. But this will take time.

In the meantime, people are left, ultimately, with foundationally different paradigms to choose from, each of which appears to have merits equal to the other. One of them is approved by the Establishment, and the other APPEARS dangerous.

The task, in selling this, is to keep that inaccurate perception in abeyance long enough to present empirical evidence with respect to objective safety and objective physical training results.

Now, I've been selling for a long time. Quite often, people actually make up their minds in VERY short periods of time, and only offer the appearance of listening with openness.

With respect to this aspect of the dynamic, that is where the seeming masochism of this program makes things harder for the people trying to get us adopted officially.

Now, for people who actually do the work, and submit to the CrossFit discipline for some period of time, what they find is greatly enhanced mental toughness, increased emotional resiliency, and reduced susceptability to fear.

But these things are emergent properties of the system, and only visible AFTER you embrace it.

Hopefully that makes some sense.

Last edited by Barry Cooper : 02-22-2009 at 11:13 AM.
 
Old 02-22-2009, 11:39 AM   #124
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

Here's a better link to that Scout Newspaper (I couldn't get the other to work): http://www.scoutnewspaper.com/index....803&Itemid=202

Couple comments. First, "risk of injury" is something that is quantifiable. It is not a metaphysical thing, that exists out there floating like an invisibile cloud. You can take populations of people, and have them do something, and measure how many get hurt, and to what extent.

People talk about CrossFit as it just emerged from the woodwork a year ago, and is hence "untested" relative to the existing programs. This is simple inaccurate--and in my view sometimes even intentionally misleading.

I've been doing CrossFit since about 2003, and was doing it when we rolled out Gwen, which is 51-12-9 Clean and Jerks with as much weight as you can handle. Touch and go, which makes for a great grip workout. I have done that workout many times. It is very difficult, but in many dozens of encounters, I never hurt myself.

Now, if someone wants to make the argument that across a large population of untrained people the risk of injury is higher doing this than the normal daily dozen or whatever it is, that may be true. That means those people need to be trained. Duh.

But overuse injuries from doing the same damn thing day in and day out are constant, from what I can tell. And back injuries are a constant as well, from what I can tell, from never training the back to lift heavy things for a sustained period of time.

And if you are lifting things UP, to your arms, like bags of sand, is there a more efficient way than to get accelleration, then catch it? Is there anything more specific than high rep O-lifts?

As one studies patterns of human behavior, one begins to see classes of reactions to unwanted stimuli. Quite often, groups of people with separate individual motivations, but a shared common cause against a perceived threat, will come up with a common theme, a basic block, to that threat.

In Mortal Combat--the video game--I understand there are cheats you can access. When you come across whoever (I don't play it), there is a sequence you can use to always defeat them. Something like block, kick, block, bionic punch. Or whatever.

In political discourse, you see the same themes repeated over and over, in roughly the same order. These are intended to act, effectively, as ideological cheat codes, which is to say methods of suppressing alternative views, without thought, and without engaging in the difficult and risk filled task of detailed, substantive debate.

With respect to CrossFit, the cheat code is Unsafe/high rep O-lifts/Uncle Rhabdo/Pukie. We see this basic combination over and over.

But empirically, high rep O-lifts are NOT dangerous. We didn't invent them. That was a contested lift 40 years ago.

Ultimately, what people are attempting to prosecute us for is heresy with respect to Exercise Science. Everything has a box it goes in--a category--and our heresy is to do with O-lifts what the lab coats say is wrong.

But we can show the results. If they want to stack their "athletes" (his word)--trained using the methods they think are "sound"--against ours, they should have at it. There is nothing mystical here, just tasks done competitively for time.

July, 2009, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't anybody hold your breath.
 
Old 02-22-2009, 12:28 PM   #125
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

Edit function is apparently gone, but I think the number I wanted was 15.
 
Old 02-22-2009, 01:25 PM   #126
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

Well, lookey here (w/fs--may have negative effect on stomach): http://www.nsca-lift.org/TSAC/TSAC_Report_2008-02.pdf

Some little birdie passed by and said, "Hey, Barry, Google Sven Parker and NSCA". I said thank you little bird, and what do we find? An NSCA version of the CrossFit Journal, complete with articles by, who? Mark Stephenson (ATC, CSCS) and Sven Parker (CSCS and CPT).

Regrettably, I can't cut and paste, but the net is he has taken CrossFit language of intensity, misunderstood it, then tried to layer our language on his programming.

