I thought this article might be of some interest to the group. One of the CrossFit affiliates put together a list of benchmarks to measure athletic abilities in 10 areas (cardiorespiratory endurance, strength, stamina, flexibility, coordination, agility, balance, accuracy, power and speed). I think the designations to the levels might seem overly difficult but the lists' author described it this way in a thread on crossfit.com
Quote:
I developed those skill levels with all 10 general physical athletic skills in mind. There are several places on the net and in print where you can find suggested levels of strength - squat, bench, dead, press etc. - or stamina - reps with pushups, pullups, situps, burpees ... All of those seemed very limited though.
Nothing was available to suggest how hard one should be able to work at a certain level of strength, or when it's appropriate to work on higher level skills. I've seen many people try to get a muscle up when they don't yet have a single full depth dip.
The skill levels are in no way complete teaching progressions. They provide a way to measure most of the 10 general physical skills, they provide for both near and long term goal setting, and they provide a reality check for those who are over-developed in one area or deficient in another.
Crossfit workouts are the way to develop balanced athleticism. These skill levels are my attempt at defining what that balance should be.
The Crossfit community may also get competetive about the skill levels
I find these kinds of benchmarks motivating as well as helpful in identifying my own weaknesses. I'm going to see if I can pass the Intermediate Athlete benchmarks. Some of the stuff won't be a problems, others -- well we'll see.
Sorry, but I think there are many elite athletes out there that could not do many of the items on the list. I often find these kinds of benchmarks somewhat arbitrary and even extreme. In this case, of course, they are geared toward the style of training that Crossfit espouses, with rings, kettlebells, etc.. If you are into the Crossfit style of training, go for it. It's always good to have goal's.
__________________ In Fitness & Friendship, MAHLER
______________________________ __________________________ There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You carry the light with you.
Those do seem pretty drastic. And I bet you'd be hardpressed to find someone to meet the benchmarks on the elite level. But hey, goals are always good to have so you can aspire to something.
-Kevin
__________________
"...this is the way it goes, sometimes you're flush, and sometimes you're bust... and when your up its never as good as it seems... and when your down you never think you can be up again, but life goes on, remember that..."
Is all this stuff supposed to be done in one sitting?
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
I've been kind of struggling with this relationship between fitness and strength. Do you really believe that someone who can DL 2.5x body weight is really more fit than someone who can DL 1.5x bodyweight? I don't get that. Is more strength the measure of fitness? I totally believe that the overall variety of criteria are great measures of fitness because I think fitness is really about having this all around physical abiltity but I just don't know if lifting more = more fit or just more strong.
From Merriam-Webster: 3: sound physically and mentally : HEALTHY
In some ways, I think you can reach a level of fitness which is near maximum health but, beyond that, you're just getting stronger or faster but not more fit. I'm sure not everyone would agree with that but I think it's an interesting question anyway!
Jokerz, you need to update your signature, you are beyond your goals for the full clean and bench!
GQ, to "earn" a level, all tests are supposed to be passes within a one month period.
I agree with Mahler in that these goals are geared towards the crossfit athlete, and what a single person has decided upon as a balance. This balance is not appropriate for some athletes or many people's goals. I would be interested in how these numbers were arrived at. But if that is the type of training that you are interested in, having preset benchmarks/goals can be very motivating.
I have been thinking about trying out some of these tests to mark benchmarks for future comparision. While I will not likely train specifically for any events for the sake of the test, future comparisons will help determine which qualities my recent training has improved or neglected the most. Am I getting stronger at the expense of work capacity? Is my training helping my speed more than anything else? Etc. It may be fun to play with, but the balance chosen upon is, in my opinion, specific to a crossfit idea of fitness which may contradict an athlete's specific goals.
I am mostly a level II on that chart, shy on maybe a few tests, about 1/3 a level III, and a few level IVs. Some of the tests are much harder than they appear - ring dips are tough, the work events named after girls are completly brutal.
Level II, where I am questionable:
v-ups -> doubt it, I never do these
55lb snatch, 30 reps with each hand -> I can probably pull this off
15 knees to elbows would be tough, but I could do it.
95 pound thruster for 45 reps -> would be painful, but again probably so.
I did 19 pull-ups a few weeks ago, so I could probable get 20 to fall
Can't do a muscle-up yet
30 second L-sit -> probably not, mostly a flexability issue I think
My best "Helen" is 13:18, I am probably faster now, but I don't know about 11:30?
I don't row much, but I think I can make the rowing times.
Looks like I am lacking on core and the work events as per those specifications. Those are the two features that are most specifically "Crossfit" in my opinion. They highly value their "work" workouts, and use unique core tests. The level III core test of a bodyweight overhead squat is an easy feat for me, but I will likely falter on the level II test of v-ups.
