IGX

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:They brought

1 set of rings
1 kettlebell
1 rogue oly bar
1 25# bumpers.

LULZ!

no chalk?

There's already plenty of chalk. There's a group of strongmen who use the the space when comps are imminent.

Fuckers left their stones, kegs, and fbars, but didn't leave the goddamn log bar, which was what I was interested in using. Tried the stones one day, I am a decade out of practice for that shit.

Hah, I meant to say 2 25lb bumpers.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:
Hah, I meant to say 2 25lb bumpers.

Must've been heavy deadlift day.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:They brought

1 set of rings
1 kettlebell
1 rogue oly bar
1 25# bumpers.

LULZ!

Do they throw the bar to the floor like they just pressed the world after lifting a wicked 95 lbs ?
One of my biggest gripes about @fitters is the way they launch KBs or throw down bars as if they are disposable and cost nothing. If you have to dump something, dump it but don't do a stupid "American" swing and then heave the KB from the top after the last rep. Or smash the bar down after each of your monster snatches in "Isabel". I've seen idiots doing sets of 5 DLs as part of a WOD and they have to drop the goddam bar after EVERY fucking pull. Do any of these morons know how much this shit costs ???
Must....calm....down. I hate to see good equipment abused, knowing that in the right gym, it would be treated like gold.

Confused wrote:

TheCoug wrote:By the way, as a tried and true crossfitter, I consider myself "kind of unique" in every way.

Cougar,
Honest question. In what way are you unique? Are you like all the other @fitters who are so unique they have to put up video blogs and websites broadcasting their uniqueness?
<<<<q <<<<q <<<<q <<<<q <<<<q

She's only here because arsebook is playing up. Heh, arse ... Some dns squatter fucker registered arsebook.com in 2005.

I love how the fucking 10# bumpers are all fucked up from weak ass @fitters dropping the bar only the 10's on the damned thing.

Ed Zachary wrote:I love how the fucking 10# bumpers are all fucked up from weak ass @fitters dropping the bar only the 10's on the damned thing.

i only just this week found out that the UK's "Leading" supplier of bumpers to XFers sells 5kg bumpers with the stipulation that they can not be dropped alone. the fuck?

The dropping of the barbell bit is a classic case of human monkeys copying what they see other monkeys doing without any inclination as to why the other monkey is doing it.

If you can't lower a fucking 95lbs barbell under control without injuring yourself then you have no business doing the lift that you're attempting. 95lbs is a decent weight for barbell curls...for a medium built boy in junior high. If weight that light has to be dumped then you don't need Olympic lifting...you need a copy of Arnold's 'Education of a Bodybuilder' or maybe 'Brawn' and put some muscle and strength on your narrow ass.

A new @F trend is to make technique plates out of plywood.

One major reason for them doing this is so that they wooden plates can be used with the uberlight rubber bumpers, so that when the weight is dropped, it doesn't "taco" the 10# bumpers.

As always, the better solution would be to just learn how to lift properly...but actually including "virtuosity" (or even "competence") in the definition of fitness might increase it to such a magnitude as to be completely indescribable even to the best @F doublespeakers.

Sam Ser's question was so well-put...someone please C&P the doublespeak answers from Pudding and Co.

Quackmire wrote:A new @F trend is to make technique plates out of plywood.

One major reason for them doing this is so that they wooden plates can be used with the uberlight rubber bumpers, so that when the weight is dropped, it doesn't "taco" the 10# bumpers.

As always, the better solution would be to just learn how to lift properly...but actually including "virtuosity" (or even "competence") in the definition of fitness might increase it to such a magnitude as to be completely indescribable even to the best @F doublespeakers.

Sam Ser's question was so well-put...someone please C&P the doublespeak answers from Pudding and Co.

