Interesting Cross Fit Thread

[Bill2380]

Here

[dos]

It's silly to compare crossfit-style training with training used specifically for sport performance. The WOD's are great change-ups to traditional training, they are also great 'gut-checkers' for those of us who might be interested in that sort of thing.

The funny thing about the intial post was the reference to professional bball players never laying on the floor after a training session. Well, you're probably right about that. It's hard to imagine some of these over-paid guys laying on the floor after leaving everything on the court after a GAME. Their level of performance and their level of training are hardly ever highly correlated.

[kuri]

Thanks for posting Bill.

That is an interesting thread (I've never read the xfit forum).

Someone made an interesting point about a recent change in WOD protocol so that they include a greater variance in protocol (such as the heavy single back squats of 2 days ago) that addresses issues with having so many high rep days.

I don't strictly follow the WODs either. I might if I were gearing up for some competition but knowing my body, doing the 3 day on one day off with that many high rep days would have me burned out and probably wouldn't do my bursitic knee any good either.

Speaking of ballers I've seen David Robinson training in the gym during the off season (pre-retirement of course). His trainer might have had something to do with Dave's injuries. He had him doing some ridiculous stuff on the swiss ball - the trainer was not well regarded by other trainers in the area.

On the other hand I saw Martina Navratilova in the gym about 10 yrs ago doing some Crossfit-style workouts that would destroy most people in minutes. That woman has some serious wheels on her and is FAST. She also still competes on a high level at 50 yrs old.

[dos]

The training would need to be pretty specific to whatever competition you would be training for.

I look at many of the WOD's as a great overall fitness training session....just good old fashioned butt-kicking conditioning. Granted, it's not for everyone as most of the ones I have seen require a pretty decent fitness level to begin with.

[Buk]

That is what I see as the problem with people's perception of Crossfit. It is a gym, with real trainers, many think Crossfit = WOD. The WOD is a free program that they publish daily for people to enjoy. It(the WOD) is a GPP program, plain and simple. Volume and intensity need to be adjusted to the athlete, but the WOD provides good GPP parameters for all able athletes. Sport specific training should go above the Crossfit workouts, and usually take priority. If your sport specific training requires 75% of the work you can handle for a week, you might have to do less Crossfit, 1 or 2 WODs a week. Crossfit's purpose with the WOD is to efficiently maximize "their" definition of fitness, not specialize in a particular sport. I think the WOD does a fairly good job of that. However, not even counting skill pratice, almost every competitive sport athlete would benifit from sport/athlete specific training. I do think most sports can rely on Crossfit style workouts for conditioning, and probably get more benifit than more traditional conditioning methods. For an athlete, sport specific strength, speed, agility, endurance, and power need to be addressed. For the highly trained this will come at some cost to other fitness aspects, efficency, time, recovery, power to weight, speed, max strength, endurance, etc. An activity that requires specific capabilities could be most efficiently trained for with specilization, Crossfit is specialized to their goal of balanced "fitness" which basically means that it is not specialized, at least not to most sports which do favor some fitness traits over others. Maybe some of the followers do, but Crossfit does not think that it is anything more than GPP which needs a blanket of specilization wrapped around it to efficiently create a sport athlete.

When I am healthy and have all my body organs performing their propper functions, I do Crossfit and sport specific work. Right now I am in a condition where I could improve at my sport on the WOD alone, but I know I can improve faster with the right specialization. I think I can improve faster incorporating Crossfit workouts than not. There may be a time where I can only improve while exclusevly specializing, but in my opinion very few athletes reach that point. Even then over-specialization can have some negative side affects that shorten or injure a career.

[kuri]

OK, let's take Mixed Martial Arts for example since Dos & I are both familiar with it and alot of Crossfitters seem to do it.

Dos, in your opinion should someone training for an MMA fight utilize the WODs for conditioning purposes?

If I were training for a fight I would definitely use routines like Fight Gone Bad for conditioning.

But should an athlete use the amount of volume found in daily WODs?

I agree with Buk that sport specific training should come first, in this case grappling & standup sparring (also great conditioning methods), but every MMA athlete I know seems to use weight routines similar to Xfit for a significant portion of their training.

[Buk]

MMA isn't a TYPICAL sport that most people think about when they are trying to evaluate the quality of a sport specific training program. That is another one of Crossfit's issues, even when they are thinking sport, they are thinking different sports than the general public. The fact that most MMAers train differently than most other sport athletes, makes this a difficult comparison. When you made your statement about using Crossfit to prepare for a competition I figured you were talking about a fighting sport, not sure if Dos made that assumption. Even if he had, most others reading this thread might not have thought that, so Dos's responce is read by most as prepration for a "common" sport competition.

