IGX

bill fox wrote:TODAYS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT

"The kipping pull-up integrates upper and lower extremities, and doubles the work capacity of the pull-up."

"doubles"

I imagine the response is "Well, it increases the workload, that's what he really meant" or "it's a different kind of work" (because, of course, it decreases the muscular load on upper body muscles). Even granting, for the sake of argument, the CF definition of "workload" as applied to the pullup, it's still complete bullshit.

This is what happens when a lawyer tries to understand Physics. So let me ask you, if you compare your max rep count doing kipping pullups versus max rep count doing non-kipping, what is the ratio? If the answer is 2 or close to it, then he is correct.

Nafod:

The intricacies of biomechanics really don't allow simple physics equations to be applied. AT BEST, you can compare a very general bastardized "power" output using those methods with the same individual...it doesn't apply to other individuals.

The reason they have stuff like the Wilkes co-efficient in powerlifting, and the other co-efficients in Olympic lifting is because you can't accurately translate human movement into those basic equations.

It's pseudoscience at the very basic definition of the word.

It's ironic that Gregg, whom professes science has never done anything for the art and science of improving human performance, is attempting to use pseudoscience to make his meager little points.

It plain and simple doesn't work.

He might as well just get a tendo unit or micro muscle lab. At least shit would be more rigorously measured.

he has two 'g's? That's it, I hate him.

Shaf wrote:Nafod:

The intricacies of biomechanics really don't allow simple physics equations to be applied. AT BEST, you can compare a very general bastardized "power" output using those methods with the same individual...it doesn't apply to other individuals.

Be careful about what is being measured here. From the crossfit caption, "From load, distance, and time we calculate work, and work-capacity/intensity/power.. They are measuring the work capacity of the individual there, and all that is, is force x distance. Divide it by time and you get power. It really is that simple, and it would seem to me that is a ground truth measurement of fitness. You are reading too much into it.

The reason they have stuff like the Wilkes co-efficient in powerlifting, and the other co-efficients in Olympic lifting is because you can't accurately translate human movement into those basic equations.

I googled on Wilkes coefficent, and I gather it's some sort of scaling thing that lets a small guy be compared to a big guy. You're right, then everything gets fuzzy and messy, kind of like differing fitness criteria for men versus women.

It's pseudoscience at the very basic definition of the word.

I'd say they are doing hard science as the very basic definition of the word. They are measuring that which can be measured, and only drawing the conclusions that can be drawn. Bob can generate X watts for Y seconds.

He might as well just get a tendo unit or micro muscle lab. At least shit would be more rigorously measured.

What would be more rigorously measured?

There's your problem, which is that you are reading too much into it. One ultimate metric is work/power capacity of the person, which is the ability to apply a force through a distance in minimum time. That is what he is measuring.

nafod wrote:

bill fox wrote:TODAYS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT

"The kipping pull-up integrates upper and lower extremities, and doubles the work capacity of the pull-up."

"doubles"

I imagine the response is "Well, it increases the workload, that's what he really meant" or "it's a different kind of work" (because, of course, it decreases the muscular load on upper body muscles). Even granting, for the sake of argument, the CF definition of "workload" as applied to the pullup, it's still complete bullshit.

This is what happens when a lawyer tries to understand Physics. So let me ask you, if you compare your max rep count doing kipping pullups versus max rep count doing non-kipping, what is the ratio? If the answer is 2 or close to it, then he is correct.

That's as stupid as what he wrote. Initially I could do 27 tactical pullups and less kipping, after working on the kipping I could do 37 kipping, did the ratio of potential workload increase, or did my skill increase, and what was my relative skill on the tacticals to my potential, and so on.

It's a nonsense staement. Let it stand. As Steamboat has pointed out, it doesn't mean 25 rounds of Cindy isn't a good workout, it just means Couch talks shit.

bill fox wrote:

nafod wrote: This is what happens when a lawyer tries to understand Physics. So let me ask you, if you compare your max rep count doing kipping pullups versus max rep count doing non-kipping, what is the ratio? If the answer is 2 or close to it, then he is correct.

That's as stupid as what he wrote. Initially I could do 27 tactical pullups and less kipping, after working on the kipping I could do 37 kipping, did the ratio of potential workload increase, or did my skill increase, and what was my relative skill on the tacticals to my potential, and so on.

You're as stupid as you think he is. You didn't answer the question. If you went and did strict non-kipping pullups today, how many can you do? If you do kipping tomorrow, how many can you do? Don't get stuck on stupid, talking about training, skill efficiency, etc. Just raw work capacity in a pullup workout, head to head kipping versus non-kipping. If the number doubles, you have doubled the total amount of work done, because work = weight x total distance lifted, and you have doubled the distance lifted, and so you are doubling the total work capacity of a pullup workout.

Between you and Shaf, Sir Isaac Newton is rolling in his grave.

nafod wrote:I'd say they are doing hard science as the very basic definition of the word. They are measuring that which can be measured, and only drawing the conclusions that can be drawn. Bob can generate X watts for Y seconds.

