My current position on CF WoDs

[Emily Mattes]

I just want to echo what Brandon says on the Oly lifts during metcons . . . I have begun working with a group that does competitive Olympic lifting, and their reaction to Crossfit is a mix of horror and disdain because of the absolutely awful form that most Crossfitters have with their lifts. One lifter talked about how he went to an affiliate once after only a couple months of lifting and ended up teaching everyone there--including the person running the affiliate--how to properly snatch.

Repetitive Olympic lifting movements during a metcon means your form inevitably breaks down, and leads to improper training of the CNS. I know most Crossfitters will never actually compete in Olympic lifting and so don't care if their form is terrible, but it is worth keeping in mind that the lifts we're dong are likely only close approximations of what they're really supposed to be like.

[Brandon Oto]

Very freaking cool, Scott.

[Scott Borre]

http://www.board.crossfit.com/showth...215#post233215 (WFS)

Another good thread to look at. I think that the gymanstics cert will go a long way to improving what occurs in CrossFit and at affiliates. I think its really hard to get everything out of CrossFit without participating in an affiliate where more goes on in the training than the WoD (such as improving lifting form, working on certain skills, etc).

[Doug Holland]

I think Dave Gibbs is right.

I lift and condition for fun. But CF made it more of a sport. Thus my competitive side was reawakened when there was no such chance in my modern day lifestyle. I am a Reflexologist with two children and a tight time budget.

Buying out the time to workout/play is a real challenge. Joining men in a late night pickup game has ceased since the first child.

So, CF and the wonderful people on this site have given me the opportunity to widen out in my thinking, touch a new competitive nerve, and look forward to some new simple challenges that when conquered, make me feel young again.


Doug

[Michael J Reed]

In the time it took to read this thread, I could have done "Angie"...sigh.

[Scott Borre]

I just did a search and read nearly every post by Coach G. Wow, I learned a lot. I think he hits on so much that is in this thread, and others like it. I wish he'd post here more, because so many issues could be solved by his immense knowledge (both in terms of actual results, and scientific studies).

[Anthony Bainbridge]

So what I hear is that people want a program that will handle the folllowing:

1) all sports (including athletes competing in sports simultaneously - think infinite combinations)
2) all levels of athleticism / experience / knowledge
3) all recovery abilities (lump in age and gender here)
4) all current injuries
5) all weaknesses
6) all strengths
7) all goals
8) all seasons (periodization, deload, etc)

When you find it, let us know, because I think you'll be sharing a beer with God when it happens.

Is CF perfect? No, that's why it's evolving. Are there deficiancies that are affecting your current performance? Then take responsibility and address them.

I have to say it is mind boggling that so many smart people fail to realize that some specialization is going to occur for different sports, different individuals, and different levels of athleticism. To assume the WOD is responsible for this specialization is pretty bold.

[Jonas Bailey]

Originally Posted by Brandon Oto

Jeez Jonas, you need an editor. Reading your posts is like being immersed in your subconscious.


Obviously, we're probably not going to come up with a lot of research to guide our programming. As CrossFit itself has observed, self-experimentation is about the best we're going to get. And I'm comfortable saying no more than "this worked for me." That's why we've got a bunch of options out there, and I doubt this will cease to be the case. People need to figure out what works for them, same as always. More available alternatives is better. That's the black box.


There are three main disadvantages.

The first is this: as you observed, training time and capacity is finite. Therefore, time/recovery devoted to one thing is time/recovery that can't be devoted to another. This is the main reason that 100m sprinters are not incorporating rowing in their training. Time devoted to metcon we don't need is time we can't devote to something else.

The second is this: max-intensity metcons are hard on the body. They can lead to acute injuries, overuse injuries, soreness, and in general difficulty to recover. You've heard from several folks in this thread who found that the WoD was burning them out or just unsustainable at their age or physical outlook, and I assure you that the interwebs are teeming with ex-CFers who got out of the game because it was beating them up. Um... many of them are angry.

The third is this: metcons are hard. This seems a little silly and is obviously subjective, but, well, there's a reason people usually don't do 20 rep squat programs for very long, and half of it's because they really just don't want to. This goes to sustainability and appeal.

For an example of a program that reduces metcon in favor of other material, take a look at Gant's hybrid programming thread, in this forum. Not saying that's the end-all, just an example.

I have NEVER heard that metcon is HARDER to build than strength. In my experience it is EASIER to build and easier to lose, in the sense that it doesn't take as long. Do you really find that it takes you LONGER to develop conditioning than to build muscle or gain strength?

