Moderator: Dux
Gin Master wrote:I don't know if there's a cure for your faggotry, but it wouldn't hurt to check out bodyrock.tv with Zuzana (aka adult star Susana Spears).
http://www.spearsfever.com/
When asked,Money Train Rippetoe wrote:High-rep deadlifts are a wonderful metcon exercise, perfectly safe at weights you can do for 21 reps even when done wrong like most CFers do them. The current vogue is to bounce them off the floor to decrease the time and "increase the intensity", with no attention paid to the lumbar extension. It is important to recognize that the work of muscular contraction that is done when the back is set in extension between reps, although not measurable in foot-pounds, is work nonetheless. The pulling together of the z-lines in the sarcomeres of the erector spinae and the holding of this position of isometric contraction consumes ATP. That's why it's easier to go faster if you don't do it, and therefore why your intensity decreases if you sacrifice good spinal position for a faster time.
Ripp said:Would you have the same opinion of some of the snatches that we have seen in a workout like Isabel?
Ripp then goes on to say that:Rippetoe wrote:And the cleans in Grace.
Rippetoe wrote:Faster with shitty form creates holes in the final results.
Long story short, Couch's power formula is inaccurate, and Cultfit's methodology rewards ineffective, corner-cutting training.Rippetoe wrote:But 30 pulls of any type done with the spine held in extension and reset from a dead stop will always involve more ATP-consuming muscular work than 30 bounced reps done with Superball (TM) plates and the spinal erectors allowed to relax and the spinal ligaments allowed to carry the relatively light load. The bar moves the same distance, granted, but the harder-to-quantify isometric work done by the position-holding muscles cannot be ignored in an accurate assessment of the effort, and this extra work is easily observable in the increased time involved in the stricter version of the set.
Is he the one that got slapped down for posting a WOD time with 5 400 meter runs that averaged out to a faster 400 than the world record?The Bastard Son of the Shafman wrote:WRONG! Matt Gagliardi lied about his workout times plenty!
As soon as the WOD blog went up, someone lied about their workout time.
True cultspeak. Funny how all @F can do is rip on everyone else's programming, yet in theirs the ONLY chink is in the athletes themselves. @F programming creates heavily imbalanced physiques. They all get the slumped shoulders due to no exercises that involve scapular retraction and/or significant external rotation elements. The problem is EXACTLY with the programming. The "sloppy" execution only further exacerbates the poor posture that everyone tends towards when heavily fatigued--which is then heavily engrained into the CNS through hundreds of garbage reps.Kelly Starret wrote:The problem is not with the programming, the problem is with the athlete.
How do you measure "work" with exercises, anyway? What I remember from freshman physics is, if you snatch with 135 #, then drop the bar, the amount of "work" done is zero: because the bar is right back where it started. No net displacement. Likewise if you have someone who can't do a pull-up (like, uh, me), and you start them off with doing negatives off the pull-up bar; then the whole time, as they are sweating & straining and working up to a real pull-up, the amount of "work" done is zero because the force is acting against the line of motion.protobuilder wrote:Long story short, Couch's power formula is inaccurateMoney Train Rippetoe wrote:It is important to recognize that the work of muscular contraction that is done when the back is set in extension between reps, although not measurable in foot-pounds, is work nonetheless. The pulling together of the z-lines in the sarcomeres of the erector spinae and the holding of this position of isometric contraction consumes ATP.
Well Jim I'm glad you asked! The Genius of Couch has developed a uniquely innovative, and tested, metric for providing verifiable, and indisputable, hard data of just such modal domains as "work." To wit, the fittest person is the one who can move the most weight the furthest distance in the shortest amount of time. This is "work." Or "power output." Hence, according to Couch's hard science approach and formula-based methodologies, these hard working folks are demonstrating more power output than even the highest skilled Olympian:JimZipCode wrote:How do you measure "work" with exercises, anyway?
The similarity is shocking, especially when combined with Rippetoe's statements above, with the final result being teh awesome...Problems, however, plagued the press from the outset. Although the original intention was for lifters to perform it in “military” style, with body ramrod straight, heels together, and head facing forward, this proved impractical, and various forms of “cheating” developed enabling lifters to use the larger muscle groups of the legs, hips, and lower torso in subtle ways instead of relying on just the arm and shoulder muscles. The urge to win by any means, combined with lax enforcement of rules, political pressures, and ultimately a tradition of drift transformed the press from a strength movement to another quick lift, leading the International Weightlifting Federation to eliminate it from all future competitions at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.
