IGX

WildGorillaMan wrote:She bears a slight resemblance to that melon-crushing girl from a few pages back.

WildGorillaMan wrote:Even the HQ Affiliate page is onboard with Androgen Friday:



I see that the Breakfast of Champions, 24 raw eggs and a handful of A-Bombs isn't just for dudes anymore.

Thud wrote:You guys would fuck Charles Bronson if he wore the right wig.

Thud wrote:You guys would fuck Charles Bronson if he wore the right wig.

GoDogGo! wrote:Damn, that bottom blonde looks like the girl who was running around with The Doctor in the new "Doctor Who." Sure it isn't, though.

This thread has gone to shit with the onslaught of peasant @fit refugees that have sought asylum here after couch's most recent cultural revolution. All this endless fascination with andro chicks is killing this thread. You homos are a hair’s breadth from gay porn Thursdays which will soon morph into gay porn every day. Can you people please stop sucking so much?

WildGorillaMan wrote:Back on track here, as we know, AtLarge Nutrition is a sponsor of the Gaymes. Owner Chris Mason has a long and happy history of having very public fallings out with the groups he sponsors. What's the over/under on him yanking his sponsorship before the big day?

protobuilder wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Back on track here, as we know, AtLarge Nutrition is a sponsor of the Gaymes. Owner Chris Mason has a long and happy history of having very public fallings out with the groups he sponsors. What's the over/under on him yanking his sponsorship before the big day?

The odds aren't good, actually. Like all good supplement whores, Mason prays to the almighty dollar first and foremost, with a nice sheen of easily-erased principles on top. Sound familiar? This is the start of a beautiful relationship! Businessman meets businessman meets a heapful of "suckers born every day."

The only less shocking thing here is that Glassman hasn't figured out he could make millions by launching a Cultfit supplements line.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:
Overall, XFers seem to be more discerning about supplements than teenage bodybuilders or fat powerlifters.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:WGM's statement comes direction from Lincoln B, an olympic lifter and former XF affiliate owner, whom observed his fat mom, fat dad, and fat sisters drinking shitloads of diet soda, and coming to the conclusion that it makes you fat.

WildGorillaMan wrote:Back on track here, as we know, AtLarge Nutrition is a sponsor of the Gaymes. Owner Chris Mason has a long and happy history of having very public fallings out with the groups he sponsors. What's the over/under on him yanking his sponsorship before the big day?

Questions about Crossfit come up pretty frequently and I’ve addressed some of them, but I’ll deal with the topic again in more detail. Sit back and get comfortable, this may take a while.

Any discussion about Crossfit should probably begin with deciding what exactly Crossfit is. It uses a lot of concepts like circuit training, interval training, calisthenics, Olympic lifting etc. yet none of these are unique to Crossfit. Just using these activities in your training doesn’t automatically mean you are doing Crossfit, though Crossfit has claimed some prominent athletes are “Crossfitters” because they do some of the things that Crossfitters also do, even if those athletes spend most of their time doing endurance training for sports like triathlon or rowing. On the other hand, I’ve met people who describe themselves as “Crossfitters” even though what they do doesn’t really seem to match what I’ve seen on the Crossfit web page. So when I talk about “Crossfit”, understand that I’m talking specifically about the training described at Crossfit.com and their “Workouts of the Day”, which may be different from what you think of as Crossfit or what you might be doing if you work out at one of their affiliate gyms doing affiliate programming.

Recognize also that my comments about Crossfit are directed towards guys preparing for BUD/S, and the SEAL & SWCC communities, not people in the general public with different needs or interests. I don’t recommend Crossfit as prep for BUD/S, although it does have some merits. Intensity is the single most important factor related to adaptation, but intensity must be used properly. Variety is good, but variety must be balanced with consistency. A willingness to push the envelope and think outside the box is also good, but within reason. I have several criticisms which I will explain directly. Also, Crossfit promotes ideas on nutrition (Zone diet) which directly contradict sports science research on performance, and ideas about running (POSE technique) that have not been validated by empirical research and should be approached cautiously. Here are links to some of my previous comments on these topics:

http://sealswcc.com/forum/topic.php?id=30#post-78
http://sealswcc.com/forum/topic.php?id=87
http://sealswcc.com/forum/topic.php?id=106
http://sealswcc.com/blog/index.php/archives/10

One of my criticisms of Crossfit for BUD/S candidates is a lack of specificity, and while they say up front their program is about general fitness and that they specialize in NOT specializing, that is not the right approach for BUD/S. BUD/S is an event with known physical demands, and these should be addressed with a program specifically designed for BUD/S. The random nature of Crossfit programming will not adequately address the major events in BUD/S or mentally prepare you for its hardships. The idea that performing randomly selected activities or modes of exercise will somehow condition you for Hell Week is at best naive. The concept of Mental Toughness and what defines the successful BUD/S student has been thoroughly studied by some very smart people at NSW. Mental Toughness is taught to BUD/S students, and it has nothing to do with the random challenges approach.