That's not science. As long as you are google-monkey today, look up "Scientific Method." Stuff that follows that is science. Glassman/Ellis/Huckster 3.0 do all kinds of shit that looks like science to impress the fuckwits.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

nafod wrote:I'd say they are doing hard science as the very basic definition of the word. They are measuring that which can be measured, and only drawing the conclusions that can be drawn. Bob can generate X watts for Y seconds.

That's not science. As long as you are google-monkey today, look up "Scientific Method.".

He hypothesizes that his workouts improve power output. He directly measures it before and after using the most basic lifts, either proving or disproving the hypothesis. Then he tailors the workouts to improve the results. Explain to me how that is not the scientific method.

nafod wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

nafod wrote:I'd say they are doing hard science as the very basic definition of the word. They are measuring that which can be measured, and only drawing the conclusions that can be drawn. Bob can generate X watts for Y seconds.

That's not science. As long as you are google-monkey today, look up "Scientific Method.".

He hypothesizes that his workouts improve power output. He directly measures it before and after using the most basic lifts, either proving or disproving the hypothesis. Then he tailors the workouts to improve the results. Explain to me how that is not the scientific method.

LMAO!. That's funny I thought he said this:
From load, distance, and time we calculate work, and work- capacity/intensity/power.

Be careful. Couch doesn't like having words put in his mouth. He'll Hills you so fast your head will spin.

Both the basis of the "experiment" and the "tools" he's using to measure are fundamentally flawed. Because it's fundamentally wrong, it's pseudoscience.

You can't apply that equation to a living system with any degree of accuracy or usefulness. It's just a bunch of jacking off with a number that doesn't mean anything in the real world.

The whole proposition of measuring work output to gage a movement's (or workouts) "functionality" or "effectiveness" or "virtuosity" is flawed from the get-go when you start comparing two or more different individuals.

It all breaks down if you run the numbers. Let's assume these are done by the same individual, so we don't have to calculate the retard numbers.

Squat:

a. 300x20 = 6000 lbs of work done.
b. 500x5 = 2500 lbs of work done

Yet which set is going to enhance maximal strength (which relates WAY more closely to the qualities that matter) better?

Yep. It's going to be (b). It's because what matters is the average work done per repetition.

The proper type of analogy can be drawn from martial arts and breaking boards. You have to be going hard enough and fast enough to break the board. If you aren't, it's not going to happen. Gregg is trying to show that if you hit the board enough times weakly that it gets the job done better than if you hit it once, with enough force to do the job.

Maximal strength determines the reservoir of resources to draw upon. This is why a guy who squats 500# will be so much better at more XF "qualities" so much quicker than the one who squats 300#, given the same bodyweight.

Let me repost this, because this is the heart of the matter:

The proper type of analogy can be drawn from martial arts and breaking boards. You have to be going hard enough and fast enough to break the board. If you aren't, it's not going to happen. Gregg is trying to show that if you hit the board enough times weakly that it gets the job done better than if you hit it once, with enough force to do the job.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

nafod wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

nafod wrote:I'd say they are doing hard science as the very basic definition of the word. They are measuring that which can be measured, and only drawing the conclusions that can be drawn. Bob can generate X watts for Y seconds.

That's not science. As long as you are google-monkey today, look up "Scientific Method.".

He hypothesizes that his workouts improve power output. He directly measures it before and after using the most basic lifts, either proving or disproving the hypothesis. Then he tailors the workouts to improve the results. Explain to me how that is not the scientific method.

LMAO!. That's funny I thought he said this:
From load, distance, and time we calculate work, and work- capacity/intensity/power.

Be careful. Couch doesn't like having words put in his mouth. He'll Hills you so fast your head will spin.

You lost me there. How did my statement conflict with his? Sounds like they are in confluence.

Shaf wrote:Both the basis of the "experiment" and the "tools" he's using to measure are fundamentally flawed. Because it's fundamentally wrong, it's pseudoscience.

Your argument is flawed, because you are confusing training for something with measuring it. You seem to keep thinking that what he is doing is providing a means of comparing one person to another. I don't se that. I see him focused on testing one workout protocol against another.

You can't apply that equation to a living system with any degree of accuracy or usefulness. It's just a bunch of jacking off with a number that doesn't mean anything in the real world.

You can exactly apply the numbers to a living system. If my 1RM is 50 LBs, that's what it is. If I can generated 200 watts for 10 minutes, that's what it is.

The whole proposition of measuring work output to gage a movement's (or workouts) "functionality" or "effectiveness" or "virtuosity" is flawed from the get-go when you start comparing two or more different individuals.

If the goal of a workout program is to improve power output, how do you suggest measuring its efficacy? And of course you want to test it against two or more individuals. you want to test it against as many as possible, to get a statistically representative sample.

It all breaks down if you run the numbers. Let's assume these are done by the same individual, so we don't have to calculate the retard numbers.