"The fitness industry has been around for a long time. People have been getting stronger, faster, and fitter using gymnastics, calisthenics, weightlifting, metabolic monostructural exercises, and various combinations thereof. If you think that's what CrossFit is, then you are correct, there is nothing new.
But that is not really what CrossFit is. The primary unique contribution CrossFit made has been our definition of fitness (increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains) and the mechanism to get there (constantly varied, functional movements performed at high intensity). We have defined these terms effectively and in such a way as they can be measured. This measurement has allowed the meteoric rise of fitness levels over the past decade.
There has been some debate here about what is and isn't CrossFit. First, defining the goal (fitness) is CrossFit. Not defining your terms is not CrossFit. Second, experimenting with a variety of functional movements at intensity in order to optimize fitness is CrossFit. Not trying to improve fitness by some measurable indicator would not be CrossFit.
How varied should "constantly" be? As varied as necessary to optimize fitness. How "intense" should the exercises be? As intense as possible to optimize fitness. How "functional" should they be? As functional as needed to optimize fitness.
Another key point to remember is that these terms and experiments didn't exist in the same way before CrossFit. People were not talking about measuring work capacity across broad time and modal domains. Some people were measuring work and power in limited domains specific to their sport, but that is different.
Why is this so significant? Because it is the benchmark around which everyone seeking elite fitness can operate and evaluate their progress. The debate about who is fittest has been around forever. Is the Tour de France winner fitter than the Welterweight Boxing Champion of the World? Before CrossFit's concise and measurable definition, there was no way to reconcile or test either claim.
Furthermore, demonstrating increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains in the gym really does translate into better real world fitness. This has made a world of difference for soldiers and first responders around the world, to name just two populations.
The second major contribution was the prescription for achieving the highest levels of fitness (constantly varied functional movements at high intensity). Again, we have seen people doing functional movements at high intensity for a very long time, but the identification of functional movements (as we define them - see other articles in the Journal for more information) as the primary vehicle by which fitness is achieved has enormous implications. The entire community can now avoid an entire category of movement (non-functional movements), making their fitness efforts that much more efficient and effective.
Combining functional movements specifically to maximize intensity (average power) was never established before CrossFit. People experimented with it in small areas, but this change in the breadth of scope of the experiment is unique and very substantial.
Again, you can look back and see that these movements going on forever, and some of you are saying that means CrossFit isn't unique. But there is a huge difference between focused effort with a measurable goal and various types of experimentation. That difference has been improved fitness for the average fitness enthusiast, and the highest levels of elite fitness in history.
Now, we claim that the winners of the CrossFit Games are the fittest man and woman on the planet. There are many who dispute this claim, but as of yet, no one has directly challenged any of our winners. We would be more than willing to set up the competition (and, in fact, this year's Games are one example).
Furthermore, these CrossFit Games are the first of its kind. Just as MMA originally provided a forum for who would win, the boxer or the wrestler (or any martial artist for that matter), the CrossFit Games provide the first forum for any athlete of any background to compete in the sport of fitness. Of course, there is room for someone to say that our Games are actually not the best test of fitness, but then there would be an onus on them to provide a better one. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
The bottom line is that the refinements CrossFit has made in three areas: a concise and measurable definition of fitness, the prescription on how to achieve it, and a forum for how to evaluate it have made an enormous difference in the industry.
This is an open standard that anyone can debate or compete in. That's not at all about image. In fact, I'm not sure how much more substantive we can get. I have made broad claims with specific opportunities for evidence that would either support or contradict the claims. If you respond, please address the claims and evidence specifically, and support your claims with your own evidence. This kind of debate is precisely the original intent of the CrossFit Journal."

Crossfit is about being the very best at shit that nobody else gives a fuck about.

Talk about diarrhea of the mouth. Jesus fucking Christ.
blah blah modal blah functionblah increased

The primary unique contribution CrossFit made has been our definition of fitness (increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains) and the mechanism to get there (constantly varied, functional movements performed at high intensity). We have defined these terms effectively and in such a way as they can be measured. This measurement has allowed the meteoric rise of fitness levels over the past decade.

LMFAO

Who can fucking read this shit. It's all just such made up bullshit. But what else is new. Primary contribution was (a) redefining things, and (b) telling people to do shit randomly even though (1) nobody actually bothers to do it that way anymore, and (b) the ones that do aren't winning the Gaymes. LOL!

Is it Friday yet?

Cave Canem wrote:

Quackmire wrote:A new @F trend is to make technique plates out of plywood.

One major reason for them doing this is so that they wooden plates can be used with the uberlight rubber bumpers, so that when the weight is dropped, it doesn't "taco" the 10# bumpers.

As always, the better solution would be to just learn how to lift properly...but actually including "virtuosity" (or even "competence") in the definition of fitness might increase it to such a magnitude as to be completely indescribable even to the best @F doublespeakers.

Sam Ser's question was so well-put...someone please C&P the doublespeak answers from Pudding and Co.

