Jason wrote:Hey Spells. You are dumb sometimes. They are different exercises but that changes nothing. A deadhang Snatch and a Swing Snatch are different exercises but the end result is the same. You moved a certain amount of mass a certain height.
Talk all the shit you want about Glassman. It doesn't change the facts about measureing work.
Different muscles groups? How about additional muscle groups? Anyway, who cares about muscles groups. This ain't Muscle and Fitness.
By this reasoning, a 50kg barbell front squat with the weight racked on your shoulders would have the same workload as a 50kg front squat with the weight held in hands at shoulder height with arms extended.
Measuring work with this bullshit = what's the fucking point
If I'm missing something clue me in.
You aren't. Jason is well-meaning but wrong, and is in bed with Couch. This is why he ignored the premise that if work matters, Couch's girls aren't out-performing men like he says they do, and that Olympians and grandmothers in fact have needs that differ by kind, not degree.
Nafod is just out of his depth and should leave this to the grown-ups.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
No, you're correct, that would be the same amount of work. Same as walking a mile or running a mile.
And Spells,
I'm not wrong with my physics kid. You just let your hate get in the way.And you guys like to switch topics whenever you're can't win an argument.
I didnt' ignore anything, that topic wasn't brought up. I was addressing Bill's post which brought up work.Keep up kid, I know this is all a little fast for you.
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Nafod is just out of his depth and should leave this to the grown-ups.
Oh that's rich. You ever take physics, Spells? I see no sign of it whatsoever.
Bram wrote:
Measuring work with this bullshit = what's the fucking point
Where it becomes important is in metabolic conditioning and the ability to generate a peak power output over a duration. Basically the work (not "workload", that's an imprecise term) correlates with total oxygen uptake. The average power correlates with rate of oxygen consumption. Whether you are doing oly lifts, squatting, rowing, pullups, runnning on a treadmill, or spinning on a dynamometer. Max power output is considered important in a lot of sports.
I'm not wrong with my physics kid. You just let your hate get in the way.And you guys like to switch topics whenever you're can't win an argument.
I didnt' ignore anything, that topic wasn't brought up. I was addressing Bill's post which brought up work.Keep up kid, I know this is all a little fast for you.
Sorry, homey. Those topics were brought up in the last post from me you selectively quoted.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Nafod is just out of his depth and should leave this to the grown-ups.
Oh that's rich. You ever take physics, Spells? I see no sign of it whatsoever.
Well, you're learning. You're asking me if I've got background rather than assuming I don't. Yes, I do. I took college physics in high school. More later.
I have a feeling CF would rather you weren't their defender here. You're like the retarded kid at the Mexican birthday party whose swings at the pinata are so embarrassingly far off the mark that people are too stunned to laugh at you.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
nafod wrote:
Where it becomes important is in metabolic conditioning and the ability to generate a peak power output over a duration. Basically the work (not "workload", that's an imprecise term) correlates with total oxygen uptake. The average power correlates with rate of oxygen consumption. Whether you are doing oly lifts, squatting, rowing, pullups, runnning on a treadmill, or spinning on a dynamometer. Max power output is considered important in a lot of sports.
Rate of oxygen consumption for a front squat with the weight on your shoulders vs. held out in front of you (as per my example) is going to be different. So the equations of work that you are using are flawed, because you are arguing (and from what I can see, they state) that oxygen consumption will be the same regardless of the bar's position.
“If it won't matter in a year, don't spend more than a day stressing about it."
Bram wrote:
Rate of oxygen consumption for a front squat with the weight on your shoulders vs. held out in front of you (as per my example) is going to be different. So the equations of work that you are using are flawed, because you are arguing (and from what I can see, they state) that oxygen consumption will be the same regardless of the bar's position.
You're right with your point. And throwing in an isometric contraction muddies up the waters considerably.
To go back to the very beginning of this latest little pissing match, the question was whether measuring the power was even worthwhile. Here's a quote from the article...
Power is a term that is used regularly and incorrectly at times in the assessment of performance and because all sporting tasks require a form of power, as an assessment tool it appears very appropriate. Specificity is another term that must be realised. To achieve the most appropriate measure of ones performance and capacity for performance then all testing procedures used should relate to the requirements of the task.
Grandpa's Spells wrote:I took college physics in high school. More later.
You should ask for your money back.
I have a feeling CF would rather you weren't their defender here.
I'm not their defender. I'm just squashing your stupidity.
Gentlemen, eyes on the prize, please. We're supposed to be humiliating xfit here.