Obviously, these people need more metcon. However, for most sports/activities, once they reach "enough" or even "plenty," that's a fairly binary shift; once they're no longer suffering performance losses because of fatigue, better conditioning will not give them much. On the other hand, greater strength, skill, or other capacities are fairly open-ended in improvement potential; it's a question of "more," not of "enough."

Although something like marathon running, which is basically nothing but "conditioning," is an exception in that it's more or less open-ended in that aspect as well.

An editor? That's for college boyz. It's supposed to be that way, it's called "style".

That seems too bad to me, I'm sure it would drive a DBA to madness, trying to collect and sort all the CF data available, but it sure would be interesting.


First, Second, Third (your points): On the first I don't disagree, obviously. On the second, that's true, but then isn't high intensity strength work also hard on the body? In fact, isn't ANY high intensity anything kinda...I don't know...highly intense? Third, sustainability and appeal now? I thought we were talking about a metcon fixation which was leaving a lack of enough strength work?


I could certainly see the front page WOD being "gridded out" pretty easily.
You have the "base" WOD, the "approved scaling" WOD, the alternative WOD, and the scaled alternative WOD. That and the addition of some type of approved "CF-lite Intro" program would solve most of your issues wouldn't it?

Finally to your closing paragraph: Yes! That's what I'm saying, that's why this is a good discussion, but also pointless. Once you reach a certain point with strength for most sports it becomes kinda binary doesn't it? That more strength doesn't improve your performance in that particular sport? Or that more balance work doesn't improve your performance? Or that more accuracy training doesn't improve your sport? And so on? OR that your time strength training caps you ability to do metcons, or that doing both prevents you from actually training\playing your sport of choice?


Since there is no data, at least no officially compiled and released data, that I'm aware of, then we can't make anything but personal statements about how we relate to the WODs. Which you've said since the beginning of the thread. If we can't make anything but personal statements about the WODs then it's back to defining your individual goals, or refining how they differ from what the WOD provides.

The further we unpack the WOD programming the less data we actually have, allowing us to make nothing but personal assertions, which then no longer really relate to the WOD programming.

I think assisting with that process, the process of finding how you personally want to change the WOD, or not, is part of the CF learning curve. Just like any program really.

[Tom Fetter]

Originally Posted by Scott Borre

I just did a search and read nearly every post by Coach G. Wow, I learned a lot. I think he hits on so much that is in this thread, and others like it. I wish he'd post here more, because so many issues could be solved by his immense knowledge (both in terms of actual results, and scientific studies).

Yup.

Not to diss any of those who've posted, or the comments and suggestions they've made ... but there's a reason why CrossFit continues to explode in popularity.

That reason is, partly, that most of the issues we raise have already been identified and addressed by Coach and his team. Not, perhaps, addressed in ways which meet with everyone's approval ... but there's logic and rationale behind the mix that shows up in the WODs. And those who commit to WODs, really whatever their previous training history (and esp lack of training history) typically experience measurable, broad-based gains in performance. That's Coach's goal.

Can/should a person tweak their workouts to meet their own goals? Sure, once they discover some. But the WOD isn't the place, I think, to get specific ... it's the grounding place for the concept of avoiding being specific, and in so doing, developing broader competence.

"Regularly learn new sports" implies that people will develop goals, and train towards them; true whether that sport is mountaineering, or baseball, or powerlifting ... or CF. But a grounding in the mainpage WOD reinforces the value of not allowing skill training in a single sport to overtake the whole of one's physical training and practice.

CF isn't for specialists; CF mainpage WODs aren't either. Paradoxically, not even for athletes who've specialized in CF ... The elite (e.g. serious CF Games competitors) have doubtless done some supplemental work to shore up what they have discovered to be their persistent weaknesses.

[Matt Thomas]

Originally Posted by Anthony Bainbridge

So what I hear is that people want a program that will handle the folllowing:

1) all sports (including athletes competing in sports simultaneously - think infinite combinations)
2) all levels of athleticism / experience / knowledge
3) all recovery abilities (lump in age and gender here)
4) all current injuries
5) all weaknesses
6) all strengths
7) all goals
8) all seasons (periodization, deload, etc)

When you find it, let us know, because I think you'll be sharing a beer with God when it happens.

Is CF perfect? No, that's why it's evolving. Are there deficiancies that are affecting your current performance? Then take responsibility and address them.

I have to say it is mind boggling that so many smart people fail to realize that some specialization is going to occur for different sports, different individuals, and different levels of athleticism. To assume the WOD is responsible for this specialization is pretty bold.

It has sounded more to me like the argument has been that crossfit isn't that great at achieving it's own stated goal and purpose. So it should either change to get better at what it sets out to do, or change it's stated purpose.