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 09-06-2007, 07:38 AM   #41
Matt DeMinico
Affiliate Matt DeMinico is offline
 
Matt DeMinico's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling Heights  MI
Posts: 1,939
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

Thanks Bill. The only thing I'd like to see added is more workouts and loads. For loads (and probably for workouts too), maybe it should be a few drop-down menus, the first being a "category" like Squats, Olympic Lifts, Presses, Pullups, etc... then once that's selected, the next drop-down is enabled and has in it all the loads for that appropriate category, anything that's a common load, shoulder press, push jerk, push press, clean and jerk, snatch, weighted pullups, max rep pullups, whatever.

For the Named WOD's do the same thing, but add in all the WOD's with a few common scales as well (ideally make the scaling checkboxes or "radio" buttons so they choose which scaling they did). It'd make things more complicated, but it'd allow everyone to contribute (I don't know too many women out there that are doing Elizabeth, Grace, or Isabel as RX'd, heck, I don't even do them as RX'd yet)

I think it'd be good to do it like this:
Angie:
- As RX'd (none of these options should pop up by default, but we should have to select one for each entry)
- Jumping Pullups
- Knees-down pushups

Barbara, Candy, Chelsea, Cindy: Same options as Angie

Claudia:
- As RX'd (DB/plate/kb/etc)
- 45lb
- 35lb
- 25lb

Diane:
- As RX'd
- Scaled DL weight (What's a common deadlift weight scaling here?)
- 10"/8"/6"/4"/2" books stacked under head to replace "touching floor"

Elizabeth:
- As RX'd
- 115lb
- 95lb
- 75lb
- 55lb (or if we had radio buttons or checkbox, we could do 125, 120, 115, etc...)
- Bar dips
- Chair dips

Fran:
- As RX'd
- 85lb
- 75lb
- 65lb
- 55lb
- 45lb (again weights can be different)

Grace:
- As RX'd or same thing on the weights scaling

You get the idea... Ideally we'd have all of the ones listed in the spreadsheet on the front page.

Edit: Got another, Grease the Groove {fill in the blank} pullups, pushpus, etc...

Last edited by Matt DeMinico : 09-06-2007 at 07:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 07:40 AM   #42
Matt DeMinico
Affiliate Matt DeMinico is offline
 
Matt DeMinico's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling Heights  MI
Posts: 1,939
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Haskell View Post
Despite all this talk of databases. I'd keep up your effort, Matt. Coach is either in the mood for named workouts or he's keeping an eye on this thread. We're on our third named workout in a row. The comments section should give you all the data you need to refine your benchmarks.
I think it'd be good for someone (I could maybe do some, if we organized it so we're not duplicating entries) to look through the comments page and start importing them into Bill's data entry. Unless we were able to get lots of people to do the comments page AND the "Logitall" page, we'd need to do that to gather some data.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 10:06 AM   #43
Patrick Haskell
Member Patrick Haskell is offline
 
Patrick Haskell's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winchendon  MA
Posts: 4,365
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

While the notion of including scaled workouts has its appeal, I don't think complicating the process is necessary to make it useful for everyone. There are an infinite number of ways to approach scaling. (Even height has an impact on the amount of work performed. A 6'3" 200# person squatting their bodyweight is doing much more work than a 5'7" 200# person.) Perhaps the simplest approach to including scaling is to include male/female std. weights and include an entry for athlete bodyweight to allow calculation of % bodyweight scaling. That should be enough to provide perspective on how we compare to others when using lighter weights. It was sufficient for me when starting CF to aspire to doing workouts as Rx'd in a reasonable amount of time. If that makes me a beginning CFer instead of a novice, great. If I then need to cut my Fran time from 20 to 10 minutes to be an intermediate, that's the next goal. If the objective is to greatly increase fitness, I don't need to compare myself to other novices so much as I want a goal to shoot for on each of these workouts.

Bill, I looked at the Concept2 and logit.com sites and had a couple thoughts.
1. It would be useful to have a percentile rank, where everybody's PR is stored. Straight numeric rankings can change greatly as a function of sample size, whereas percentile ranks change slower.
2. Since you live in Underhill, where is the entry for skiing?

Even with loads of data, it occurs to me that there remains a certain interpretive element that is difficult to accomplish in a virtual environment. The folks at CFit North developed their athletic standards based on observing recording athletes times and identifying what constitutes an elite, advanced, intermediate athlete on the highly subjective, but perhaps most useful, "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" metric. While we can all agree that OPT, AFT, Josh Everett, Greg A. are elite athletes and their times likely reflect the same, ferreting out where the line between intermediate and advanced times for Elizabeth, for example, will be a more challenging question, even when we've digested the ~400 comments from yesterday's WOD (and those from earlier editions of the same).