Intensity is easily defined: work output per unit time. He has none of that.

Functional movement is easily defined: Force x Distance/ time, therefore you want movements which potentially involve heavy weights, moved through a large range of motion, quickly.

Moreover, he fully misunderstands GPP. For example, he includes Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. As we keep saying over and over, the battlefield is not a sport field, and the specific adapations that are needed are unknown, in principle, which is why a broad spectrum GPP is the best basis for preparing.

Finally, at some point I would hope simple integrity would enter into this debate. This candyass (I'm sorry, this sort of thing makes me mad) sniping (emails they wanted to remain secret; articles written with hidden, personal agendas) is for grade school kids, not adults working to enable our troops to enter battle ready.

We have a program that is fully thought through, and a host of trainers fully equal to generating systematic understandings of the movements and how to do them safely. We are not trying to take old ideas and layer them with the slogan of the month.

We built these ideas from scratch, with no help from the NSCA or ACSM, who are still trying to catch up, much less exceed us in their usefulness or philosophical coherence.
 
Old 02-22-2009, 02:02 PM   #127
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

Unless I get lung cancer, I don't think I am ever going to give up my pipe. I was sitting there, happily reading my William James, and it hit me why people keep arguing against high rep O-lifts. My mind often works like that.

Empirically, they can't show increased injury rates, to the extent of my awareness. Certainly, they can't argue in the same breath that we are untested and that we are risky. If we are "risky", that should be a matter easily documented. If the documentation doesn't exist, then they are talking out of the seat of their pants.

No, I think this, at root, represents an honest and sincere failure of imagination. Fitness professionals basically specialize in one of two things. Either preparing people for sports, or helping them trim up and look better.

In the former case, the Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands applies. Tennis players don't need double bodyweight deadlifts.

In the latter case, the results are measured aesthetically. The mirror is the arbiter of success.

Until we came along, there was no "sport" to which GPP was the solution. To be sure, the military had standards. Marines, for example, had to be able to run 3 miles fast, do at least 10-15 pullups, and meet whatever the situp requirement was. None of this was done in body armor, for testing purposes, and things like entrenching, sprinting with a pack, running up stairs in gear, etc. were practiced (I assume) but not tested.

GPP, for all intents and purposes, was pursued haphazardly, and success in its pursuit, when it happened, was irregular and not part of an overarching, carefully integrated plan.

Thus, when a sports or bodybuilding specialist looks at high rep O-lifts, there is no sporting activity to which it contributes, and no necessity for it as far as bodybuilding. Factor in the fact that these people barely understand these lifts in the first place, and you have virtually complete befuddlement.

The missing link is that they don't understand the nature of GPP, and the real life need to lift things dynamically repeatedly. This is not a sport thing; this is a life/combat thing.

We saw Royal Marines doing--I don't know what they're called exactly--Combat carries the other day. You load a guy who weighs as much as you do on your back, and sprint a quarter mile with him. This type of training might save somebodies life.

But is it intrinsically safe? Could you not mimic it with heavy reps on the reverse back curl machine? No, and no.

Thus in answer to the question of sports utility, our answer is that maybe it has NO sport utility. Maybe low reps are the best way to build this quality of speed power. But that doesn't change the nature of the job we are asking people to do. Ammo cans still need to get in trucks. Sandbags still need to get placed in defensive positions. Trenches still need to be dug. Shells still need to be lifted. Rocks still need to be moved.

I would argue, then, that anyone who advances this complaint seriously, ought for that very reason to be ignored, as having evidenced a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the problem they claim they are trying to solve.

It takes quite a bit of learning to advance to the stage where you can begin to plumb the depths of your own ignorance, and if you are unfortunate enough to get letters behind your name before that happens, you might be stuck for life.

Edit: actually, now it occurs to me why this guy was arguing Marines are athletes. It enables him to define the situation in such a way that what he is prepared to provide presents a definitionally acceptable answer to the problem.

This is tactically necessary, since we have shown very clearly that nobody else really understands GPP to the extent we do, and the ad hoc, unofficial adoption of CrossFit by people who can realistically anticipate needing to be ready for life and death combat shows that our system is superior.

Basically, he is arguing for a return to the status quo as it was, where life was simple, and soccer players and Marines both had to turn to him for specific advice.

Last edited by Barry Cooper : 02-22-2009 at 02:07 PM.
 
