The couch thread

[ledfistaco]

Off topic post...

Not sure if this has been discussed before since I do not frequent the board on a regular basis...

Have the Glassmans ever been nominated or considered for nomination for a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship Grant?

They certainly seem to meet the general criteria as posted here

http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.959463/

The Foundation does not take unsolicited nominations so the letter has to come from their pool of nominators. If there is a nominator in the crowd or someone who knows one I think they are worthy of consideration...

just a thought.
Comment #91 - Posted by: jfdoherty4 at June 19, 2008 7:36 AM

[Shafpocalypse Now]

What?

It's a fucking workout!

[The Real Rant]

Why not the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Anon]

Re: Macfound - maybe under Sociology for the ability to get people to abandon rational thought and act this way.

Actually, not, as it appears to be the "program" that is just concentrating the worshipers from amongst the masses, most likely by some accidental internet tipping point.

[Gary John]

That is why there will be another purge. Can't have the spotlight on more than one star.

My brother has some good contacts in the Vatican. Have them on standby for a quicky beatification.

Glasshole has already performed several miracles.

[Sofa King]

The MacArthur Foundation? This now settles the fact that there is no end to the adulation, nor will there ever be.
Besides, the people from the foundation won't pay a grand to come check out a cert to properly authenticate the claims of @fit making the blind see and the lame ride $2800 bikes.

[Hank Scorpio]

I continue to lose friends and colleagues to this epidemic. One came over for beers the other day and asked to use the internet to check for the next day's Wad.

"Fine." I said. "Just be sure to clear the browser history and cookies when you're done. One day you'll grow out of it."
He replied, "I don't think so. My run times are good, and I'm maintaining my strength."
"I suppose, but none of your lifts have progressed in 5 months and you complain about back pain every time you get under the bar to squat more than 225#." This is about his body weight, by the way.
"I can't argue that," he said.

It's sad to see a man I've known as an otherwise once-solid athlete fall victim to this cruel and delusional malady. All I can do is continue my personal efforts with the barbell, get in some reasonable and enjoyable runs through the forest, and crack open a beer or three when it's all said and done.

[Holland Oates]

All I can do is continue to my personal efforts with the barbell, get in some reasonable and enjoyable runs through the forest, and crack open a beer or three when it's all said and done.

=D>

You have echoed my training exactly.

I want to enjoy training whether it's a run, bike ride, or strength training.

I don't cater to the whole "if you aren't dreading your workout you aren't training hard enough bullshit anymore."

You should enjoy all aspects of life.

Like a very smart Marine once told me "there's a fine line between hard and stupid."

[Blaidd Drwg]

alright....

which of you jokers posted the 565 ATG squat and 685 sumo DL?

[Dagobert]

tevs.hafshley. Looks like a word jumble - you have to unscramble the letters, as in this example:

[Sassenach]

awesome workout. thanks coach

Comment #1 - Posted by: tucker at June 18, 2008 9:15 PM

awesome workout???!?!! Yeah, it took a lot up at the cooch batcave study center to come up with this gem.

[RPC]

Some idiots on the comments today mentioned P90X or whatever the hell its called. Couch popped in:

P90X is an ineluctable facet of our success (that's what the lawyers say about all our derivative/parasitic imitators, even the friendly ones. We turned down the infomercial "opportunity" at the heart of P90X's successes. We'll turn it down again.

If anyone is unsure whether to try P90X, Gym Jones, Ross Boxing, Monkey Bar Gym,...or to do CrossFit, our answer has long been an unequivocal, "do us last".

Get in the best shape you possibly can doing anything and everything else, then and only then come around. This is easiest on us and you. It's a direct route to your potential without doubling back. When you arrive here, recheck old workouts from your travels and you'll find that you can crush your old PR's.

Comment #107 - Posted by: Coach at June 20, 2008 5:45 AM

This motherfucker actually has the nerve to include Ross in this bunch? Holy shit he's fucking asking for it...

[Pinky]

This motherfucker actually has the nerve to include Ross in this bunch? Holy shit he's fucking asking for it...

He knows Ross won't beat up a gimpy fat guy.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

What's the answer to all the @F dropouts who didn't find it the holy grail? This number is fairly big and growing weekly.

wtf is this tevs.hafshley shit? Because I'm telling your right now I don't bother trolling XF, or Pmenu forums. If I've got something to say, I'll say it under my own name and take credit for it.

[___________]

Couch is a bitch.

Who in their right mind listens to a fat alcoholic about fitness anyfuckinghow?

[RPC]

Response from a poster to couch's post:

Coach, amazingly well said. I'm definitly going to have to steal/memorize that one "ineluctable facet of our success..." Awesome.

