CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Workout of the Day
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Workout of the Day Questions & performance regarding CrossFit's WOD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-23-2007, 10:08 AM   #1
Mathew F. Bunch
Member Mathew F. Bunch is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fort Campbell  Kentucky
Posts: 85
All,
Just wanted to post an alternative method for using the Crossfit Total to scale the WODs. I took the enclosed weight lifting standards (taken from the CF Witchita Falls website, and originated as a tool by Mark Rippetoe, I think) and added up the numbers to determine a CFT for an advanced athlete of my weight (I also averaged my weight with the next higher category to determine a theoretical CFT for a 175 pounder and found the difference negligible for my purposes, so 165 lb male was used).

Next, I divided my CFT by the theoretical advanced athlete CFT, and used the percentage to determine my numbers for Dianne:

695 (my CFT)/906 (theoretical CFT for an advanced 165 lb male) = .76 or 76%. .76*225 (prescribed DL number) = 175 (rounded to the nearest whole). This number, as it turned out, is fairly close to the weight I normally use for Dianne (I found this number close to all the benchmarks using weight EXCEPT for Grace and Isabelle).

At any rate, I also measured each individual lift against the theoretical advanced 165 lb individual and found each lift within a percentage point of 76% (which increases the likelihood that using 76% for my scaling number will be accurate across a broader range of exercises).

That said, if you don't weigh 165 (or the theoretical 175 lb individual), you can still determine your number by determining the theoretical CFTs for an advanced individual of your weight, and dividing by theoretical CFT for an advanced 175 lb male (you can use 165, 181, or average the two).

At any rate, my hope is that this will be a slightly more accurate way to scale based on ability AND bodyweight vs. simply scaling to bodyweight versus the FAQ 175 lb individual. I'll experiment and post results in the coming WODs.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf WLSTANDARDS.pdf (41.5 KB, 291 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2007, 06:50 PM   #2
Darrell E. White
Member Darrell E. White is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: bay village  OH
Posts: 955
Matt:

BINGO!! (Sorry, couldn't resist). If you take a peak at the couple of days around the oringinal CFT, especially the day before, you'll see that I proposed exactly the same thing. I think that the CFT can be used in two discrete ways to scale. The first is to answer the question:"I'm new to this. What weight should I use for Diane?" Using the CFT as you propose allows for a rational initial scaling of weights in strength-dependent met-con WOD's. The caveat is, or should be, that the goal for all who MIGHT be capable is to strive for "as Rx'd" for as many WOD's as possible.

The second way to apply the CFT and the ratios you suggest is somewhat more controversial. "How does my met-con conditioning compare with ____?" Usually Kelly, Matt G., Greg A., etc. ANY scaling in order to "compete" with another CF athlete could reasonably be accused of being an illegitimate consruct, but it IS an interesting question. "If I was as strong as ___, how would my time stack up for Diane?" A more legitimate question might be "what weight should I use to make this WOD more of a met-con workout and less of a strength/muscle-endurance workout?"

It's interesting that my experience with a trial-and-error method of scaling resulted in similar findings to yours. The weights I use are pretty close to where I would scale using the CFT Ratio (I like that term...how about you?), and the weights I used as a freshly minted newbie reflected what my CFT would have been back then.

I labelled my thoughts "Rational Scaling using the CFT" back then, and I still think there is merit to the idea. Coach Rip was somewhat dismissive, but the CFT was new then. Maybe you can convince him to take a look here and comment.

I love this stuff. I'm glad someone else is thinking along the same lines.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 09:13 AM   #3
Mathew F. Bunch
Member Mathew F. Bunch is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fort Campbell  Kentucky
Posts: 85
Darrell,
I remember the post and Coach Rip's reply-your post was what prompted my thinking on the matter in the first place. My only issue with it at the time was the arbitrary pick of a CFT score of 900 (if it can be called an issue). I wanted a better benchmark for my scaling, and figured I would use Coach Rip's own reference sheet to tally up the figures. Again, interestingly enough the number was very close to your arbitrary total of 900.