"The fitness industry has been around for a long time. People have been getting stronger, faster, and fitter using gymnastics, calisthenics, weightlifting, metabolic monostructural exercises, and various combinations thereof. If you think that's what CrossFit is, then you are correct, there is nothing new.
But that is not really what CrossFit is. The primary unique contribution CrossFit made has been our definition of fitness (increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains) and the mechanism to get there (constantly varied, functional movements performed at high intensity). We have defined these terms effectively and in such a way as they can be measured. This measurement has allowed the meteoric rise of fitness levels over the past decade.
There has been some debate here about what is and isn't CrossFit. First, defining the goal (fitness) is CrossFit. Not defining your terms is not CrossFit. Second, experimenting with a variety of functional movements at intensity in order to optimize fitness is CrossFit. Not trying to improve fitness by some measurable indicator would not be CrossFit.
How varied should "constantly" be? As varied as necessary to optimize fitness. How "intense" should the exercises be? As intense as possible to optimize fitness. How "functional" should they be? As functional as needed to optimize fitness.
Another key point to remember is that these terms and experiments didn't exist in the same way before CrossFit. People were not talking about measuring work capacity across broad time and modal domains. Some people were measuring work and power in limited domains specific to their sport, but that is different.
Why is this so significant? Because it is the benchmark around which everyone seeking elite fitness can operate and evaluate their progress. The debate about who is fittest has been around forever. Is the Tour de France winner fitter than the Welterweight Boxing Champion of the World? Before CrossFit's concise and measurable definition, there was no way to reconcile or test either claim.
Furthermore, demonstrating increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains in the gym really does translate into better real world fitness. This has made a world of difference for soldiers and first responders around the world, to name just two populations.
The second major contribution was the prescription for achieving the highest levels of fitness (constantly varied functional movements at high intensity). Again, we have seen people doing functional movements at high intensity for a very long time, but the identification of functional movements (as we define them - see other articles in the Journal for more information) as the primary vehicle by which fitness is achieved has enormous implications. The entire community can now avoid an entire category of movement (non-functional movements), making their fitness efforts that much more efficient and effective.
Combining functional movements specifically to maximize intensity (average power) was never established before CrossFit. People experimented with it in small areas, but this change in the breadth of scope of the experiment is unique and very substantial.
Again, you can look back and see that these movements going on forever, and some of you are saying that means CrossFit isn't unique. But there is a huge difference between focused effort with a measurable goal and various types of experimentation. That difference has been improved fitness for the average fitness enthusiast, and the highest levels of elite fitness in history.
Now, we claim that the winners of the CrossFit Games are the fittest man and woman on the planet. There are many who dispute this claim, but as of yet, no one has directly challenged any of our winners. We would be more than willing to set up the competition (and, in fact, this year's Games are one example).
Furthermore, these CrossFit Games are the first of its kind. Just as MMA originally provided a forum for who would win, the boxer or the wrestler (or any martial artist for that matter), the CrossFit Games provide the first forum for any athlete of any background to compete in the sport of fitness. Of course, there is room for someone to say that our Games are actually not the best test of fitness, but then there would be an onus on them to provide a better one. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
The bottom line is that the refinements CrossFit has made in three areas: a concise and measurable definition of fitness, the prescription on how to achieve it, and a forum for how to evaluate it have made an enormous difference in the industry.
This is an open standard that anyone can debate or compete in. That's not at all about image. In fact, I'm not sure how much more substantive we can get. I have made broad claims with specific opportunities for evidence that would either support or contradict the claims. If you respond, please address the claims and evidence specifically, and support your claims with your own evidence. This kind of debate is precisely the original intent of the CrossFit Journal."

Good answer.

Next question: Where's the RRG?

WildGorillaMan wrote:Good answer.

Next question: Where's the RRG?

=D> =D> =D>

Um...broad time and modal domains....insurance....Wyoming....Reebok...coming soon!

The bottom line is that the refinements CrossFit has made in three areas: a concise and measurable definition of fitness, the prescription on how to achieve it, and a forum for how to evaluate it have made an enormous difference in the industry.

I think this is a very valuable and useful post. Now we know precisely where we can disagree with them.
1. Disagree about definition of fitness.
2. Disagree that their definition is really "measurable" in a useful way.
3. Disagree with the implementation of their prescription (prescription so vague as to subsume all valuable training done for traditional sports prep, their suggested programming does not achieve their stated goals).
4. Disagree that their forum, the CrossFit Games and other CrossFit competitions measures fitness by their definition.