There's nothing inherently dangerous about the Olympic press if performed correctly - there are however, things inherently dangerous with CrossFit, despite how much they try to convince themselves otherwise.Resident Quack wrote:That's an astute observation, from what I've read, since it was all before my time.
From The Tragic History of the Military Press in Olympic and World Championship Competition, 1928-1972:The similarity is shocking, especially when combined with Rippetoe's statements above, with the final result being teh awesome...Problems, however, plagued the press from the outset. Although the original intention was for lifters to perform it in “military” style, with body ramrod straight, heels together, and head facing forward, this proved impractical, and various forms of “cheating” developed enabling lifters to use the larger muscle groups of the legs, hips, and lower torso in subtle ways instead of relying on just the arm and shoulder muscles. The urge to win by any means, combined with lax enforcement of rules, political pressures, and ultimately a tradition of drift transformed the press from a strength movement to another quick lift, leading the International Weightlifting Federation to eliminate it from all future competitions at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HbaApmpa-Po/S ... -h/one.jpgPatrick Donnelly wrote:Resident Quack wrote:There's nothing inherently dangerous about the Olympic press if performed correctly - there are however, things inherently dangerous with CrossFit, despite how much they try to convince themselves otherwise.
No. The amount of work done to the bar by the lifter = weight x height. The bar then gets the free ride down.JimZipCode wrote:How do you measure "work" with exercises, anyway? What I remember from freshman physics is, if you snatch with 135 #, then drop the bar, the amount of "work" done is zero: because the bar is right back where it started.
Actually, at first glance you might think it would be energy dumped into the muscle, and it is if you kip or use a stretch of the muscle to store energy and rebound.Likewise if you have someone who can't do a pull-up (like, uh, me), and you start them off with doing negatives off the pull-up bar; then the whole time, as they are sweating & straining and working up to a real pull-up, the amount of "work" done is zero because the force is acting against the line of motion.
protobuilder wrote:http://strengthmill.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5032 Rippetoe admitting that Cultfitters fuck up barbell training and that Cultfit's beloved power formula is inaccurate and actually rewards poor performance. Uh oh, Couch. Major flaws being pointed out by your few knowledgeable trainers.
When asked,Money Train Rippetoe wrote:High-rep deadlifts are a wonderful metcon exercise, perfectly safe at weights you can do for 21 reps even when done wrong like most CFers do them. The current vogue is to bounce them off the floor to decrease the time and "increase the intensity", with no attention paid to the lumbar extension. It is important to recognize that the work of muscular contraction that is done when the back is set in extension between reps, although not measurable in foot-pounds, is work nonetheless. The pulling together of the z-lines in the sarcomeres of the erector spinae and the holding of this position of isometric contraction consumes ATP. That's why it's easier to go faster if you don't do it, and therefore why your intensity decreases if you sacrifice good spinal position for a faster time.
Ripp said:Would you have the same opinion of some of the snatches that we have seen in a workout like Isabel?
Ripp then goes on to say that:Rippetoe wrote:And the cleans in Grace.
Rippetoe wrote:Faster with shitty form creates holes in the final results.Long story short, Couch's power formula is inaccurate, and Cultfit's methodology rewards ineffective, corner-cutting training.Rippetoe wrote:But 30 pulls of any type done with the spine held in extension and reset from a dead stop will always involve more ATP-consuming muscular work than 30 bounced reps done with Superball (TM) plates and the spinal erectors allowed to relax and the spinal ligaments allowed to carry the relatively light load. The bar moves the same distance, granted, but the harder-to-quantify isometric work done by the position-holding muscles cannot be ignored in an accurate assessment of the effort, and this extra work is easily observable in the increased time involved in the stricter version of the set.
There's also a video of where they attempt to explain the thousand reps of BW squatting they do. They say something to the effect that a top shelf @f'er cat throw out X horsepower for a given time doing the BW squat fast as hell, but a powerlifter squatting a heavy weight at a MUCH lower RMP only puts out Y horsepower.WildGorillaMan wrote: There was a photo off of the @fit main site a year or two back that we had some fun with at the time on P&B. I searched for it recently, but to no avail. In addition to a gratuitous shirtless pic of one of their then-poster boys it had some gobbledeygook formula that proved that push pressing 40kg for a gazillion reps was a greater physical feat than a 1x200kg push press. Total horseshit, in fact I think it claimed to calculate horsepower, or horseshitpower or something.
