CrossFit Discussion Board  

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

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-18-2009, 02:34 PM   #41
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

"There is a little more to it than just performance in those lifts equaling...performance in those lifts. Hence why we're having this discussion about total fitness, or total strength at least."

Could you rephrase that, I'm not quite sure what you mean.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:35 PM   #42
Dimitri Dziabenko
Banned Dimitri Dziabenko is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto  ON
Posts: 1,080
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

I am not quite sure what the argument in this thread is, to be honest. Yes, lighter guys lift heavier weights relative to bodyweight, heavier guys lift more on an absolute scale, and there is a place for both lighter and heavier trainees (ie. advantages/disadvantages). Your total represents your proficiency in those 3 lifts, which gives a fairly good indication of your strength. It is one of many benchmarks in Crossfit. It measures absolute strength, but a table based on weight classes has been introduced for people to get an idea of how well they are doing at their particular BW. I don't see what's left to argue (or what the argument was to begin with). This is clearly overcomplicating a fairly simple maximal strength test.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:40 PM   #43
Mauricio Leal
Affiliate Mauricio Leal is offline
 
Mauricio Leal's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland  CA
Posts: 839
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie J. Skibicki View Post
"There is a little more to it than just performance in those lifts equaling...performance in those lifts. Hence why we're having this discussion about total fitness, or total strength at least."

Could you rephrase that, I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I am saying that, based on that quote from the article on CFT (I linked to it earlier), Rip was trying to say that great performance in those three lifts implies at least good performance in many other functional strength areas/tests. Similar to the oft referenced portion of the CF for dummies quote "...We do what we both don't do better than you do." Therefore, the three lifts are not simply meant to measure the three lifts! Duh?
__________________
CrossFit Cypher
www.crossfitcypher.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:45 PM   #44
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Thats correct, those three lifts combined give you and idea of how strong you are. Combined, they hit every muscle int he body and make the body move through natural movement patterns.

SO yeah, those three give you a pretty good indication of total body strength. If you want to make it applicable to lifters across weight classes you could try to use Sinclair coefficients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Coefficients wfs to the lifts. I think there is a similar equation for powerlifting, but I don't know it's name, which may be more applicable.

THe coefficents exist becuase at the same level of training, lighter lifters always lift more relative to their body mass and heaiver lifters always lift more.

And I have never eaten someone of a lower weightclass. Honest. I swear.

Last edited by Jamie J. Skibicki : 08-18-2009 at 02:47 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:46 PM   #45
Mauricio Leal
Affiliate Mauricio Leal is offline
 
Mauricio Leal's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland  CA
Posts: 839
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri Dziabenko View Post
This is clearly overcomplicating a fairly simple maximal strength test.
Maybe so. But consider how many people post their named workout times in their signature, plus CFT, plus bodyweight. Is that simpler? And isn't it quite arbitrary deciding which workouts are the "hardest" or "best?" Wouldn't it be better to attempt some sort of representative average at least for total strength (absolute + relative)?

And to re-center ourselves, the original question wasn't whether the CFT as it is takes into account BW. It does. It was: why, when I normalized the numbers in the spreadsheet, did they came out the way they did? And if that was actually thoughtfully decided, how?
__________________
CrossFit Cypher
www.crossfitcypher.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:53 PM   #46
Mauricio Leal
Affiliate Mauricio Leal is offline
 
Mauricio Leal's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland  CA
Posts: 839
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie J. Skibicki View Post
Thats correct, those three lifts combined give you and idea of how strong you are. Combined, they hit every muscle int he body and make the body move through natural movement patterns.

SO yeah, those three give you a pretty good indication of total body strength. If you want to make it applicable to lifters across weight classes you could try to use Sinclair coefficients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Coefficients wfs to the lifts. I think there is a similar equation for powerlifting, but I don't know it's name, which may be more applicable.

THe coefficents exist becuase at the same level of training, lighter lifters always lift more relative to their body mass and heaiver lifters always lift more.

And I have never eaten someone of a lower weightclass. Honest. I swear.
Thanks that wikipedia link is very helpful to answering my original question, and similar to the comment Katherine made early on in the thread about comparing world records to BW in different weight classes. From my first read those coefficients basically try to compare lifting abilities across weight class, statistically. Of course who knows what kind of hairy math is going on behind the scenes, but I suppose it's some sort of curve fitting technique between lots of elite samples at a given weight class and a way of normalizing to bridge the gap between classes.