Still a fun little project. Perhaps the best way to tackle this is one workout at a time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 12:45 PM   #44
Bill Patton
Member Bill Patton is offline
 
Bill Patton's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Underhill  VT
Posts: 479
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

matt - i think i understand what you are trying to get at - how about as an intermediate step i add another field "as Rxd" and another field "weight"?

This would allow people to indicate that they were exactly as Rx'd (which might be a requirement to rank?) and then another field to enter the weight.

I'll try to mock up what i'm talking about and post an update tonight...

i think we are on the right track though - get the data entry portion good - then try to use it as the basis for stats...

-bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt DeMinico View Post
Thanks Bill. The only thing I'd like to see added is more workouts and loads. For loads (and probably for workouts too), maybe it should be a few drop-down menus, the first being a "category" like Squats, Olympic Lifts, Presses, Pullups, etc... then once that's selected, the next drop-down is enabled and has in it all the loads for that appropriate category, anything that's a common load, shoulder press, push jerk, push press, clean and jerk, snatch, weighted pullups, max rep pullups, whatever.

For the Named WOD's do the same thing, but add in all the WOD's with a few common scales as well (ideally make the scaling checkboxes or "radio" buttons so they choose which scaling they did). It'd make things more complicated, but it'd allow everyone to contribute (I don't know too many women out there that are doing Elizabeth, Grace, or Isabel as RX'd, heck, I don't even do them as RX'd yet)

I think it'd be good to do it like this:
Angie:
- As RX'd (none of these options should pop up by default, but we should have to select one for each entry)
- Jumping Pullups
- Knees-down pushups

Barbara, Candy, Chelsea, Cindy: Same options as Angie

Claudia:
- As RX'd (DB/plate/kb/etc)
- 45lb
- 35lb
- 25lb

Diane:
- As RX'd
- Scaled DL weight (What's a common deadlift weight scaling here?)
- 10"/8"/6"/4"/2" books stacked under head to replace "touching floor"

Elizabeth:
- As RX'd
- 115lb
- 95lb
- 75lb
- 55lb (or if we had radio buttons or checkbox, we could do 125, 120, 115, etc...)
- Bar dips
- Chair dips

Fran:
- As RX'd
- 85lb
- 75lb
- 65lb
- 55lb
- 45lb (again weights can be different)

Grace:
- As RX'd or same thing on the weights scaling

You get the idea... Ideally we'd have all of the ones listed in the spreadsheet on the front page.

Edit: Got another, Grease the Groove {fill in the blank} pullups, pushpus, etc...
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 12:49 PM   #45
Bill Patton
Member Bill Patton is offline
 
Bill Patton's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Underhill  VT
Posts: 479
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

Patrick:

The scaling issue is tricky - i've deliberately stayed away from this for Concept2 - making each entry "pure"...

I agree with your idea for having bodyweight as a profile field - this way the 'rankings' could have a 'bodyweight dropdown' to allow users to view the performances of others within a similar body weight range?

I haven't put skiing in since I haven't seen snow yet! so far i'm just splitting and stacking my 5 cords of wood in preparation...

lastly - i'll include percentile info on the standings pages - many of our rowers use the percentiles as their training tool - striving to make the 50% percentile across each different distance. I bet the same thing would happen with crossfit data...

-bill patton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Haskell View Post
While the notion of including scaled workouts has its appeal, I don't think complicating the process is necessary to make it useful for everyone. There are an infinite number of ways to approach scaling. (Even height has an impact on the amount of work performed. A 6'3" 200# person squatting their bodyweight is doing much more work than a 5'7" 200# person.) Perhaps the simplest approach to including scaling is to include male/female std. weights and include an entry for athlete bodyweight to allow calculation of % bodyweight scaling. That should be enough to provide perspective on how we compare to others when using lighter weights. It was sufficient for me when starting CF to aspire to doing workouts as Rx'd in a reasonable amount of time. If that makes me a beginning CFer instead of a novice, great. If I then need to cut my Fran time from 20 to 10 minutes to be an intermediate, that's the next goal. If the objective is to greatly increase fitness, I don't need to compare myself to other novices so much as I want a goal to shoot for on each of these workouts.

Bill, I looked at the Concept2 and logit.com sites and had a couple thoughts.
1. It would be useful to have a percentile rank, where everybody's PR is stored. Straight numeric rankings can change greatly as a function of sample size, whereas percentile ranks change slower.
2. Since you live in Underhill, where is the entry for skiing?

Even with loads of data, it occurs to me that there remains a certain interpretive element that is difficult to accomplish in a virtual environment. The folks at CFit North developed their athletic standards based on observing recording athletes times and identifying what constitutes an elite, advanced, intermediate athlete on the highly subjective, but perhaps most useful, "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" metric. While we can all agree that OPT, AFT, Josh Everett, Greg A. are elite athletes and their times likely reflect the same, ferreting out where the line between intermediate and advanced times for Elizabeth, for example, will be a more challenging question, even when we've digested the ~400 comments from yesterday's WOD (and those from earlier editions of the same).