At any rate, I tried it out with Dianne this morning using 175 (based on my number) which allowed me to finish faster but still not without breaking the sets in the end. I was pleased with the result and think the number was pretty much spot-on for what I should be using (and as my CFT increases, I will give a corresponding adjustment in loads used-so an increased CFT results in an increased load for a given workout).

Also, like you say, this is very useful but somewhat limited in application-it is good for scaling power lifts but not for explosive lifts (the percentages I have used for a given workout simply don't align with my theoretical CF ratio). It also has no application for running, rowing, et al where scaling would be necessary only if there was a prescribed time (e.g. 400 meters at 1:30); and no application to bodyweight exercises where scaling is done by some form of assistance (bands, etc).

I think Coach Rip's problem with it was that it appeared you were comparing your results with someone else's rather than using theirs as a benchmark to properly scale your workout and then chart your own progress. I think it is somewhat more definitive than the guess method of scaling I had been using, and owe you one for coming up with the idea in the first place.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 12:51 PM   #4
James Napier
Member James Napier is offline
 
James Napier's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Phoenix  Az
Posts: 900
The crossfit standards suggest elite DL as 2.5xBWT and some people suggest that the average elite BWT for those that Rx the WODS is 175.
When the WOD calls for 225# DL then that is roughly 50% of 1RM for a 175# BWT.
So, I scaled 'Diane' to be 50% of my 1RM and it was still difficult to finish under 12:00, but I feel I scaled it well.
Recently I started scaling other metcon lifts similarly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 02:16 PM   #5
Mathew F. Bunch
Member Mathew F. Bunch is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fort Campbell  Kentucky
Posts: 85
James-
Interesting take but somewhat limited in application as it is limited to the dead lift. That's not necessarily a bad thing; as I mentioned earlier, using the CFT is by definition limited to the three lifts in question, but can theoretically be used for other power lifts assuming your percentages are close across the board for the three lifts (my own comparison of weights used to scale past workouts bears this out). Again, it doesn't work (for me) for olympic lifts, but that could be an indication of a deficiency of mine-a chink in my fitness armor, if you will-rather than a deficiency in the theory. Perhaps my olympic lifts simply aren't as developed as my power lifts.

For what it's worth, using the number derived from my theoretical crossfit model gave me a prescribed weight of 175, which is a bit more than 50% of my 1RM. But the point is to find something concrete for you to hang your numbers off of. Otherwise you are left with these questions:

1-What should I use to scale the weight?
2-When should I graduate to a higher weight?
3-How do I compare two different performances of the same WOD when I used two arbitrarily determined different weights for the two workouts?

So if using a percentage of your 1RM works, continue to use that and let us know how it goes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 02:26 PM   #6
Darrell E. White
Member Darrell E. White is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: bay village  OH
Posts: 955
James:

There's clearly no definitive method for scaling, in part because people scale for different reasons. The most important reason, of course, is to scale for safety. That clearly does not apply to you as the primary concern. You can scale for met-con effect, as you have done, maintaining a difficult strength challenge. For example, I think I did Diane with 135# last time, up from 115, which was up from 105. My CFT scaling would put me closer to 170#, and I am aiming for that. My time at 135 was 10:49. I will keep going up until I reach 20 or so--any more than that and the WOD is a strength-endurance workout for me.

HOW you get there is not really important I don't think. I do think it's important to know why you are scaling. I really like the fact that there are rational ways to scale according to known benchmarks like the CFT or the 1RM. It makes more sense for my own scaling to refer to some measure of my own performance, and both the CFT ratio and the 50% 1RM ratio fit the bill.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 02:43 PM   #7
James Napier
Member James Napier is offline
 
James Napier's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Phoenix  Az
Posts: 900
Mathew:

Thinking about your three questions as well, my thoughts were:

1 - if I always use the same x% of 1RM to complete a metcon in about 10 minutes
2 - recalc 50% of 1RM as my 1RM increases over time
3- if my weights go up and or my time goes down, there is improvement -
I'm not really interested in whether it was 2% or 17.6%, as long as I improved and still feel great
I have found lately that I feel able to do another wod the next day, whereas I used to over do it and have to pass on the next wod when I went over 50%.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 04:12 PM   #8
Franklin Shogie
Member Franklin Shogie is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tijuana  Baja California
Posts: 339
as an alternative to what Matthew posted. it's a little more conservative on the weight.



it uses the same general principal espoused by Matthew but includes a body weight ratio as part of the scale factor.