Since Crossfit's principals are fairly similar to how most MMAers train, I think a better question would be: What benifit could fighters get from using a more "typical" strength and conditioning workout?

My question is: How specific are sport specific training programs? How different should football players be trained(strength and conditioning) from volleyball, basketball, tennis, etc. I would guess that most are at least 75% similar. Add an extra 2-3 heavy, 1-2 exercise workouts into the Crossfit WOD and is that any more than 75% off.

[kuri]

Good points Buk, but I'm not sure how different the conditioning training would be between MMA and football or hockey. I've never trained for the latter two but I'm sure Dos can lend an expert perspective.

Basketball, volleyball, and tennis seem to have a different set of conditioning requirements.

[Bill2380]

Here is a post toward the end of the thread which I think answers November 08, 2005 - 12:14 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure if that has already been mentioned but I felt like it was quite important to point it out.

Crossfit is supposed to deliver an equilibrium between the ten physical attiributes but that does not necessarily translate into equally "impressive" performance results in each and every one of them. That's the one part. The second is that most of us never started training CF-style at age 3, so we all got in to the program with different parameters and metrics across the attibutes spectrum.

I'll explain myself.

For part 1:

Physical Eqilibrium in my opinion means developing a form that most closely resembles the bodies and performances that we were meant to have. (At least as we understand it). Like I said elsewhere, it means developing into what a human being unleashed into the wild would end up looking like.

So this ideal equilibrium (and level since it is not only a matter of harmony but also one of raw ability) may mean that relative to the highest recorded performance in each attribute, we are:

-at 70% of strength
-at 90% of power
-at 60% of endurance

etc. etc...

In part 2, what I mean is that maybe Robb
shouldn't have the powerlifting numbers he was getting prior to Crossfit because they were bound to be detrimental to everything else. If he wants this natural model of fitness that Crossfit delivers, he may have to sacrifice slightly in order to gain massively in all other attributes.

So John, besides not doing everything right; which is something that trust me, takes time, it's also a matter of considering what the ideal is. The ideal may mean you have to sacrifice some things and gain tremendously in others.
some of your questions.

Posted by Alexander Karatis

[dos]

Physical Eqilibrium in my opinion means developing a form that most closely resembles the bodies and performances that we were meant to have

Who dictates what bodies and performances we are meant to have?

The ideal may mean you have to sacrifice some things and gain tremendously in others.

Again, this comes down to what you are training for. If I am training for volleyball, I am not going to sacrifice key training components to gain in anything that isn't one of these 'keys' regardless of how tremendous the gains are right?

So this ideal equilibrium (and level since it is not only a matter of harmony but also one of raw ability) may mean that relative to the highest recorded performance in each attribute, we are:

-at 70% of strength
-at 90% of power
-at 60% of endurance

These must be cross-fit numbers as I have never seen them nor do I really understand them.

Back to Kuri's question about whether the WOD's are good for MMA. Well, once again, it would depend on your goals and the movement involved in the particular complex, workout etc. For the most part, I would say yes but there may be times when bodyweight wod's might be more appropriate than loaded wod's and vice versa. I think MMA and traditional sports are, in fact, quite different but that doesn't mean that the underlying training principles won't stay pretty much the same. I think about Cosgroves martial arts training program and his reference to JC Santana's key components (which are very similar to Mike Burgener's 'power to the 4th' prnciples).....they truly apply to virtually ALL sports.

The crossfit stuff can and should be a valuable tool in the giant toolbox of your comprehensive performance conditioning arsenal.

P.S. in regard to the 'gut-check' effect of some of these workouts....I definately believe that MMA athletes could and should incoporate some of the more brutal WOD's for this effect alone!

[Bill2380]

So this ideal equilibrium (and level since it is not only a matter of harmony but also one of raw ability) may mean that relative to the highest recorded performance in each attribute, we are:

-at 70% of strength
-at 90% of power
-at 60% of endurance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These must be cross-fit numbers as I have never seen them nor do I really understand them.

I'm not sure those numbers are meant to be exact quantifiable results. I interpet it to mean that Cross Fit alone will produce very good results in all aspects of fitness; speed, strength, power, endurance etc. This would provide a base level of fitness at least as good as many other athletes. If these results are not sufficient for your level of competition you would the want to add sport specific exercises as needed. No one program can be all things to all people. As I understand it, Cross Fit's goal is to improve the participant's level of fitness in all areas.