But, there are a few Level IV tests that I can pass: 400m run missed by 2 seconds last time I was on the track, sandbag carry(maybe with a little specific training, but I have done it before). And I can pass about 8 of the level III tests.
Q, what if that person can only deadlift 20 pounds, are they still fit? If you say no, then there must be some sort of continuum. If there is a continuum, and all other things being perfectly equal, the person who can deadlift more is more fit(all other things being perfectly equal). I agree that for general health, stronger or faster may just be stronger or faster, but I view fitness as something more than just health. Fitness, to me, also includes the ability to survive, which in some parallel universe could include physical challenges to the death. I know that is kind of "out there" but it is what separates health from fitness. Has to do with the ability to attract, or obtain, a mate for procreation. Humans do things a little less barbarically, but the ram that can smash the other rams the hardest gets the girl, makes babies, and therefor, by definition, is more fit.
Sorry, but I think there are many elite athletes out there that could not do many of the items on the list. I often find these kinds of benchmarks somewhat arbitrary and even extreme. In this case, of course, they are geared toward the style of training that Crossfit espouses, with rings, kettlebells, etc.. If you are into the Crossfit style of training, go for it. It's always good to have goal's.
I can see your point about the term "elite athlete": Many professional athletes don't posses the skills outlined in even the "advanced" level, but that's just an issue of definition. I read the designation of athlete as a "physical individual" not necessarily one who competes in a specific sport.
However, I don't think the benchmarks themselves are arbitrary at all. They show a steady progression in difficulty as you move through the stages and cover most (if not all) of the ingredients that make up the most "athletic" individuals.
In the CrossFit discussion author outlined a long progression (a number of months to years) of steady work to get from one level to the next and states in that most can not reach Elite. But that's OK with me. I'm not particularly genetically gifted and would not expect to reach an elite status no matter how hard I worked. That doesn't mean I don't strive to be as strong, fast and agile as possible it just means that I will never look like a professional body builder, lift like a competitive lifter or run like a professional track star.
These benchmarks are certainly difficult but they are a fantastic tool to uncover your weaknesses. After years of steady progress in the gym its humbling to have your weaknesses so nakedly displayed for your ego to stare at, but I use that as motivation to work on those areas. In the end working on a wider variety of skills than most programs cover makes for a slower progression but I believe a better overall balance of skills will ultimately lead to a more rounded athlete. As an analogy, I'm striving to be more like Lenardo DaVinci rather than Renoir. Nothing wrong with Renoir, he painted some amazing things, but DaVinci did so much more.
Survival of the fittest.....so how fast can you pull a trigger?
All relative I think, there was a show on UK TV about ten yrs ago where they tried to have a "fair" competition. There were endurance events, strenght, VO2 Max, Batak (?sp?) boards, you name it. Scores were applied to relative performance and a result based on the totals.
The weighting of the scores favoured endurance athletes unfairly in my opinion, but hey....these things are always ghoing to be arbitarty.
When the fat lady sings it all comes down to individual goals and aspirations. Horses for courses as it were.
For instance was Jack La Lane's challenge completely fair? Keep up with me for my work out? Why don't I keep up with you for yours?
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable. -- Sidney J. Harris
Q, what if that person can only deadlift 20 pounds, are they still fit? If you say no, then there must be some sort of continuum. If there is a continuum, and all other things being perfectly equal, the person who can deadlift more is more fit(all other things being perfectly equal). I agree that for general health, stronger or faster may just be stronger or faster, but I view fitness as something more than just health. Fitness, to me, also includes the ability to survive, which in some parallel universe could include physical challenges to the death. I know that is kind of "out there" but it is what separates health from fitness. Has to do with the ability to attract, or obtain, a mate for procreation. Humans do things a little less barbarically, but the ram that can smash the other rams the hardest gets the girl, makes babies, and therefor, by definition, is more fit.
I definitely agree that there is some minimal level of strength, speed endurance, power, etc. but I have no idea about where that point is. Of course, if you put the question in terms of "survival of the fittest" as ID did, then your analogy of the rams is a good one. Like I said from the beginning, I'm really trying to just sort this out for myself. I think you especially would agree that the person who has the best balance in all categories is probably more fit than the person who excells in only one or two. However, back to your original comment about the 20 lb DL, there still has to be some minimal level of performance.... somewhere... but how do you determine that? So, maybe the comment about "reletive fitness" is right on. You can be more or less fit than someone else or than you were previously in which case a breakdown similar to the one presented would be useful.
I think I'll just go sweat for a while and call it good.
How fit are you?
Linear Mode