FWIW, it looks to me as if Couch and company are trying to incorporate one of the concepts that made "power factor training" mildly interesting - an attempt to find a reliable measure of "how hard you can work today" versus "how hard you were able to work yesterday"; and compare the two in a valid way. Since your height, weight, muscle insertions, existing injuries etc don't vary from session to session, it makes a sort of half-assed sense to concentrate on "power output" instead....that is, IF you don' really understand anything about kinesiology, kinetics, or static and dynamic forces working on rotating/arcing/accelerating/decelerating objects. (I took a shit load of that stuff as a mechanical engineering student, and it's still way beyong me).
It's completely fucked of course. IMO, he'd be better off just saying things like "I like kipping pullups because they more resemble something a person would really do if they were scrambling around on a playground."
(Thus reinforcing xfits mantra of 'real life all around fitness.) Or "I prefer kipping pullups because regular pullups are boring after a while."
This thread is slowing down. At this rate, we won't make 50 pages or 100K views before it peters out. So I'll just say it: Lopa, will you...er...COOK with me sometime? I'll make coq au vin!
"I also think training like a Navy S.E.A.L. is stupid for the average person. I would say PT like an infantry unit, run, body weight stuff, hump a little, a little weights and enjoy life if you are not training for specifics." -tough old man
As i so brilliantly stated at T-Nation, ensuring me the Venom of all the drones...
"Crossfit is great for newbies(anything works for them) or people who have run too many triathalons and riden down too many mountain trails and are looking for another edgy challenge. Also superb for those who want to be great at crossfit workouts.
High reps until puking or experiencing organ disfuntion is not a recipe for rugged muscularity. Or max strength. Or health, mental or physical.
Now i must go to my bomb shelter becuase here come the crazies"
Next?
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.
"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex
This is a great thread. I've learned way more than I ever wanted. When I discovered Xfit for the first time, I thought that the varying workouts were fun and new. But the "elite" stuff and puking for the sake of manliness is just stupid.
I'm no expert in fitness or exercise, and this talk about some pull-up variation being better (or more powerful) than other totally escapes me. Why not do different variations, unless you are going to compete in some special pull-up comp? If you're going to be some ultimate generalist, it would make sense to do all kinds of stuff. Same thing with the American Swing vs Russian Swing article.
Norman U. Senchbau wrote:You have consistently shown yourself to be a hand-wringing, fence-riding, prevaricating Buridan's ass dying of thirst between two pitchers of Kool-Aid.
A novice is someone who keeps asking himself if he is a novice. An intermediate is someone who is sick of training with weak people and an advanced person doesn't give a shit anymore. - Jim Wendler
One example of why you can't apply physics 1:1 to physiology:
Stand up and hold a brick in one hand, out in front of you. Don't let it move. How much work is being done? If the brick doesn't move, then no work is being done, period: the distance over which force is applied = 0. From the standpoint of "work" you're doing the same amount as if that brick was resting on a table.
Alas, no one told your body that. And in case you haven't tried it, yes you will get tired, yes you are burning energy to hold that brick. Why? Because you can't lock off your muscle fibers and joints in a particular position, at least not until you're dead and rigor sets in. Your muscle fibers are firing, relaxing, firing, relaxing, burning ATP like mad to do so.
Neural efficiency, skill, it all applies and muddies the waters. The only possible use for all those measurements is to compare what Timmy did yesterday to what Timmy does today.
BTW, if X@ is so original, what about Combat Student's "Near Perfect" system over at the Animal Ability EZBoard? Or is he just another incredibly weak performer? You should check it out sometime.
GDG!
The flesh is weak, and the smell of pussy is strong like a muthafucka.
bill fox wrote:So now power is simply a synonym of intensity. How many kipping pullups doubles the intensity of my one strict pullup with 144lbs added?
Three points. First, if you are already doing an exercise at a certain rate with a certain mass, and you want to up the intensity, what do you do? It would seem to me that you would either increase the mass moved or increase the rate, or both. Either way, you are increasing the power. Sure sounds to me like they are directly related.
Second, read up on the concept of Critical Power. It is the maximal average power you can do an exercise at, for a given fixed time period, without hitting exhaustion. Congrats on your one strict pullup, as you probably reached your critical power for a time period of a few seconds. But comparing it to a longer period is apples and oranges.
Third, kipping pullups let you do more pullups in a single set, thus letting you do more work. They also let you do them at a faster rate, thus increasing the average power over the time of the set. If you double the rate, you double the average power. It really is that simple.