[Trainer One]

"Physical Eqilibrium in my opinion means developing a form that most closely resembles the bodies and performances that we were meant to have."

By who's definition?

Are we MEANT to be able to box 12 rounds and deliver and absorbe full power shots?

Are we MEANT to bench press 400-500lbs?

Each sport is different right? How much flexibility are we MEANT to have? What if you are a kickboxer or a gymnast, vs a powerlifter? Different levels of flexibility right?

[Q.]

I posted this at XFit but I keep hearing the familiar, "everything works, nothing works forever." At least for me, I benefitted tremendously just from the variety that XFit offers but I didn't give up the farm and follow it religiously. No, I'm not a fitness animal but I'm comfortable with the range of fitness parameters that I fall within at present (for the most part ). My never-ending goal, however, is to continue to move that range higher but in a manner that provides recreation and enjoyment as well as physical challenge.

[nanook]

Originally posted by Trainer One:

"Physical Eqilibrium in my opinion means developing a form that most closely resembles the bodies and performances that we were meant to have."

By who's definition?

If you read the whole post, he is refering to "natures" definition of what our bodies and performances would be. The bodies and performances that would help us survive as a hunter-gatherer.

[Trainer One]

By "natures" definition - we are designed to store fat !!!

The fattest cavemen survived the famine [img]smile.gif[/img]

So a very efficient fat STORING system is what would help us survive right ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

..just what I'm trying to avoid !

[Buk]

Just as Crossfit does not equal the WOD, One person's post on their forum does not equal Crossfit! However I will do my best to explain my understanding of what Alexander was trying to say.

------------------------------------
My understanding of Alexanders post, what I think he was trying to say:
The objective of Crossfit is to develop a balance of the 10 traits of fitness defined by Crossfit. This balance is similar to what humans would achieve in nature without modern conviences and with little social structure(basically surviving in the wild solo). When Alaxender mentions the fitness we were MEANT to have, I think he is refering to what would be seen if we didn't have advanced mental capicity, and lived wildly in the same manner as gorillas, rats, vultures,most which aren't excissevly fat, bears(bears are fat but also strong, fast, and powerful; a balance for them)etc. with very little social structure and little ability to control our environment; If our SPORT was survival. Part 1 is the idea that perfect balance across all 10 traits might not be a consistent percent of current world records. This basically means that the limits of some traits are more flexable than others. World record bench is like 800 pounds, body to weight record is probably close to 3x. Some dude ran 325 miles around hilly San Francisco not to long ago. (This is my opinion)[I don't think a body weight bench is out of the reach of a balanced fit athlete, but 100 miles is pretty excessive] All Alexander is saying is that you shouldn't define balanced ability by taking some percent of the best seen human records in each speciality. His numbers are examples, guesses of what percent of max human performances might provide a balance. Part 2 states that some athletes will regress in some fitness aspects when starting Crossfit do to previous specilization. Robb is his example, a powerlifting convert who initally lost some deadlift strength.
----------------------------

Those numbers are not Crossfit numbers, they are Alexanders numbers, and simply stated for example.

No one disagrees that specilization will reduce capabilities in the unspecialized areas. The "sport" of the WOD is general activity, if your sport is different, don't follow exclusevly/exactly the WOD, add some specialization. The ideal that Alexander speaks of seems to be that of balanced fitness.

