Crossfit is the best program for Bodybuilding

[Derek Maffett]

Originally Posted by Larry Lindenman

Prove me wrong....

You're starting the argument? It's come up multiple times before, and yes, Crossfit is probably better than general bodybuilding programs - no, it is not better than SS. Crossfit is not specialized and everyone knows that. There are better things for bodybuilding, oly lifting, gymnastics, powerlifting, etc...

[Robert Basile]

If you posted this on the bodybuilding.com forums you'd probably get a better answer to your question. That is, if you really want to hear other opinions--which judging by your tone, isn't what you're after.

[Larry Lindenman]

Thanks for wining my argument for me Elizabeth. It has almost become dogma to dis Coach for his statement on Crossfit and bodybuilding, with really nothing to back up why Coach's statement is erroneous.

[Tim Donahey]

Originally Posted by Larry Lindenman

Thanks for wining my argument for me Elizabeth. It has almost become dogma to dis Coach for his statement on Crossfit and bodybuilding, with really nothing to back up why Coach's statement is erroneous.

/discussion

[Steven Low]

Eh, whatever the case I disagree (unless you could count SS and SS-like programs AS CF which I don't think you can).

Basically what Derek said:

Originally Posted by Derek Maffett

You're starting the argument? It's come up multiple times before, and yes, Crossfit is probably better than general bodybuilding programs - no, it is not better than SS. Crossfit is not specialized and everyone knows that. There are better things for bodybuilding, oly lifting, gymnastics, powerlifting, etc...

CF can certainly be a TOOL in the toolbox BUT a well designed full body program + food will put on more mass than 'CF exclusively'.

[Larry Lindenman]

I'm feeling a little froggy today. Long day at work and a lot of snow....

Here's my point:

Lynne has posted this in the FAQs:

"If you train the WODs hard, and eat right and get lots of sleep, you will definitely gain lean mass, lose fat, and yes, you can build muscle mass with the crossfit protocol. More specifically, according to Coach,
Here is a hierarchy of training for mass from greater to lesser efficacy:
1. Bodybuilding on steroids
2. CrossFitting on steroids
3. CrossFitting without steroids
4. Bodybuilding without steroids
The bodybuilding model is designed around, requires, steroids for significant hypertrophy.
The neuroendocrine response of bodybuilding protocols is so blunted that without "exogenous hormonal therapy" little happens.
The CrossFit protocol is designed to elicit a substantial neuroendocrine whollop and hence packs an anabolic punch that puts on impressive amounts of muscle though that is not our concern. Strength is.
Natural bodybuilders (the natural ones that are not on steroids) never approach the mass that our ahtletes do. They don't come close.
Those athletes who train for function end up with better form than those who value form over function. This is one of the beautiful ironies of training."

Many people have argued that this statement is flat out wrong. In a post today, someone was calling for a retraction, because it is generally agreed that the statement that "Crossfitting without steroids" is more effective for mass gain than "Bodybuilding without steroids".

I've been lifting since 1975. I've pretty much have done every program you could think of. CF tops them all for mass gain (with proper diet). I think CFs recent (last year or so) focus on the CF total and assistance exercises has made it even more effective for mass gain.

So for those of you who think Coach's statement is wrong, let's have a definitive discussion about it. Tell me why he is wrong.

[Steven Low]

The bodybuilding model is designed around, requires, steroids for significant hypertrophy.
The neuroendocrine response of bodybuilding protocols is so blunted that without "exogenous hormonal therapy" little happens.

Model/protocol = what?

Split routines? Full body routines? ALL routines?

I would definitely say CF is superior to split routines and there's tons of anecdotal evidence for that. However, NOT a properly designed full body routine.

Linear progression in a full body routine is so extremely effective for new people that you put an insane amount of mass on with very little body fat in a short time. Mark Rippetoe obviously mentions this (a la Starting Strength) and there's a ton of anecdotal evidence to support this as well.

Would you arguing that CF by a newbie can put on 40-50 lbs of lean mass in like 6 months properly? I would not.

The CrossFit protocol is designed to elicit a substantial neuroendocrine whollop and hence packs an anabolic punch that puts on impressive amounts of muscle though that is not our concern. Strength is.

Full body routines elicit a significant neuroendocrine reponse too..... AND strength gained is HIGHER in a linear full body routine than in CF.

Natural bodybuilders (the natural ones that are not on steroids) never approach the mass that our ahtletes do. They don't come close.

Again, this doesn't assess what kind of training the bodybuilders used. Just a random useless statement...

Those athletes who train for function end up with better form than those who value form over function. This is one of the beautiful ironies of training.

This I agree with, but not in its context.

If you're a bodybuilder and train like an athlete WITH a full body routine FOR STRENGTH. If you eat, you WILL put on more mass than CF. Mass has the tendency (correlation) to lead to size gain given correct eating. We have already established that such a full body routine would garner more strength than CF in a given period of time. Both elicit neuroendocrine responses. Therefore, you would be correct in assuming that a full body routine designed correctly would give greater size/mass gains than CF in that same period of time.


And I need to sleep now because of work. I'm sure you can now tell why it's wrong in THIS specific context. Yes, most BBers use splits, so it will be superior. But not all BBers use splits. Therefore, it's not true in ALL cases.

[Larry Lindenman]

Thank you Steven, a well reasoned reply. I am going to go on a guessing game here. I believe, when Coach wrote that statement, the bodybuilding dogma was generally split routines, Monday was bench day, Tuesday was cardio, etc (ala body for life). Lots of preacher curls and pec deck. Go to any gym and look around. Guys and girls doing "bodybuilding" routines and remaining stagnant. Muscle and Fitness published hundreds of "Jack your Guns" articles advocating hammer curls, followed by concentration, hammer, 5-2-8 tempo, drop set, EZ bar curls. Testosterone magazine started to highlight strength coaches (not bodybuilding gurus) and changed the face of bodybuilding. Even the term bodybuilding is not clearly defined. Are we talking the sport or the pursuit? If we are talking about looking "ripped" I could make the argument that CF beats SS. Low body fat levels make the muscles look bigger. Metcon and diet lead to low body fat levels. I guess we do not know the context of Coach's statement and what he defined bodybuilding as.

[Derek Maffett]

Coach said "mass," not "how ripped you look." He must be referring to split routines because there is no way on this planet that Coach puts CF above SS here. That would be either very ignorant or very much in need of a great deal of explanation. If this was an ignorant statement Coach made in the long ago past, then I'm sure he would be in a hurry to correct the FAQ. Seeing that he has not done so, I'd say that he was talking about what most people consider bodybuilding to be - split routines.

As for CF making people look more ripped, I believe Steven has already stated that it is better to use gain/cut phases than to attempt to gain muscle with hardly any fat. There were exceptions if I remember correctly.

[Michael Bruce Mailman]

Isn't it also written somewhere else on the site that (to paraphrase) "We do what you do almost as well as you, we do everything else better then you, and you can't do what we do"?

Crossfit isn't a bodybuilding programme. We can't do what they do as well as they do- but we can do alot of other things better. And to be honest, I'd hate to look like Ronnie Coleman anyway.