CrossFit Discussion Board  

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

Exercises Movements, technique & proper execution

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-21-2005, 01:56 PM   #1
Lawrence Lu
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
If a WOD contains a group of exercises for every iteration, for example, "Kelly", you don't have to do 30 box jumps FIRST and then 30 wall-balls? Another example, Angie. You don't have to complete 100 pullups first, you can do 10 pullups, then 10 situps, the 10 pushups, etc. Right? It would seem to make more sense, that way while you rest one part of your body, you work on other.

I was confused after reading some of the comments in the Angie WOD. It seemed like a lot of people did 100 pullups before starting on the next exercise (thus severly hurting their overall time).

Thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 02:48 PM   #2
Matt Gagliardi
Member Matt Gagliardi is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Memphis  TN
Posts: 946
Lawrence...

You are supposed to complete ALL of a given exercise before moving on to the next exercise in WODs like Angie and Kelly. Those that aren't have either misinterpreted the workout or are modifying/subbing because they can't do it as designated.

The goal is to improve (over time) your endurance in a particular exercise. While rotating out into another exercise does allow a faster time, letting the "fried" muscle group recuperate doesn't put the intended stress on it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 02:50 PM   #3
Graham Hayes
Member Graham Hayes is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sidmouth  Devon
Posts: 880
You're supposed to finish the reps of each exercise before moving to the next. You are correct that it will hurt the time. However in the CFJ March 2005 article "Fooling Around With Fran" we can see that fracturing a WOD will give a greater metabolic challenge wheras leaving Angie as it is or even clustering all of Kelly's exercises will be more challenging to strength and stamina.

Both are equally important, some WOD's focus on strength and stamina more some focus on metabolic conditioning more.

Think about this, if there is a given time to complete Angie where you can't possibly go faster because you're going as fast as humanly possible. Which version of the workout will get closer to that time? The fractured one of course, but Angie with 100 pull ups first requires and develops the capacity to do 100 pull ups quickly and has more room for improvement. Which is more impressive? A fast "fractured Angie" time or a fast "Angie" time?

So you are correct it terms of developing metabolic capacity, but there is more to fitness than a pair of lungs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 02:51 PM   #4
Michael Nobori
Member Michael Nobori is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Hollywood  CA
Posts: 35
Lawrence --

You're observations are both correct. Yes, it would be faster to do "super sets" of the exercise sequence (i.e. 10 pulls + 10 push + 10 sits etc.). However, as you've realized, we do all 100 pulls, then all 100 pushes, etc. It makes those people with sub 15 min times all the more impresssive , huh?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 02:53 PM   #5
Michael Nobori
Member Michael Nobori is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Hollywood  CA
Posts: 35
Looks like I'm a bit too slow with my response...
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 03:25 PM   #6
Lawrence Lu
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Make sense guys. Thanks for the info!
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 09:21 AM   #7
Matt Schwartz
Departed Matt Schwartz is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 71
Hi folks,
It seems that there are two different goals for this kind of WOD. Muscle endurance or work capacity improvement. If you do the exercises sequentially you emphasize more muscle endurance improvement. If you break them up and intersperse them you emphasize work capacity (metabolic conditioning). Now, it has been clearly stated in other threads that maximizing power output (work/time) is also a Crossfit goal, so I think it is actually a VERY good idea to break up the sets to improve power output. This is especially important for those getting started. Work capacity increases will help improve muscular endurance faster than the converse approach. Similarly, this is a way to modify the WOD for a newer CF'er without actually decreasing the reps. For example, doing 100 pullups may take someone 20 minutes to do, and then they take another 10 to do 100 squats. By interspersing the two, the total to complet both sets may be something like 25 minutes. I have experimented with this and it works. This is a great WOD adjustment without compromising the volume. So don't discount the value of interspersing the sets. It has a valuable purpose.
Matt
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 09:51 AM   #8
Matt Gagliardi
Member Matt Gagliardi is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Memphis  TN
Posts: 946
Matt...I don't believe that anyone is discounting the value of metabolic conditioning. But Coach has stated that WODs like Angie are meant to be done in a specific manner. Do a search, you'll find the threads/posts.

As has already been mentioned, we do an awful lot of metabolic WODs to begin with (yesterday's WOD is a fine example). Angie (and some of her sisters) are designed to fit a specific role...that role (initially at least) isn't metabolic conditioning.

I believe WODs are designed to train a specific quality. Muscular endurance, metabolic conditioning, power, what have you. IMO, when you deviate significantly from the intended implementation of a WOD you blunt its intended effect.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 10:11 AM   #9
bill fox
Departed bill fox is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 587
Matt

I agree with you and hear's why. Adjusting to present ability is crucial, but I think most monkeying around will be to play to strengths. If it's way easier for a strong guy to do 100/100 by jumping back and forth for hard bouts of 10/10 then that's the guy that REALLY needs to tough out the 100/100. Better to adjust to 70/70 if it gets to be singles at the end then to change the "intent" of the design.

I say this because this idea has tempted me a few times already and I'm trying to avoid it.

Bill
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 10:18 AM   #10
Matt Schwartz
Departed Matt Schwartz is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 71
Matt,
I think, applied to beginners and many of us who can't do all the reps in a timely fashion (100 pullups would take me 20 minutes), sequential performance of lots of exercises makes less sense. The benefits are greater by interspersing them for someone who has trouble getting all the reps. It's more productive for someone to do Angie in 30 minutes than in 40 minutes. If interspersing the reps is what it takes then that's a great strategy. And it's a *better* strategy than reducing the rep count or dragging the workout past the 45 minute mark. What happens when someone has trouble getting all the reps is that they spend a lot of time walking around and resting. It feels less like a workout and more like a slog. The intensity is lost.
By, for example, interspersing squats and pullups, how is the muscle endurance component diminished? I think it is in fact enhanced. The same benefit is received in less time. Someone is still doing all the reps, and is in fact getting their total faster. I think this is really a win-win situation for someone who has problems getting all the reps. It doesn't apply in all cases, or as a crutch to cover one's weaknesses, but I think it's a great adjustment. If one can't just blast through all the reps in quick succession, this is a great way to go.
I think people need to think for themselves and adjust the workouts intelligently while being honest with themselves.
I think one thing that is important to realize is that there are many workout parameters that are unstated in Coach's workout postings. They are in fact a free workout, so it's not going to be discussing important details like volume, intensity, cycling, adjustments, and sequence. I think it's important not to blindly take the workouts at face value and just do them. Some nuances have to be considered. You do this yourself, with taking weeks off. This is a good approach, but these personalizations also are able to be done in smaller cycles, and within the workout itself. It depends on the person, but the above approach is valid.
Matt
  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

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
Question about maximum effort wods Edmund Vega Starting 3 05-28-2007 06:54 PM
Done my first few WODs Simon Bowley Starting 2 05-22-2007 08:30 AM
WODs Jason Arsenault Workout of the Day 4 08-25-2006 03:45 PM
Question about sets in WODs Joaquin Ramirez Workout of the Day 3 08-03-2006 04:28 AM
Question about the WODs Reed Rediger Starting 2 05-19-2006 04:06 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.