Is it possible to define balanced fitness? Theoretically, I think so, but the experiments would never be realistic. Science should be fluid and addaptive, but the plan I would start with is as follows(I think Crossfit's Coach has done a lot of experimenting of his own). I would take a sample of under fit athletes. Train them in the fitness aspects that I wanted to balance. An under fit athlete will be able to silmutaneously improve all aspects. Improvements would taper as individual potential at the athlete's current state is approached, some aspects would taper sooner than others. As a fitness paramater began to stagnate, I would take some of the training volume from the current quickest improving parameter and adjust it to the one that stagnated. The parameter that was improving the least, would always get the most training focus(there would have to be some limit on the volume given to a single parameter). At some point if one parameter has halted, or begun to regress, with a significant percent of the training effort while others are still improving, that parameter will be considered saturated, for the time being. After all aspects being trained to a point of saturation using the definition above, specilization in one fitness parameter would be introduced and the measure would be the impact on the other aspects. I would rotate the specialized fitness parameter measuring the impact on the other parameters. This makes a few assumptions: the training being done for a particular fitness aspect is optimum for improving that aspect, overtraining is not occuring for a single training aspect or in general, and diet does not significantly favor some fitness parameters over others. I would expect great variations in resluts from athlete to athlete, but not what we see in specialized athletes. Idealy this would would be followed up by taking specialized athletes and observing the effect of training their "left behind" fitness attributes and measure the improvements versus the loss of capability in their specialization. I think there will be observable effects that would show significant tradeoff points. Deciding on training volume and protocols per fitness attribute would be the genius behind this study, along wiht the cap for percent of total training focus for an individual fitness parameter. I would expect my methods to change as the results started to show themselves, but I think this is a good starting point. Take someone who is below the balance point of every aspect and try to improve each, without allowing any to regress. Regression will happen as some parameters will passes the balance point during the study and need to regress. The training parameter volume regulation will help prevent this along the way. Then once the parameter begins to regress it will see even more volume, but as long as the other parameters are improving, it is ok ot over-volume the "advanced" parameter. Once the other parameter's improvements slow, they will regain their share of the volume, and eventually reach the balance point. These slight offsets are why post-specilization are necessary. Also, after high levels of fitness are achieved, It may be more efficient to temporarily specialize to make new gains verdsus trying to make balanced improvements.

This was only an exercise in ideas, I don't expect it to be perfect in any way. I also don't think it is necessary in any way. The variations across individual athletes would be quite drastic. Humans as a species aren't necessarily MEANT to bench 400 pounds or be knockout 12 round boxers. We are MEANT to keep ourselves healthy and enjoy our lives. Who even says we are MEANT to have "balanced" fitness. Crossfit's goal is balanced fitness; Hatch dome's goal is Olympic lifting; Runner's World's goal is endurance; Charlie Francis, speed; Westside, powerlifting; me, volleyball; you, decide for yourself. Each sport is different, train for your sport! Crossfit's sport is balance and also a strength and conditioning BASE for other sports.

[Buk]

I am more interested in what I am capable of, not what I could "get by with" in nature. Obviously the human body was designed to store fat, but it was also designed to be active; no one knows what the balance is. Seems to me that the less industralized a society, the less fat. America is fat, not because of nature. If you ate only what was avaliable in nature; never sat down; and spent effort gathering, fishing, and hunting for yourself and family, do you think you would be more or less fat than you are now? I think tripple cheesburgers, the drive through, and my desk job have contributed to my size more than my natural design to store fat. What amount of fat is ideal, these days there are health records, that may show some numbers, but those numbers are highly coorelated to general lifestyle and diet.

[Q.]

CERTAINLY our lifestyles have evolved exponentially faster than our bodies have!

[Kaiser]

Getting back to the original question, I'm not sure what the actual issue is. Somewhere in Crossfit I read that it won't make you the best jumper, sports player, weightlifter, or runner. What it will do is to make you proficient in all of the disciplines without excelling in any. So if they come out and say that, where is the disconnect? I know by doing this that I probably wont' get as good upper body definiton as if I followed a strict hypertrophy program. Or be as good of a basketball player as if I just played b-ball five times a week. Or be able to lift as much as if I trained like Danny. Duh.

[kuri]

However, by doing Crossfit you will become extremely proficient in dealing with pukie

Don't underestimate the positive effects of the gut-check.

[Trainer One]

I just wanted to add (I don't think my earlier comments were clear) that I think cross fit is a great workout.

My problem with the WOD, (and in a lot of current training routines nowadays) is that it seems to be very 'random'. There doesn't seem to be a progression or a goal in mind.

In other words - it just seems to be "workouts" not "programs" (stolen from Alywn Cosgrove).

[kuri]

There doesn't seem to be a progression or a goal in mind.

Not true. The same workouts such as "angie", "Fran" etc... are cycled in order for one to note progression, be it the number of rounds one can complete, max pullups and so on. Read through the comments posted daily and you'll see comparison's with past workouts.

Remember that Crossfit is a tool for one to use in achieving one's personal goals, not an end in itself.

[castufari]

[quote]Originally posted by kuri:

Remember that Crossfit is a tool for one to use in achieving one's personal goals, not an end in itself.

Well said. I'm going to incorporate some of the exercise in my routine.

What I have noticed is that a good full routine that involves you doing something yields more life usable results. I have a coworker who can out "machine" lift me but when he was helping me move some old computers (like 72 of 'em) he couldn't carry anything close to what I could. He did ok until the load would shift then he'd lose it.