Wish I could find it. Maybe one of you fuckers has it saved in your haterade folder on your PC.
Then 500x3 in the back squat using a 3 second per rep cadenceMovements
Squat
Reps - 22
Travel, Body - 0.45 meters
Work, Body - 8522.75 joules
Total Work - 8522.75 joules
Duration
:20
20 seconds
Work Performed
8522.75 joules
869.06 kg-m
6286.38 ft-lbs
Power Output
426.14 watts
0.58 horsepower
314.3 ft-lbs/sec
Slightly more to it than w=fd and f=maMovements
Back Squat
Reps - 3
Travel, Body - 0.45 meters
Work, Body - 1162.19 joules
Travel, Weight - 0.69 meters
Work, Weight - 4603.68 joules
Total Work - 5765.87 joules
Duration
:9
9 seconds
Work Performed
5765.87 joules
587.95 kg-m
4252.91 ft-lbs
Power Output
640.65 watts
0.87 horsepower
472.52 ft-lbs/sec
Movements
Back Squat
Reps - 3
Travel, Body - 0.45 meters
Work, Body - 1162.19 joules
Travel, Weight - 0.69 meters
Work, Weight - 4603.68 joules
Total Work - 5765.87 joules
Duration
:15
15 seconds
Work Performed
5765.87 joules
587.95 kg-m
4252.91 ft-lbs
Power Output
384.39 watts
0.52 horsepower
283.51 ft-lbs/sec
I, in fact, have push pressed 200kg. No video but witnesses. Video exists of me push pressing 182.5kg for 3 reps. I could easily train for a month, and match any MFers feat with 40kg. those with the 40kg "achievement" could train a lifetime and not match my 200kg. Get the fuck out of here. I respect anyone, for any difficult feat of strength or endurance. But that is over the top. to equate something special with something rather mundane is, well, not cool.WildGorillaMan wrote:protobuilder wrote:http://strengthmill.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5032 Rippetoe admitting that Cultfitters fuck up barbell training and that Cultfit's beloved power formula is inaccurate and actually rewards poor performance. Uh oh, Couch. Major flaws being pointed out by your few knowledgeable trainers.
When asked,Money Train Rippetoe wrote:High-rep deadlifts are a wonderful metcon exercise, perfectly safe at weights you can do for 21 reps even when done wrong like most CFers do them. The current vogue is to bounce them off the floor to decrease the time and "increase the intensity", with no attention paid to the lumbar extension. It is important to recognize that the work of muscular contraction that is done when the back is set in extension between reps, although not measurable in foot-pounds, is work nonetheless. The pulling together of the z-lines in the sarcomeres of the erector spinae and the holding of this position of isometric contraction consumes ATP. That's why it's easier to go faster if you don't do it, and therefore why your intensity decreases if you sacrifice good spinal position for a faster time.
Ripp said:Would you have the same opinion of some of the snatches that we have seen in a workout like Isabel?
Ripp then goes on to say that:Rippetoe wrote:And the cleans in Grace.
Rippetoe wrote:Faster with shitty form creates holes in the final results.Long story short, Couch's power formula is inaccurate, and Cultfit's methodology rewards ineffective, corner-cutting training.Rippetoe wrote:But 30 pulls of any type done with the spine held in extension and reset from a dead stop will always involve more ATP-consuming muscular work than 30 bounced reps done with Superball (TM) plates and the spinal erectors allowed to relax and the spinal ligaments allowed to carry the relatively light load. The bar moves the same distance, granted, but the harder-to-quantify isometric work done by the position-holding muscles cannot be ignored in an accurate assessment of the effort, and this extra work is easily observable in the increased time involved in the stricter version of the set.
There was a photo off of the @fit main site a year or two back that we had some fun with at the time on P&B. I searched for it recently, but to no avail. In addition to a gratuitous shirtless pic of one of their then-poster boys it had some gobbledeygook formula that proved that push pressing 40kg for a gazillion reps was a greater physical feat than a 1x200kg push press. Total horseshit, in fact I think it claimed to calculate horsepower, or horseshitpower or something.
Wish I could find it. Maybe one of you fuckers has it saved in your haterade folder on your PC.
You're an ASS!syaigh wrote: The thought of eating that giant veiny monstrosity makes me want to barf.