Squat:

a. 300x20 = 6000 lbs of work done.
b. 500x5 = 2500 lbs of work done

No, that is not the work done. Work is not measured in LBs.

Yet which set is going to enhance maximal strength (which relates WAY more closely to the qualities that matter) better?

Don't confuse how you train with the measurement of the program's effectiveness. You feel that strength training is a key to improving power-endurance? Great, have lots of people do the program, measure the results, and you've got empirical science.

But are you saying that to *measure* power-endurance (which is what he is doing in that caption), you should actually measure the 1RM? I doubt that is what you mean, but it sure sounds like that is what you are saying.

Yep. It's going to be (b). It's because what matters is the average work done per repetition.

He is *measuring* the work capacity here. You will not get a good measurement of power-endurance with a weight that you can only do 6 reps with, where end strength is the limiting factor, and could probably do the entire set holding your breath.

Maximal strength determines the reservoir of resources to draw upon. This is why a guy who squats 500# will be so much better at more XF "qualities" so much quicker than the one who squats 300#, given the same bodyweight.

Great, strength is listed as one of the ten fitness metrics and more strength undoubtedly means more power-endurance, but when it comes time to *measure* power-endurance, you do so using a power-endurance exercise, which is what he was doing. Again, duh.

Shaf wrote:It's ironic that Gregg, whom professes science has never done anything for the art and science of improving human performance, is attempting to use pseudoscience to make his meager little points.

There are two main uses for science, to explain and to predict. Over the course of the fitness world, I don't think science has done that much to predict ahead of time what fitness protocol to follow. It has mostly been used to explain. I haven't seen the analogue to Newton's Laws that let you predict the effect ahead of new, unseen fitness protocol ahead of time. You pretty much have to run the experiment.

And you are right in that he tends to float out some scientific explanations for his results that come across as uninformed by true knowledge. But in the end the explanation doesn't really matter.

This is awesome.

Greatest thread of all time on the internets of this and any other world.

Nafod is lonely on Friday nights.

Fat Cat wrote:Nafod is lonely on Friday nights.

I liked your THUNDAHDOME! post better. But you're right, I'm stuck home watching the chitlins for a long weekend while mom rescues her parents. And it's raining. And I hate daytime TV. Ready to argue...

I don't know why I bother.

My personal distaste for Glassman and his spin doctors is high enough to take the contrarian view no matter what.

As far as that other shit...you're just wrong. Maybe some of the shit I posted doesn't apply, but exercise physiologists and biomechanists have pretty much cleared the proper path already.

Shaf wrote:I don't know why I bother.

My personal distaste for Glassman and his spin doctors is high enough to take the contrarian view no matter what.

See, you asked the question and answered it in the same post. Cool.

Shaf, you have great knowledge and mad skillz, and I respect your opinion. I think you are letting @fit-hate cause you to interpret everything that gets posted there in the worst possible way, in short letting emotion trump fact.

As far as that other shit...you're just wrong. Maybe some of the shit I posted doesn't apply, but exercise physiologists and biomechanists have pretty much cleared the proper path already.

Tell you what, I will head on over and chat up my exercise physiology bubbas here at the State University and ask them their opinion. I'll show them the page and see if they think any sort of useful data can be gathered by the method @fit is using, with tape measures and weights and timers. And if they tell me I am in fact FOS, that you have to in fact stick a probe up the ass to get decent data or something like that, I'll come back here and report it and acknowledge your superiority.

Hey Nafod,

You are not FOS. It's very simple physics.

Shaf,

Sorry man but there are alot of holes in your arguments.

Bill,

I love you brother but you're a little off too. If my fat ass, 203lb, does 10 strict pull-ups in one minute and then bust out 20 kipping ones at the same weight in one minute I have doubled the workload.

Jason wrote:
Bill,

I love you brother but you're a little off too. If my fat ass, 203lb, does 10 strict pull-ups in one minute and then bust out 20 kipping ones at the same weight in one minute I have doubled the workload.

I refuse to contribute to the decidedly CF tone this thread has taken.

I'll deal with your fat ass in person brother.

Bill

bill fox wrote: I'll deal with your fat ass in person brother.
Bill

(breaks out custom shirt...)

GDG!

Jason wrote:Hey Nafod,

You are not FOS. It's very simple physics.

Shaf,

Sorry man but there are alot of holes in your arguments.

Bill,

I love you brother but you're a little off too. If my fat ass, 203lb, does 10 strict pull-ups in one minute and then bust out 20 kipping ones at the same weight in one minute I have doubled the workload.

Jason, you did 10 reps strict & 20 reps kipping. You did twice as many reps. Doubling yor workload would have been accomplished by doing 20 reops strictly in the minute. You just performed an easier exercise so naturally knocked out more reps. I don't see how that = doubling workload - you, in fact, changed the exercise.

Nafod - thanks for the sig.
Anybody taking bets on how many times Nafod has tried a heavy set of squats?

Nafod specializes in talking about things he doesn't know anything about. It's part of his Devil May Care way with the truth. Charming, like a pygmy.