GoDogGo! isometrics mess up the calculations for sure. From the site I linked to... Isometric testing is difficult to justify a true power activity because by definition power = work / time and because work is force throughout movement then there is no power output as there is no movement produced. Abernethy et al (1995) does suggest that the rate of force development during first period (60-100msec) of the isometric contraction is used as a measure of athletic power. The rationale indicated for the use of this measure is that the time available to generate force is limited amongst many sports and this is seen in gymnastics, sprinting and jumping activities. A criticism however is that the measurements aren't dynamic thus not valid for performance indicators.
However there are plenty of 900 LB brain references that directly relate power output and VO2 in a plot that is mostly linear up until some upper range of performance. For example... http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1156714
GoDogGo! wrote:One example of why you can't apply physics 1:1 to physiology:
Stand up and hold a brick in one hand, out in front of you. Don't let it move. How much work is being done? If the brick doesn't move, then no work is being done, period: the distance over which force is applied = 0. From the standpoint of "work" you're doing the same amount as if that brick was resting on a table.
Alas, no one told your body that. And in case you haven't tried it, yes you will get tired, yes you are burning energy to hold that brick. Why? Because you can't lock off your muscle fibers and joints in a particular position, at least not until you're dead and rigor sets in. Your muscle fibers are firing, relaxing, firing, relaxing, burning ATP like mad to do so.
Neural efficiency, skill, it all applies and muddies the waters. The only possible use for all those measurements is to compare what Timmy did yesterday to what Timmy does today.
BTW, if X@ is so original, what about Combat Student's "Near Perfect" system over at the Animal Ability EZBoard? Or is he just another incredibly weak performer? You should check it out sometime.
Although I know that everybody followed the link and pored over the info studiously with pencil in hand, I'll cut and paste it:
Non-linear relationship between O2 uptake and power output at high intensities of exercise in humans.
J A Zoladz, A C Rademaker, and A J Sargeant
Department of Muscle and Exercise Physiology, Vrije University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract
1. A slow component to pulmonary oxygen uptake (VO2) is reported during prolonged high power exercise performed at constant power output at, or above, approximately 60% of the maximal oxygen uptake. The magnitude of the slow component is reported to be associated with the intensity of exercise and to be largely accounted for by an increased VO2 across the exercising legs. 2. On the assumption that the control mechanism responsible for the increased VO2 is intensity dependent we hypothesized that it should also be apparent in multi-stage incremental exercise tests with the result that the VO2-power output relationship would be curvilinear. 3. We further hypothesized that the change in the VO2-power output relationship could be related to the hierarchical recruitment of different muscle fibre types with a lower mechanical efficiency. 4. Six subjects each performed five incremental exercise tests, at pedalling rates of 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120 rev min-1, over which range we expected to vary the proportional contribution of different fibre types to the power output. Pulmonary VO2 was determined continuously and arterialized capillary blood was sampled and analysed for blood lactate concentration ([lactate]b). 5. Below the level at which a sustained increase in [lactate]b was observed pulmonary VO2 showed a linear relationship with power output; at high power outputs, however, there was an additional increase in VO2 above that expected from the extrapolation of that linear relationship, leading to a positive curvilinear VO2-power output relationship. 6. No systematic effect on the magnitude or onset of the 'extra' VO2 was found in relation to pedalling rate, which suggests that it is not related to the pattern of motor unit recruitment in any simple way.
OK, snazzy.
Buuuuuut--
A) Here muscle group is held constant, so power output actually WILL be proportional to exertion, whereas if you let the subjects generate more power by just flapping their arms spastically during the sets and counting THAT energy expenditure towards total power output (or, if you prefer, performing some of their power output in the form of some exercise that does stress the legs, e.g., kipping pull-ups or push-ups), power output would no longer be proportionate.
B) The study says nothing about how to develop peak power.
Is peak power output best developed by peak power output? Take "Isabel" 30 reps of 135-pound snatch for time. Few people have the maximal strength and peak power output ability (i.e., ability to put the damn thing overhead while fatigued without getting squshed) to do the workout as Rxed. So they scale it, and do a bunch of reps w/40 kilos. Problem is, this doesn't carry over well to your Isabel time in the end, even if all you care about is your Isabel time and not something narrower, like getting white lights on an oly meet platform. You get a good Isabel time by getting good at snatching weights much, much heavier than 135.
xalepa ta kala
Mike The Bear wrote:
I'm like a hummingbird on meth.