Old 02-22-2009, 03:05 PM   #128
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

This is good:

"Pragmatism . . .asks its usual question: 'Grant an idea or belief to be true', it says, 'what concrete difference will its being true make in any one's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash value in experiential terms?

The moment pragmatism asks this question, it sees the answer: True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify. False ideas are those we cannot.[italics in original]". William James "Pragmatism".

Now, with respect to military physical preparedness (or with respect to any other realm in which doing it right has survival value), there are two discrete realms of concern.

The first is in training, what happens at Quantico, or Camp Pendleton, or any other facility of any other Service branch, or in any other military.

There, we want reduced injuries, and increased results on whatever metric is deemed appropriate. How those metrics are generated, obviously, has a direct impact on the training chosen.

There is a second metric, however. Ultimately, we don't train warriors to stay home and PT five days a week. We train them--certainly in times of war, and theoretically the rest of the time--for battle. For life and death encounters with determined men (and sometimes women) who want desperately to kill them, and who are quite often willing to sacrifice their own lives to do so.

Now, the only reasonable respect in which we can gather data with respect to this "laboratory"--this proving ground, to be clear--is in After Action Reports. In interviews with men (and sometimes women) who went through the process, and emerged with data with respect to what worked, and what didn't.

It seems abundantly clear to me that with regard to this metric, we are doing quite well. We have many, many combat veterans who have adopted our system enthusiastically and whole-heartedly.

Ultimately, the choice is not between a system which does nothing, and a system which does something. To me, the choice is between competing accounts of what works, and the truth value of which is found empirically.

That system which is willing to always submit itself to rigorous accountability is to be deemed better than that which is unwilling to so submit, as a logical extrapolation from the simple observation that those who have nothing to hide, don't hide.
 
Old 02-22-2009, 03:25 PM   #129
Frank E Morel
Member Frank E Morel is offline
 
Frank E Morel's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Santa Rosa  CA
Posts: 2,328
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
Unless I get lung cancer, I don't think I am ever going to give up my pipe. I was sitting there, happily reading my William James, and it hit me why people keep arguing against high rep O-lifts. My mind often works like that.
lung cancer.. maybe .. tongue cancer higher chance, health rant over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
Empirically, they can't show increased injury rates, to the extent of my awareness. Certainly, they can't argue in the same breath that we are untested and that we are risky. If we are "risky", that should be a matter easily documented. If the documentation doesn't exist, then they are talking out of the seat of their pants.
I think that by now that the military units that have adopted Cf as a main stay fitness program can provide those stats easily.. injuried roll at the infirmary will support that, along with medical drop out from the special courses that employ cf themselves. It would be a matter of decent documentation to the mechanism of injury... back injury on O course vs deadlift. This would be ample ammuntion for either side of the arguement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
No, I think this, at root, represents an honest and sincere failure of imagination. Fitness professionals basically specialize in one of two things. Either preparing people for sports, or helping them trim up and look better.
Well true, and its the thinking that recreational sports converts over to military application easily. When I was in the Cdn Military, we had Recreational instructors/Phys trainers that were soldiers, you could transfer over for a spell, depending on your inital trade. Now I am not sure if that trade still exists ( if anyone knows, please chime in) now I have noticed that it's outsourced. So is a civilian pt trainer going to understand what level level requirements are for a QM worker? vs a admin? vs air wpns ordie? Most likely not.. wfs for a fitness position with the canadian military for civilian employment.
http://www.cfpsa.com/en/corporate/se...e.asp?job=4624


Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
Until we came along, there was no "sport" to which GPP was the solution. To be sure, the military had standards. Marines, for example, had to be able to run 3 miles fast, do at least 10-15 pullups, and meet whatever the situp requirement was. None of this was done in body armor, for testing purposes, and things like entrenching, sprinting with a pack, running up stairs in gear, etc. were practiced (I assume) but not tested.
Agreed, but sadly modern living has made this a liability. In the canadian military when I was in -80s most of our PT was conducted in boots, or these super cheap canvas sports shoes that were a cheaper version of the converse all stars. The there was a landmark change in this kind of training, some individual was successful at proving that their foot injuries were the result of existing military PT practise. What happened? boots were reserved for actual pt testing, requirement pass times were labelled with boots, no boots. Nike was sub contracted to supply a military running shoe. I couldnt imagine testing being sanctioned with BA... it should be ( since its as important as your boots) but the first person that musters out because they were unfairly tested.( real life... the person who cannot pull themselves up and over the wall, risks personal capture, bullet to the head or the elimination of the rest of the unit) Then have the grounds for recourse in court. Sad if that is the case.
But i agree, there are things that go on in military work life that are specific but still would ultimately benefit, from GPP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
GPP, for all intents and purposes, was pursued haphazardly, and success in its pursuit, when it happened, was irregular and not part of an overarching, carefully integrated plan.
Yes, and the adaption of "once flawed, always flawed" thinking rarely changes unless its proven to be stellar is long standing military thinking unless the military believes it to be stellar and sides with "it just needs the bugs to worked out."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
Thus, when a sports or bodybuilding specialist looks at high rep O-lifts, there is no sporting activity to which it contributes, and no necessity for it as far as bodybuilding. Factor in the fact that these people barely understand these lifts in the first place, and you have virtually complete befuddlement.

The missing link is that they don't understand the nature of GPP, and the real life need to lift things dynamically repeatedly. This is not a sport thing; this is a life/combat thing.

We saw Royal Marines doing--I don't know what they're called exactly--Combat carries the other day. You load a guy who weighs as much as you do on your back, and sprint a quarter mile with him. This type of training might save somebodies life.
The fireman's carry has been a mainstay in british commonwealth training for a very long time. Yes its to help develop strength but also confidence in yourself and your peers that your going to be able or make the effort to get them to safety if injured.


But is it intrinsically safe? Could you not mimic it with heavy reps on the reverse back curl machine? No, and no.
-correct.. actually doing it, yes, deadlift and squats yes, turkish get ups.. to a degree yes.
Thus in answer to the question of sports utility, our answer is that maybe it has NO sport utility. Maybe low reps are the best way to build this quality of speed power. But that doesn't change the nature of the job we are asking people to do. Ammo cans still need to get in trucks. Sandbags still need to get placed in defensive positions. Trenches still need to be dug. Shells still need to be lifted. Rocks still need to be moved.[/quote]
perhaps the necessary solution is the adoption and application at the unit level. Even then, mess hall people still have to heave 50 pound bags of flour and potatoes just as often as the grunt that has to manpack fifty or the officer that has to change a tire on his vehicle when no vehicle tech is around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
I would argue, then, that anyone who advances this complaint seriously, ought for that very reason to be ignored, as having evidenced a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the problem they claim they are trying to solve.
Sadly they are the decision makers and the policy producers, they tend to require mountains of proof on the side postive change. Otherwise, status quo is fine because its been done before.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
It takes quite a bit of learning to advance to the stage where you can begin to plumb the depths of your own ignorance, and if you are unfortunate enough to get letters behind your name before that happens, you might be stuck for life.

Edit: actually, now it occurs to me why this guy was arguing Marines are athletes. It enables him to define the situation in such a way that what he is prepared to provide presents a definitionally acceptable answer to the problem.

This is tactically necessary, since we have shown very clearly that nobody else really understands GPP to the extent we do, and the ad hoc, unofficial adoption of CrossFit by people who can realistically anticipate needing to be ready for life and death combat shows that our system is superior.

Basically, he is arguing for a return to the status quo as it was, where life was simple, and soccer players and Marines both had to turn to him for specific advice.
OUch!!!
__________________
Creating heaven on earth: one deadlift session at a time.
 
Old 02-22-2009, 07:44 PM   #130
Wayne Sauve
Member Wayne Sauve is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Victoria  BC
Posts: 145
Re: Military leaning away from CrossFit?

Frank

That trade no longer exists. And it is somewhat better now that it is outsourced. Somewhat. Agreed, they would not understand what is common/required to Combt fitness, but are more open to new ideas. I.E. CrossFit! They are bendable.
 
Closed Thread


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
Leaning on straps on rings Tim Luby Exercises 1 03-24-2008 06:13 PM
Military PT and CrossFit Larry Cook Fitness 21 08-21-2007 05:53 AM
Questions about leaning out after weight gain Patrick Donnelly Nutrition 2 07-24-2007 04:02 PM
Torso Leaning during sqaut Richard Paul Ham-Williams Exercises 5 01-18-2007 07:39 AM
Military PT using Crossfit Methodology Allen Yeh Workout of the Day 25 06-09-2006 11:17 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.