Other criticisms of Crossfit include:
• Illogical combinations of exercises (such as pre-fatiguing exercises before heavy dead lifts)
• Prescribing the same workouts (including the same weight) for everybody regardless of personal history of training or injury
• Arbitrary goals (such as using 50 or 100 reps for multiple exercises)
• Prescription of exercises that require specialized skills and baseline conditioning and are not appropriate for beginners under high-intensity conditions (Olympic lifts, kettle bells)
• Use of exercises of questionable safety if done rapidly or while fatigued (glute-ham sit-ups, muscle ups, Turkish get-ups)
• Exclusion of useful exercises (such as leg curls or biceps curls) as being “nonfunctional”
• Formats that reward poor technique, such as shortening the ROM to get more reps in less time (despite the lip service Crossfit gives to technique, it is rarely observed in practice)
• Too many formats that blend strength and endurance activities such that the effectiveness of both are diluted (better to perform strength and endurance activities independently most of the time)

Some of the key physiological adaptations necessary for BUD/S not adequately addressed by the Crossfit methodology include endurance, eccentric conditioning, and strengthening in multiple planes. Eccentric conditioning means properly emphasizing the negative (downward) portion of movements, which is necessary for developing resistance to injury as well as the ability to control heavy weights (such as logs and boats), and is not addressed by high-speed reps or by lifting weights up and then dropping them. Strength in multiple planes requires movements that utilize hip abduction, trunk rotation, and shoulder internal/external rotation.

Crossfit has been criticized for risk of injury, a legitimate concern for any conditioning program, certainly not only for Crossfit. Preparing for BUD/S (or to deploy as a SEAL) is serious business and requires serious training. It is unrealistic to expect training to be injury-free. But the benefits of training should always outweigh the potential risks. Preparation for BUD/S should leave you strong and healthy and free of damage, not carrying the baggage of any training-induced injuries or complaints that may pop up again under the heavy demands of BUD/S. For a SEAL, statistics show he is more likely to be injured while in the gym or doing recreational activities than doing anything else related to the job (including completing a mission). It is appropriate and obligatory to scrutinize a training program for the potential to cause injury. In the past I spent years working with doctors, athletic trainers, and physical therapists who treat Division I and Olympic athletes in many sports, and now I work with the medical personnel who treat BUD/S students and SEALs, collaborating to develop conditioning routines that enhance and complement operational training, not hinder it. (Physical training refers to conditioning activities like running and weight lifting, while operational training refers to developing specific warrior skills like weapons, breaching, CQD, etc.) For example, there have been incidences of students or operators left unable to properly handle a weapon after tearing up their hands or tweaking their elbows or shoulders while doing some high-rep high-speed routine involving pull-ups, kettle bells and Olympic bars. Guys have also been treated for rhabdomyolysis following such routines. Such routines are also associated with the type of overuse repetitive stress injuries that can plague a guy for his entire career. As an aside, it is instructive to talk to SEALs in different age groups about their training history. Guys in their 20s still think they’re bullet proof and all that talk about injury just means you’re a wuss. Guys in their 30s are a little more cautious. Guys in their 40s and 50s are wishing they could go back and do things differently.

Another criticism of Crossfit is a lack of reliable evidence to support its effectiveness or safety. Despite frequent use of phrases such as “empirically driven” and “measurable, observable, repeatable”, there is no publicly available data concerning Crossfit. Anecdotal accounts and testimonials on the Crossfit web site aren’t acceptable because they are unverifiable and represent a self-selected sample. Perhaps someday comparisons of Crossfit WODs with other training programs will be conducted on matched sample groups (age, experience, initial fitness, etc.) by unbiased and independent researchers to determine the effects on measures of health and performance, and if those comparisons are favorable I will be glad to recommend Crossfit among the training options available to BUD/S candidates.