Crossfit Hunt wrote:LOL, a Pubmed study has been posted to Irongarmx.
The end is most definitely nigh.
Although I know that everybody followed the link and pored over the info studiously with pencil in hand, I'll cut and paste it:
Duuuhhhhh, is he making fun of us here, guys?
I thought Pubmed was a bar in the Caribbean.
A novice is someone who keeps asking himself if he is a novice. An intermediate is someone who is sick of training with weak people and an advanced person doesn't give a shit anymore. - Jim Wendler
nafod wrote:OK, just had to slap down one more issue...
bill fox wrote:So now power is simply a synonym of intensity. How many kipping pullups doubles the intensity of my one strict pullup with 144lbs added?
Three points. First, if you are already doing an exercise at a certain rate with a certain mass, and you want to up the intensity, what do you do? It would seem to me that you would either increase the mass moved or increase the rate, or both. Either way, you are increasing the power. Sure sounds to me like they are directly related.
Second, read up on the concept of Critical Power. It is the maximal average power you can do an exercise at, for a given fixed time period, without hitting exhaustion. Congrats on your one strict pullup, as you probably reached your critical power for a time period of a few seconds. But comparing it to a longer period is apples and oranges.
Third, kipping pullups let you do more pullups in a single set, thus letting you do more work. They also let you do them at a faster rate, thus increasing the average power over the time of the set. If you double the rate, you double the average power. It really is that simple.
GoDogGo! isometrics mess up the calculations for sure. From the site I linked to... Isometric testing is difficult to justify a true power activity because by definition power = work / time and because work is force throughout movement then there is no power output as there is no movement produced. Abernethy et al (1995) does suggest that the rate of force development during first period (60-100msec) of the isometric contraction is used as a measure of athletic power. The rationale indicated for the use of this measure is that the time available to generate force is limited amongst many sports and this is seen in gymnastics, sprinting and jumping activities. A criticism however is that the measurements aren't dynamic thus not valid for performance indicators.
However there are plenty of 900 LB brain references that directly relate power output and VO2 in a plot that is mostly linear up until some upper range of performance. For example... http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1156714
I guess somewhere in there lies the answer to my question, or maybe your just trying to dazzle me with bullshit, lawyer like.
"my body stayin' vicious, I be up in the gym, just workin' on my fitness"
A novice is someone who keeps asking himself if he is a novice. An intermediate is someone who is sick of training with weak people and an advanced person doesn't give a shit anymore. - Jim Wendler
I don't give 2 shits one way or another about X-fit, but I sure would like to see some more creative insults in this thread. Otherways it's getting boring and certainly won't reach 100K.
Very true. You've got Nafod, who's being a good sport about it, but Jason and his "kid" remarks are really what are cracking me up.
Isn't Jason the Jason from Philly who has the Crossfit franchise?
I guess he's invested heavily into it, including the cult of personality of Cooch Gregg.
I can't find a tremendous amount of shit wrong with Crossfit under a general "Conditioning" program banner, but it's seriously short with the "Strength" part. I honestly agree with a lot of what they are saying, but just can't stomach Gregg's penchant for drunken character assassination.
The involved parties, Chris Sommer, Dan John, and Mark Twight, are much better men than me to just ignore it.
Ross Hunt wrote:
A) Here muscle group is held constant, so power output actually WILL be proportional to exertion
The scientist in me is coming out. If I had to guess (excuse me, "hypothesize") I would guess that the curve of power expressed against the load versus VO2 increase over just standing around, would show an increase of VO2 with the power expressed, but would also have a nonzero y-intercept, i.e., there'd be an increase in VO2 for just standing there holding it. The bigger the load, the bigger the constant factor.
B) The study says nothing about how to develop peak power.
True dat. The paper was about measuring, not training. I think the original crossfit tape measure picture was too.
I'm going to crawl back into my cave now and wait for the next physics class flunky to try and ass rape Sir Isaac Newton.
I'm going to crawl back into my cave now and wait for the next physics class flunky to try and ass rape Sir Isaac Newton.
The scientist who said that acceleration is different in a kip and a pullup, but if we're talking about work it doesn't matter? Heh.
All this discussion has proven is that you can anal-yze exercise till you're blue in the balls, but it's all for nought if the results don't pan out on the field, platform, etc. And, for X-fit, they haven't.
A novice is someone who keeps asking himself if he is a novice. An intermediate is someone who is sick of training with weak people and an advanced person doesn't give a shit anymore. - Jim Wendler