In the vein of measuring total strength I still think it would be useful to come up with a system for the BW/Gymnastics exercises as I mentioned earlier. Maybe some trainers are doing this already; I know I will. Anyhow, good discussion.
__________________
CrossFit Cypher
www.crossfitcypher.com

Last edited by Mauricio Leal : 08-18-2009 at 02:58 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:57 PM   #47
Jacob Cloud
Member Jacob Cloud is offline
 
Jacob Cloud's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin  TX
Posts: 1,479
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio Leal View Post

And to re-center ourselves, the original question wasn't whether the CFT as it is takes into account BW. It does. It was: why, when I normalized the numbers in the spreadsheet, did they came out the way they did? And if that was actually thoughtfully decided, how?
You are confusing the CFT - a workout, consisting of 3 attempts at 3 lifts, on a single day - with strength standards charts produced to give people a general idea of what their goals should be. The CFT does not take into account BW. The strength standards charts do. The two are not dependent on each other.

This is like using the Skill Level pdfs created by David Werner to incorrectly draw conclusions between a workout and your statistical results. A vertical jump does not take into account your bodyweight any more than the CFT does. Helen is not defined by the 11:30 goal given by Dave for Level II athletes. These are simply goals to strive for.
(link to I-IV skills WFS: http://www.crossfitseattle.com/Skill...preadsheet.pdf )
__________________
My Workout Log (WFS)
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:00 PM   #48
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

I'm not sure where is comes from, alot of the wieghtlifters and other strength athletes I train with use + weight for pull ups, OH press, bench, squat and dead.

You can put whatever excersizes you want into it, but lighter athletes will always have an advantage in BW movements and relative strength and larger athletes will have an advantage in absolute weight and fixed distanced movements*. If you go back to the beginning of the thread, I mention crossectional area vs volume as one of the reasons.


* assuming the athlete is taller. A fixed distance movement would be like atlas stones, object pulls and carries, etc.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:12 PM   #49
Mauricio Leal
Affiliate Mauricio Leal is offline
 
Mauricio Leal's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland  CA
Posts: 839
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Cloud View Post
You are confusing the CFT - a workout, consisting of 3 attempts at 3 lifts, on a single day - with strength standards charts produced to give people a general idea of what their goals should be. The CFT does not take into account BW. The strength standards charts do. The two are not dependent on each other.

This is like using the Skill Level pdfs created by David Werner to incorrectly draw conclusions between a workout and your statistical results. A vertical jump does not take into account your bodyweight any more than the CFT does. Helen is not defined by the 11:30 goal given by Dave for Level II athletes. These are simply goals to strive for.
(link to I-IV skills WFS: http://www.crossfitseattle.com/Skill...preadsheet.pdf )
Ok this whole time I only meant CFT in the context of strength standards. Sorry if there was any confusion but the CFT by itself is only valuable for comparing yourself with yourself yesterday, so of course for a definition of total strength/fitness the standard would require references.

That spreadsheet looks highly subjective, and maybe that's your point. Sure they're goals to strive for, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about measurable metrics that imply strength/fitness across a broad range of movements/disciplines.
__________________
CrossFit Cypher
www.crossfitcypher.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:17 PM   #50
Mauricio Leal
Affiliate Mauricio Leal is offline
 
Mauricio Leal's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland  CA
Posts: 839
Re: Understanding the CFT rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie J. Skibicki View Post
You can put whatever excersizes you want into it, but lighter athletes will always have an advantage in BW movements and relative strength and larger athletes will have an advantage in absolute weight and fixed distanced movements*. If you go back to the beginning of the thread, I mention crossectional area vs volume as one of the reasons.
I guess that cross-sectional area vs. volume argument about answers it. If any more knowledgeable exercise bio people could shed some light on it that would be great, but I'm fine with that explanation for practical purposes.
__________________
CrossFit Cypher
www.crossfitcypher.com
  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
Samson Stretch Rationale Steve Yu Exercises 6 04-04-2009 07:33 AM
Rationale for heavy squats followed by 5k Camille Lore Fitness 17 01-13-2009 08:31 PM
Scaling Rationale Joseph Davidoski Fitness 28 01-18-2008 12:59 PM
Understanding Ratios Bob Sorensen Exercises 5 01-12-2008 08:33 AM
Rationale Behind "Three on, One off" Joe Miller Fitness 5 01-05-2006 04:18 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 PM.


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