IGX

Jezebel Jones wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:"WildGorillaGirl"?

Holy fuck. I think even the girls of XFit would rather look at the girls.

The ladies are not the key demographic. Although they're the ones asking for big sweaty 70s Big looking dudes, so pony up some pics brah. I promise that I won't enjoy them.

This. The sub 200lb shaved guys, not so much. You need some Gregor Edmunds looking men.

Gary wrote::(

Gin Master wrote:Auto-complete doesn't think much of Couch.

It is our work with military special op's teams and police that has won our hearts and for which we are most proud. To get emailed testimonials from soldiers returning from Afghanistan who've been awarded Silver Stars Nominations, Bronze Stars with "V" devices, Bronze Stars, Joint Service Commendations Medals with "V" devices, ARCOMS, Air Force Commendation Medals, and CIB's and Overseas Bars due to their "high levels of physical fitness in preparation for the conduct of combat" is, for me, an honor I will never forget

JohnnyBadAss wrote:

Gary wrote::(

Are you upset about the sub-200 part or the shaved part? The sub-200 is okay if you don't have a need to carry more weight or it's detrimental to your sport. But the shaving isn't. If you're not prancing around on stage in your underpants, by god, leave the hair on to show everyone that you're actually a man.

Crust Bucket wrote:Oh yeah 135lb squats and PVC pipe snatches make you a bad ass in battle.

For exceptionally meritorious service while assigned as a Platoon Leader for the 1837th Transportation Company in support of Iraqi Freedom during the most hostile period of the conflict. SSG Hugh G. Rection's outstanding physical fitness, sub-3:00 Fran time, and unwavering commitment to @fitting 3 on 1 off in a hostile environment were vital to successful combat operations in Iraq. His contributions and dedication to duty are in keeping with the finest traditions of the army and reflect great credit upon himself, 3rd Corps Support Command, and the United States Army.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote: Silver Star nomination for 'high level of physical fitness?'

It may intuit well that if you can pull a 250 pound deadlift 21 times coming to the lift at a heart rate of 180 beats per minute, then 500 pounds for a single at a resting heart rate is perhaps manageable

CultBuster wrote:

It may intuit well that if you can pull a 250 pound deadlift 21 times coming to the lift at a heart rate of 180 beats per minute, then 500 pounds for a single at a resting heart rate is perhaps manageable

Still one of the top 10 dumbest things he says. I can lift 250lbs all fucking dat, with a mouse, in a house, with agoat on a boat and I can not lift 500. Idiotic

CultBuster wrote:

It may intuit well that if you can pull a 250 pound deadlift 21 times coming to the lift at a heart rate of 180 beats per minute, then 500 pounds for a single at a resting heart rate is perhaps manageable

Still one of the top 10 dumbest things he says. I can lift 250lbs all fucking dat, with a mouse, in a house, with agoat on a boat and I can not lift 500. Idiotic

But here's the fascinating part. We can take you from a 200 pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years while only pulling max singles four or five times a year.

kreator wrote: And #1 would have to be that we do your stuff better than you do quote, whatever it is.

As luck would have it, the first order of business was to discuss strength vs. technique. Pat Sherwood, our instructor, began with a CrossFit riddle:

If an athlete gets pinned under 225 pounds in the bench press, but three months later can successfully press 225, did he get stronger?

Collective nods.

If the same athlete fails at performing a muscle-up (an extended pull-up in which you finish with your arms straight), and three months later is successful, did he get stronger?

A few head nods, but also some disagreement. I joined the dissenters. "That could be just improved technique, through practice and repetition," I said.

According to CrossFit, I was wrong. "The athlete is stronger because in CrossFit, strength is the productive application of force," Sherwood explained.

Technique be damned?

"Unsafe is unacceptable," Sherwood said. "But perfect form is also unacceptable. What we look for is CrossFit slop."

If you're doing a high-rep, high-effort set of cleans, and your back starts to round, that's unsafe and therefore unacceptable. But if you're doing that same set of cleans with textbook-perfect form on every rep, that's also unacceptable. You've either chosen too light a weight, or you're not working hard enough.

The sloppy ideal is a small breakdown in technical form, maybe 20 percent off from perfect. In CrossFit, that's the optimal balance of effort and safety. "That's where the intensity is," Sherwood said.

One of the best Internet resources on interval training comes from Dr. Stephen Seiler (http://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm). This article on interval training and another on the time course of training adaptations (http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm) contain the seeds of CrossFit’s heavy reliance on interval training. The article on the time course of training adaptations explains that there are three waves of adaptation to endurance training. The first wave is increased maximal oxygen consumption. The second is increased lactate threshold. The third is increased efficiency. In the CrossFit concept we are interested in maximizing first wave adaptations and procuring the second systemically through multiple modalities, including weight training, and avoiding completely third wave adaptations. Second and third wave adaptations are highly specific to the activity in which they are developed and are detrimental to the broad fitness that we advocate and develop. A clear understanding of this material has prompted us to advocateregular high intensity training in as many training modalities as possible through largely anaerobic efforts and intervals while deliberately and specifically avoiding the efficiency that accompanies mastery of a single modality. It is at first ironic that this is our interpretation of Dr. Seiler’s work for it was not his intention, but when our quest of optimal physical competence is viewed in light of Dr. Seiler’s more specific aim of maximizing endurance performance our interpretation is powerful.

Dr. Seiler’s work, incidentally, makes clear the fallacy of assuming that endurance work is of greater benefit to the cardiovascular system than higher intensity interval work. This is very important: with interval training we get all of the cardiovascular benefit of endurance work without the attendant loss of strength, speed, and power.

The sloppy ideal is a small breakdown in technical form, maybe 20 percent off from perfect. In CrossFit, that's the optimal balance of effort and safety. "That's where the intensity is," Sherwood said.

DVD Pimp wrote:

The sloppy ideal is a small breakdown in technical form, maybe 20 percent off from perfect. In CrossFit, that's the optimal balance of effort and safety. "That's where the intensity is," Sherwood said.

That's also where the rotator cuff damage, spinal injuries, and bicep tears are, you stupid fucking stupid fucker.

DVD Pimp wrote:

The sloppy ideal is a small breakdown in technical form, maybe 20 percent off from perfect. In CrossFit, that's the optimal balance of effort and safety. "That's where the intensity is," Sherwood said.

That's also where the rotator cuff damage, spinal injuries, and bicep tears are, you stupid fucking stupid fucker.

Cowboys and Aliens wrote:
You are clearly not elite enough for Crossfit. You should be in awe of all those crash and go deadlifts you can admire in the Gaymes videos. Everybody knows that's how the lift is supposed to be done, with 20% slop.

sanchezero wrote:unfinished didn't fit.