Last edited by Franklin Shogie; 12-11-2007 at 12:51 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 06:30 PM   #9
Dale F. Saran
Member Dale F. Saran is offline
 
Dale F. Saran's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Westerly  RI
Posts: 559
Gents,
Some random thoughts. I appreciate your methodology and think you've stumbled onto something interesting, but count me in the Rippetoe camp on this one - the CFT is about total limit strength. "Relative strength", which is what you're scaling for, is nice for the ego. I would like to put up around 1200 for a CFT - currently I'm at 955. I don't care what I weigh (183 this morning) - I really want to have those numbers!

My other thought - scaling for time is just one thing to scale for. But begs the question - why? In other words, why scale the WoD so you can finish it in 10:51? It seems to me your assumption is that every WoD must have a certain MetCon effect. But if your DL is only 175, then maybe you need the strength work more than the MetCon. So maybe take 30 mins to do it as rx'd.

I know you don't have this narrow a view, but I must tell you that when I started, after an initial week or two of getting acclimated, I did every WoD with rx'd weights - leading to some hellaciously slow times. However, in one year, my DL went from 185 (maybe) to 415. Now, I put up respectable times and I don't feel that I sacrificed MetCon along the way. But who knows? It's the great thing about CF - you can scale it for what suits you best. I just thought I would throw this in with regards to strength/power numbers. I think part of Rip's "objection", Darrell, was based on his discussions with Coach that the "buy in" to CF would be better for guys with some strength, rather than marathoners trying to get stronger (that's a horrendously abbreviated way of saying what he said.)
Cheers, gents (now I'm going to see how I stack up using your formula). ;-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2007, 06:59 PM   #10
Darrell E. White
Member Darrell E. White is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: bay village  OH
Posts: 955
Aye, Dale, but what of we small folk who would take 26 days to cover the marathon, and yet canna handle the load no matter how long we may toil? (This whole thing was worth it just to type that sentence!!)

Seriously, Dale, the enormous fun part of CF is that there are so many ways to enjoy and benefit from it. The comparative part, the "ability" to compare your scores relative to someone else, plays a very minor role in my approach to scaling. I only compare my results to anyone else for the pure amusement, usually in the form of comic relief.

Your point about what type of work is needed is an interesting one in the general scheme if one is looking at a population, which is how Coach and Rip clearly approach this. Although my DL started at 155 and is now 265, my own personal goals center more on the met-con aspects of my own fitness. When I look at a strength-based WOD I have to make a concious decision about the desired effect of that particular WOD for me personally. "Diane" is a perfect example. DL 225for me is a series of 1 or 2 reps for the total requested. Even 205 will produce a strength-endurance set with a time in the high 20's or 30's. Nothing wrong with that unless I am aiming for the effect of moving weight and doing HSPU's really quickly on that particular day. I know you didn't mean anything by the reference to ego; looking at your own scaled numbers against another CF'ers numbers as Rx'd is a potential ego play, but it could also simply be an inquiry into your met-con fitness relative to other CF'ers with strength controlled as a variable. Some, certainly Rip, would question the validity of that comparison on its face. It's a non-starter for me, personally, since I'm simply trying to titrate my own workout to meet my own fitness goals.

How cool is this CF thing, though?! For a few minutes each 5 pretty bright guys engaged in a discussion centered on an exercise program that included personal and group insight, math, philosophy, and goal-directed activity. Big guy, not so big guy, marathoner or weightlifter, all welcome at the dance. Man, am I glad to be here!

  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

BB 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
Dumbell Scaling Kevin Stricker Workout of the Day 5 03-05-2007 09:34 PM
Scaling wod's for the Mrs. isaac williamson Fitness 10 02-20-2006 08:10 AM
Scaling the WOD Barry Cooper Fitness 4 02-10-2006 02:11 AM
Scaling up Graham Hayes Fitness 15 06-30-2005 12:08 PM
Scaling WODs Norma Loehr Workout of the Day 17 01-10-2005 03:49 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.