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 05-03-2009, 11:02 AM   #1
Oliver Gould
Member Oliver Gould is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 436
Plandomization

http://www.performancemenu.com/artic...ty&shortyID=53

Article by Greg Everett on the Performance Menu. WFS

Thoughts?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 11:22 AM   #2
Andrew H. Meador
Member Andrew H. Meador is offline
 
Andrew H. Meador's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Williamstown  MA
Posts: 917
Re: Plandomization

He's right. We all black box because we all have different aptitudes and goals. As for not being able to achieve gains in all areas - strength, endurance, accuracy, etc. - at the same time, many CFers would disagree. As you progress further in your training, like with all other things, you will plateau more and you will improve more slowly. Weaker areas will progress more quickly.
__________________
I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings. -W. Mozart
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 11:23 AM   #3
Justin Z. Smith
Member Justin Z. Smith is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alexandria  VA
Posts: 390
Re: Plandomization

Like Everett says, smart randomization. The "Plandomization" name is cool, I wish I thought of that name.

I don't CrossFit, but I've been tinkering around with the idea of randomizing (really randomizing, not just deterministic variation or so-called intuitive training or "whatever Coach wants to do today") workouts yet being able to change the parameters of the randomization for a few years, and put up my webpage a while ago. Like we all know, the benefits randomization gives are important, but the parameters must be able to be altered to account for an individual situation and goals all while keeping the randomization aspect.

For example, I wanted to get better at burpees, focus on my weak ab muscles, and train for a 10k. So I added exercises to address these things to the mix to come up more frequently in the randomized selection. Much like when I was practicing fencing for a local competition I'd add more lunges and related exercises to the mix.

Justin
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 11:33 AM   #4
Ken DaSilva
Member Ken DaSilva is offline
 
Ken DaSilva's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Wellington  FL
Posts: 151
Re: Plandomization

I would agree. When people ask about the programming here, too much emphasis is placed on the "randomness" of the workouts. Which I believe is not "random" at all (just varied).

His 2nd best line was:

Quote:
Being prepared for any random task is not the same thing as preparing randomly for any task.
The best line being:

Quote:
If an individual is untrained enough, I can improve his deadlift with nothing more than vigorous nose-picking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 01:10 PM   #5
David Meverden
Member David Meverden is offline
 
David Meverden's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charleston  SC
Posts: 2,802
Re: Plandomization

I think everyone will agree that the article is pretty sound.

So, if we agree with the concept that any smart trainee will tailor his training with a structured plan where does this leave the Main Page WoD (one of the big noteworthy aspects that helped set CF apart from other fitness systems)? We've got CF Football, CFSB, MEBB, CF Endurance, etc creating more goal specific versions of CF and we've got coaches telling us we should be more specific.

So, is the mainpage just for people who have achieved a high enough level of strength to do everything as prescribed, as demonstrated by the high end CrossFitters who do straight main page? Is the mainpage for CrossFit novices who have insufficient lifting background to effectively execute a CFSB, or similar, program and who will get stronger even from inefficient muscle stimulus? Is some other role filled by the mainpage? Is the mainpages format outdated? Should the mainpage WoD be replaced?
__________________
CERTIFICATIONS: CSCS, CrossFit LVL 1
SEMINARS: Starting Strength, Ultimate Advantage, CFE, CF O-lifting, MovNat
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 01:27 PM   #6
Marcel Zwinger
Member Marcel Zwinger is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Podersdorf  Burgenland
Posts: 327
Re: Plandomization

i think Greg Glassman himself said that the mainpage WOD is just an example.
and it's a damn good one.

if you don't have much CF background and no specific goals other than IWCOBTAMD, the mainpage WOD is nice and easy to setup (for the most part) but hard to execute (HA! )

there's not soo much special requirement.

I'd guess if you have never done much or never done CF and you start right off the bat with CFSB or endurance or CF whatever, you're screwed.

Mabe later, if the idea of Crossfit has really manifested in ones head may he realize he needs somethinh a bit different.

That said, as long as the mainpage WOD can kick our A... there is no need for replacement...

Last edited by Marcel Zwinger : 05-03-2009 at 01:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 08:04 PM   #7
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Plandomization

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. Meador View Post
He's right. We all black box because we all have different aptitudes and goals. As for not being able to achieve gains in all areas - strength, endurance, accuracy, etc. - at the same time, many CFers would disagree. As you progress further in your training, like with all other things, you will plateau more and you will improve more slowly. Weaker areas will progress more quickly.
For an untrained person gains in all areas is very doable, but as time goes on continuing to gain in every area is increasingly difficult. That's what makes decathletes and heptathletes so impressive.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:00 PM   #8
Sean J Hunter
Member Sean J Hunter is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Shore  New Zealand
Posts: 805
Re: Plandomization

My understanding is that there is some plandirization in Main Page CF WoD, there is a 12 day cycle, and 4 elements, mixed in different way the same way each time, bla bla.

You know what I mean.

S
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:12 PM   #9
Justin McCallon
Member Justin McCallon is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta  GA
Posts: 551
Re: Plandomization

Quote:
He's right.
This disagrees (implicitly, kinda) with your next comment:
Quote:
As for not being able to achieve gains in all areas - strength, endurance, accuracy, etc. - at the same time, many CFers would disagree.
I think there are 2 distinct points that Greg makes that are at odds with typical CF programming (at least on the main page):

#1 - Although you should conjugate to an extent, you should have a focus that is specific every mesocycle for optimal gains, even if you have very broad goals.
--I don't accept that CF mesocycles have a clear focus. They all have pretty much the same amount of strength/endurance (etc etc) work. The same proportions. Greg thinks that you should focus on strength for a few weeks/months/whatever while doing enough cardio to maintain. Then vice versa. So, Greg's view is that the proportions should vary. (oversimplified)

#2 - Greg doesn't seem to buy into the idea of more-or-less knowing the total amount of work in every area/lift every micro/mesocycle (this does involve planning), and then throwing it all together randomly.
--Can someone briefly recap the advantage of the randomization? The advantages I see are (a) it seems like your body will learn to recover better if you get used to doing squats (etc) a couple days in a row every now and then, and (b) your body gets more efficient at random tasks if you throw stuff together randomly in the metcons.

I disagree with the article on one point: I don't think Greg highlights/appreciates(?) the fact that using heavy weight on the metcons can be seriously beneficial for strength gains.

Last edited by Justin McCallon : 05-07-2009 at 08:19 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:33 PM   #10
Andrew H. Meador
Member Andrew H. Meador is offline
 
Andrew H. Meador's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Williamstown  MA
Posts: 917
Re: Plandomization

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrison View Post
For an untrained person gains in all areas is very doable, but as time goes on continuing to gain in every area is increasingly difficult. That's what makes decathletes and heptathletes so impressive.
Decathletes and heptathletes are anaerobic athletes, with 8 of the 10 events being almost entirely anaerobic in nature (and the 400m and 1500m runs are largely anaerobic as well). Fatigue over the course of the 2-day event would not be alleviated by extended-duration aerobic training. I think that the best sprinters in the world are better athletes, as are the best weightlifters and gymnasts, but they are not trained specifically in the events of discuss, pole vault, etc. A very large gymnast could probably do very well in short time if he practiced throwing and jumping techniques and practiced the olympic lifts in the afternoons, and did maybe once-weekly interval training - 100m, 200m and 400m repeats with short rest periods.
__________________
I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings. -W. Mozart
  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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:05 PM.


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