Still a fun little project. Perhaps the best way to tackle this is one workout at a time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 02:19 PM   #46
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Patton View Post
matt - i think i understand what you are trying to get at - how about as an intermediate step i add another field "as Rxd" and another field "weight"?
Bill, this sounds like a good solution, at least for now. At some later date we might try to add more complexity, but until then, ranking those who did the full workout seems quite good enough, and bodyweight's as basic a ladder as you could ask for.

Age would be the next one, I guess, but it doesn't seem like that's a very good predictor; I don't think it's important. And anything like height would be way into the realm of nitpicking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 04:10 PM   #47
Lincoln Brigham
Member Lincoln Brigham is offline
 
Lincoln Brigham's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kirkland  WA
Posts: 3,987
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Oto View Post
Age would be the next one, I guess, but it doesn't seem like that's a very good predictor...
Age is important. For many workouts it takes a world record in my age group (I'm 48) to reach upper-middle-of-the pack for open-age competitions. Most sports have masters age-group competitions for that reason.

Example: Josh Everett is 30, weighs 85kg and has cleaned 155kg. The world record for open competition is 218kg. The world record for my age group in that weight class is 148.5kg.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 04:41 PM   #48
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

Sorry Lincoln, didn't mean that it was irrelevant. But if you look at the comments pages, you see great results from a broad range of ages; it's not like there's a five-year window where you can be CrossFit. If anything, the amount of time you've been doing this seems to be the biggest factor, but that's not a very surprising one.

Anyway, it could certainly be added, I just wouldn't call it the number one stat to look at.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 06:52 PM   #49
Bill Patton
Member Bill Patton is offline
 
Bill Patton's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Underhill  VT
Posts: 479
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

what i've done as a test is to add a drop down menu option for named crossfit workouts "as rx'd". I've also added anothe field "pounds" so that load information can be entered.

please take a look and let me know if this makes sense.... once i have the data going in it will be fairly easy to allow people to view performance by age group (if desired), by gender or by body weight, etc. The idea is to allow for anyone to determine a fair comparison for evaluation and motivational purposes...

comments welcome.

-bill patton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Oto View Post
Bill, this sounds like a good solution, at least for now. At some later date we might try to add more complexity, but until then, ranking those who did the full workout seems quite good enough, and bodyweight's as basic a ladder as you could ask for.

Age would be the next one, I guess, but it doesn't seem like that's a very good predictor; I don't think it's important. And anything like height would be way into the realm of nitpicking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2007, 11:35 PM   #50
Blair Robert Lowe
Member Blair Robert Lowe is offline
 
Blair Robert Lowe's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sacramento  CA
Posts: 7,948
Re: Help fill in standards for Named workouts

Awesome guys. I can't remember who started this thread but THANKYOU !

After I got off work, I decided I wanted to squeeze in Fran before I went home. I know I was under the par when it came to food intake and hydration but I figured what the hell. ( 1 chicken leg, some applesauce, and maybe 20 gulps of water from the water fountain ). I had meant to eat it bit more during workout break but got held up and didn't have time before my last class. Ehh.It's been a few months since the first time I tried a non-modified Fran. I ended up cracking the 10 minute barrier, as I remember upon looking at the watch on 8 minutes, I was going into the third round.

Last time I was around 12 or 13. Funny thing is I got through the first set of kipping PU with no probs compared to the last time when I could bust through the thrusters like nothing. Tonight it was more of a front squat, motion through the overhead press. Not much hip pop. Last time I busted through each set of thrusters with no break, but not today. On round 2, I had to do the PU in sets and each set of thrusters was 2 sets tonight in Fran.

The other time, the PU were the limiting factor, and while they did limit, I was just slow on the thrusters. I hate the idea of having to re-rack midway through since it just makes it more effort to have to start again.

Just FYI, CFMarin's gymnastics Fran has V-ups and until some time earlier this year they didn't have bumpers to do Fran. Just used bar only.

I was going to start a thread on what was an ideal Fran time for the intermediate to advanced CF'ers out there vs the 2-3 min CF elite. I was thinking my workout mates were doing around 7 or 8 minutes.


Thanks!
  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
CF workouts + traditional mass gain gym workouts Jason S Roth Fitness 6 06-15-2007 02:12 PM
CF Thruster Standards..again Ian Carver Exercises 6 10-16-2006 09:46 AM
Good/Great times for the Named WOD's? Mike Kirkpatrick Workout of the Day 4 08-01-2006 03:44 AM
Crossfit standards Mike Kirkpatrick Workout of the Day 10 07-15-2006 08:23 PM
Mark Verstegen named S&C coach for German nat'l soccer team Rene Renteria Community 4 04-06-2006 06:10 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.