You have to make arguments to show the connection between what you're doing and what you're claiming. They really don't ever bridge that gap. They have to bridge all four.

EDIT: The "open standard" and "compete in" are both posturing to shift the goalposts of the debate because they tacitly assume one has bridged those four big gaps. This is marketing and this is image. Sorry, Pudding.

Shifting goalposts? How unlike them.

tzg wrote:

The bottom line is that the refinements CrossFit has made in three areas: a concise and measurable definition of fitness, the prescription on how to achieve it, and a forum for how to evaluate it have made an enormous difference in the industry.

I think this is a very valuable and useful post. Now we know precisely where we can disagree with them.
1. Disagree about definition of fitness.
2. Disagree that their definition is really "measurable" in a useful way.
3. Disagree with the implementation of their prescription (prescription so vague as to subsume all valuable training done for traditional sports prep, their suggested programming does not achieve their stated goals).
4. Disagree that their forum, the CrossFit Games and other CrossFit competitions measures fitness by their definition.

You have to make arguments to show the connection between what you're doing and what you're claiming. They really don't ever bridge that gap. They have to bridge all four.

EDIT: The "open standard" and "compete in" are both posturing to shift the goalposts of the debate because they tacitly assume one has bridged those four big gaps. This is marketing and this is image. Sorry, Pudding.

Caviston already prisonsexed couch on measurability. His writings should be in the nuggets.

Too bad we couldn't get him to read that really long paragraph. I got lost.

If there is a "rule" in strength and conditioning, it would be that one's "definitions" ALWAYS support what one is doing. So, powerlifters make swimmers Bench, Squat and DL, O lifters make grandma do Front Squats and bodybuilders make basketball players work on symmetry.

Once you "define" what you do as the truth, well, then hire Damon Wayons to explainify it.

Shapecharge wrote:That was a really good idea but I think the medical history is what is making her hesitant. I'm sorry Cougie but we can't have you givin' the guys here the hep, the herp, and the hiv in one shot. Maybe we can waive the medical history if the lucky IGx'er triple-wraps? Given your age you may be a little dry down there so a third party with some type of lube spray may be needed to stand by for an emergency spritz or there may be a risk of fire from burning latex.

You're a dirty gear whore. I understood that this was a NO-NO-NO undertaking.

Gin Master wrote:

Shapecharge wrote:That was a really good idea but I think the medical history is what is making her hesitant. I'm sorry Cougie but we can't have you givin' the guys here the hep, the herp, and the hiv in one shot. Maybe we can waive the medical history if the lucky IGx'er triple-wraps? Given your age you may be a little dry down there so a third party with some type of lube spray may be needed to stand by for an emergency spritz or there may be a risk of fire from burning latex.

You're a dirty gear whore. I understood that this was a NO-NO-NO undertaking.

Why shower with a raincoat on, amirite?

Danny John wrote:If there is a "rule" in strength and conditioning, it would be that one's "definitions" ALWAYS support what one is doing. So, powerlifters make swimmers Bench, Squat and DL, O lifters make grandma do Front Squats and bodybuilders make basketball players work on symmetry.

Once you "define" what you do as the truth, well, then hire Damon Wayons to explainify it.

Indeed. This is also why I have a hard time with some stripes of libertarian. You have to cut them off right at the beginning. I also forgot to include:
5. Didn't explain why we should care about "fitness" under this definition.

Great, you have these broad domains or something and you claim to be able to measure them (I'll let them have their conceit for the moment). But we care about things that are a lot easier to measure: sports performance. How far did the shotput go. How much did I snatch. How fast did I run 10K. How well did I perform on the field. If you want a broader measure, what did I score in the decathlon. Why should I care about this other measure? Why should it have a special place?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Caviston already prisonsexed couch on measurability. His writings should be in the nuggets.

Yes they should.

tzg wrote: Why should I care about this other measure? Why should it have a special place?

You just don't get it do you? You stupid insect.

Suppose you want to "move that couch across the house," "snatch those groceries out of the car," "walk up 5 flights of stairs faster than your co-worker," and "look like you don't workout even though you spend $150 per month for the gym" and literally, myriads of other benefits that increased GPP has for the average joe/jane.

How else can you expect to excel at sports?