The "What is CrossFit" Template; Has it died?

[Brendan Sonnichsen]

* Sorry, I would like that title to read "evolved", not "died" :-) *

I was just reviewing the "What is CrossFit" journal (March 2004) where Coach outlines the basic template (page 5):
Couplet
Focus day
Couplet
Rest day
Repeat

Lately I've noticed that in the three day sets we'll have any kind of arrangement with, ultimately, at least one focus day per week, but not always two as outlined in the "What is CrossFit" Journal.

I understand the value of randomization, but the reasoning behind the focus day being between two couplet days was:

"The [couplet] workouts can be worked at such
blistering intensity, and should be, so that
on the following day some rest, or at least a
change of tempo is needed. For our simple
template we will call these days 'focus
days'." (page 3)

I'm curious to know how the theory has evolved since March 2004 and how, if at all, the CrossFit athletes have noticed the impact on their results or bodies by the end of a 3 day regimen.

Brendan

(Message edited by bso on November 04, 2005)

[Alexander Karatis]

Brendan,

There may be higher patterns at work here! :wink:

So while what is called "Template" is broken down into Couplet-Focus-Couplet, there may be something else called "Template #2" which might look like Focus-Focus-Focus, and which is interleaved with the other templates. So a macro-template may look like:

Template-Template-Template-Template2-Template3-Template-Template...

Notice the randomess there too. Coach has the bvenefit of witnessing what a global WOD does to people at HQ, and thus, like a jazzmaster leading his band into different melodies and rhythms, can improvise and program the WODs by "feel".

It may sound like a corny, new-age type idea, but I feel that it's very important for the person designing these workouts, to treat them more organically and manage a flow or a vibe, rather than rationalizing what percentage of areas or movements have been covered, and thus figuring out how to program in the new ones.

He should feel where a crescendo is appropriate, where intensity should be maintained and where to cool it, while still keeping track of what's been covered and what not. It should be arbitrary, subjective, and completely random IMO. Life is.

Not random like that new shuffle feature in iTunes that makes sure you don't hear the same song twice, but rather, random that can mean the man can kill you for 3 days straight...

I may completely wrong here, but that's how I read it...

[Frank C Ollis]

I try not to overthink this stuff. It has worked incredibly well for me, to the point that I pretty much just do what Coach says.

Jeesh, keep talking like that and we will sound like a cult!

[Kenneth Urakawa]

Yes Coach.....I obey.....

[Kenneth Urakawa]

Wait, did that sound cult-like?:happy:

[Brendan Sonnichsen]

This all sounds quite post-modern and I can't say I ever expected post-modernity to impact science. I wonder if the variation does more for us psychologically (being that we love to feel free) than physically (being that our body develops by laws of nature).

I'm avid about CrossFit, but as I get into situations where I'm teaching it to other people I crave a deeper understanding; if there is an "art" aspect to this, I'd love to catch that "groove" :-).

[Brendan Sonnichsen]

Lol... With all this cult talk I'm afraid of coming home to a CrossFit intervention group or having my IP banned from the message board :-)

[Eric Moffit]

if there is ever something you dont understand, just chalk it up to variation.

[Rene Renteria]

I wonder if the variation does more for us psychologically (being that we love to feel free) than physically (being that our body develops by laws of nature).

I thought one of the fundamental tenets was that the variation is critical from a physical standpoint, that without it out bodies adapt to whatever the routine is so that it no longer provides the oomph needed (whatever that is) for change to occur.

One of the laws of nature seems to be adaptation or maybe "seeking efficiency" or "optimization" in terms of energy expenditure, which leads to plateaus if there is too little variation in what the body is asked to do.

(On the other hand, I do find that the variation keeps it fresh and makes it possible to stick with the program (instead of the staleness that always accrued with other "programs"), which is psychological. But I thought that was a bonus and not the main reason.)

It's definitely an important issue. The "black box" idea might argue that it doesn't matter whether it's physical or psychological, only that variation has proven itself to be superior to set routines for continuous progression on a wide variety of fronts.

Best,
Rene'

[Brendan Melville]

That nothing in our lives will evolve with time is naught but a pipe-dream.

No better, no worse, just different.