Regarding the statements made here:
http://www.board.crossfit.com/showthrea ... 448&page=3
Crossfit is definitely NOT part of the official curriculum at BUD/S. Some BUD/S Instructors have been interested in Crossfit and have had their students perform PTs that are clearly influenced by or copied from Crossfit. For example, a recent class during the eight weeks of Second Phase did six PTs that included the following:
• 50 reps each of slam ball, wall ball, pull-ups, burpees, and box jumps
• Every minute, do 5 pull-ups, 10 push-ups, and 15 air squats (20 rounds)
• Do a round of pull-ups, knees to elbows, and dips for 10 reps, then 9 reps, then 8 reps and so on down to 1 rep (sprint over the berm after each round)
• 21 reps, then 15 reps, then 9 reps of push press (75lbs), box jumps, and wall ball
None of those workouts were timed, and students were able to keep good form while still maintaining intensity. There were no complex lifts or heavy weights for time. In addition to those half dozen PTs over eight weeks, students ran and swam dozens and dozens of miles (one evolution is a 5.5 nautical mile ocean swim which takes several hours to complete). Overall, that isn’t much like what Crossfit describes as its methodology and in fact sounds a lot like what they tell people not to do. There is certainly no basis for the statement that Crossfit has resulted in better performance and fewer injuries among BUD/S students. In fact, recent trends such as better PST scores, fewer performance failures/rolls/drops, fewer medical drops, and especially, more Hell Week successes – can all be attributed in part to the structured approach to training promoted in the Physical Training Guide and the NSW Prep Course. Among the SEAL Teams, the established training model is the Tactical Athlete Program (TAP), an evidence-based program developed in conjunction with research at the University of Pittsburgh’s Human Performance Laboratory and in collaboration with the National Strength and Conditioning Association. TAP provides training methods for developing strength, speed, and endurance to meet the needs of today’s SEAL. (It is true, some SEALs including BUD/S Instructors elect to pursue Crossfit or other training methods for their non-group PT, but those are individual choices.)

The web site NavySEALs.com is often mistaken for an official NSW page, but it is commercially owned and operated and the SEAL Fit program is not endorsed by NSW. There are many people participating on their training forum who have been to BUD/S and even some former or current SEALs, so you can get some first-hand information there, though sometimes it may be a little out of date. Also, NavySEALs.com is affiliated with Crossfit, and some of the people who post are there to promote Crossfit. As for Crossfit Endurance, I don’t recommend it for BUD/S candidates. (Again, I am not commenting on its value for the general public.) For my recommendations regarding the most effective use of interval and LSD training, see the Physical Training Guide as well as my recent Training Blogs on SEALSWCC.com: http://www.sealswcc.com/blog/

I will be criticized by Crossfit for not “understanding” the program or for not having given it a proper chance. I’ve sat in on a couple Certifications, I’ve followed the web site for the past couple years and read many documents found there, I’ve interacted with many people active in the Crossfit community, I’ve observed plenty of people doing Crossfit workouts, and over the years I’ve experimented with many of the techniques found in their programming. So I “get” Crossfit, I just don’t endorse it. I actually prefer to avoid giving negative advice (telling people what NOT to do), and would rather tell them what characterizes good training and let them decide for themselves if something like Crossfit satisfies those requirements. When preparing for BUD/S I strongly encourage a structured, methodical, organized approach. The key to effective training is to identify the necessary adaptations and to systematically and progressively work towards developing them. Remember that the nature of training means it will not always be fun or glamorous or exciting, but you have to be willing to do what needs to be done. As for other points of view, I support the right of any fitness program to promote itself and pursue customers, but I also encourage the public to educate themselves and make informed choices from the many options available. From where I stand, I wouldn’t care if BUD/S candidates trained by following Crossfit, Gym Jones, P90x, Zumba, or Sweatin’ to the Oldies as long as it prepared them for what lies ahead. I put out the best information I can and make recommendations I hope you will follow, but ultimately it’s your life and your responsibility.

Mike Caviston
Director of Fitness, NSWCEN

kitosho wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Back on track here, as we know, AtLarge Nutrition is a sponsor of the Gaymes. Owner Chris Mason has a long and happy history of having very public fallings out with the groups he sponsors. What's the over/under on him yanking his sponsorship before the big day?

Haha! Wasn't he the doucher that showed up with ad banners on the P&B for a while? He got completely shit on there.

Daniel Schmieding wrote:are we really going to count the majority of those reps? I'm all for the 80% rule, but I don't think anywhere near 80% of the squats reached hip extension, or the pull-ups over the horizontal plane of the bar. I'd ask about the push-ups, too, but I'm guilty of smacking my stomach instead of my chest to the ground when I get tired, too.

The quality of the video was fantastic. My quarrel is the positive light it sheds on a Level 2 trainer's movement, which likely would have been held suspect by any number of judges at many of the competitions we are watching unfold on the Games site.

Form must give way to intensity at our limits. I understand that. I teach that. I just miss CrossFit HQ adding subtitles admitting failed reps, etc in their videos - those not only hold the athletes accountable, but teach countless viewers about the movements and what they should look like.

Bob Guere wrote:To the "rep-counters".

Shut up. This was a "pickup game".... sure both could've gotten deeper in the squats and chin over the bar. And if they both did, both of them would've added a minute or so to their times. This wasn't sectionals, regionals or Aromas. Get off their case. And it would've been just as impressive.