Comment #120 - Posted by: John at June 20, 2008 6:17 AM

Read this carefully. Obviously there's the asskissery that is prevelant in the other responses, but here's one that's going to memorize what the GWF says for future recitation.

These people are now fucking quoting him like its scripture...

[RPC]

ps - love dan's new article up on t-nation. mentioning no squat! love it.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

All is not lost:

http://www.performancemenu.com/shorties ... hortyID=39

The above link is to a short bit by Mike Rutherford about a "new way to Black Box".

The comments become noteworthy.

I've received a few questions regarding the integration of the O-lifts. I offer two approaches.

M- Snatch work (Light to Moderate) W- C&J (Light to Moderate) F- Snatch & C&J (Moderate to Heavy)

Option #2 M-Snatch work (Moderate to Heavy) W- C&J (Moderate to Heavy) F-Squat variant (Moderate to Heavy)

— Rutman | 2008-06-05

The heavy lifting was always there. Go back in the archives. Ignoring it isn't the same as it not being there. I check every time I hear that heavy lifting is new to CF only to find it a regular and constant part of the program since 2001.

— Greg Glassman | 2008-06-18

Coach -

I'm on vacation and bored out of my mind, so I dicked around in the archives a bit today. First, I don’t know of anyone who knows what they’re talking about who’s claiming dedicated strength work was absent at any point, merely that it’s more frequent now than it has been in the past, and that a greater emphasis is being placed on it, both in the sense of its role in the CF program, as well as in a more physiological sense manifested in lower reps and the associated higher intensity. Whether that's due to Rippetoe's involvement or not I have no idea, as I play no role in the CF programming, so I have no claim either way.

I’ve agreed with the idea that strength work has increased, but based only on casual observation. To make sure I wasn’t fooling myself and looking like a complete asshole, I went through the archives for all of 2001 and compared them to the most recent one-year period on record, June 2007 through May 2008.

In 2001, I counted 47 workouts that contained what could reasonably be considered dedicated strength work, although I kept my definition relatively generous. For example, I included workouts that involved a “slow” circuit such as a row, 2 min rest, and then a strength lift, which in other circumstances I’d be inclined not to include. There were 2-3 powerlifting totals in the year. Rarely was the strength work done in isolation, e.g. the strength lift or lifts were performed in the workout along with other non-strength exercises, but not within a compressed-time circuit. Many of these strength workouts used reps as high as 10, which was the maximum I allowed for the work to be considered strength-dedicated.

In contrast, the most recent year period had 72 dedicated strength workouts – 153% more than 2001 – 9 of which were CF Totals – at least 3 times as many as in 2001. Additionally, every one of these workouts was comprised of strength lifts only – while some may have included more than one lift, none included non-strength lifts, and none of the lifts were performed within a circuit. Finally, these strength workouts were limited to 5 or fewer reps.

Bottom line, the data is there to support the idea that CF is now placing a greater emphasis on strength work than it did formerly. I’m not in a position to explain the change because I had nothing to do with it. And pointing the change out is in no way a criticism of CF programming past or present – it’s simply an observation. Finally, my humble opinion is that the change is an improvement, as all evolutions should be.

That's all I have on that one. Again, I'm not trying to be a prick, I'm just demonstrating (as much to myself as anyone else) that I (and whoever else) am not imagining the change or ignoring the available data.


— Greg Everett | 2008-06-18

Fairly direct evidence that Greg E. hasn't just laid down and bare his throat for money. Kudos to you, GE.

[RPC]

Kudos indeed Shaf. Glassman cannot deny the evolutions that have taken place and that are evident in the records. Its as if he wants to deny accepting the influences of Coach Rutherford, Dan John, etc. Again, it seems he's perpetuating the myth that CF is original in its concept and all other methodologies are subsequent to it...

I'm honestly surprised that Coach Rut has kept the affiliation with CF in tact.

Another interesting thread off PM was here: http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... php?t=2560

Basically its a small group of crossfitters who are moving away from blindly following the mainpage and getting better results all around (increased strength work, drastically reduced metcon volumes). The thread has been allowed to stay which is surprising.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

Was that Grant Gimes thread? I read it mostly.

There are big problems with the "neuro-endocrine" mindset. Basically, that shit doesn't really matter, especially endogenous growth hormone release. You can optimize it, and that's cool and all, but you cannot cause the body to release supraphysiological doses of hormones....the homeostasis of the endocrine system is way too tightly regulated.

And optimal basically means "I feel better, I'm in better health". Optimal doesn't mean "it's making me stronger/leaner..." etc.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Kudos indeed Shaf. Glassman cannot deny the evolutions that have taken place and that are evident in the records. Its as if he wants to deny accepting the influences of Coach Rutherford, Dan John, etc. Again, it seems he's perpetuating the myth that CF is original in its concept and all other methodologies are subsequent to it...

I'm honestly surprised that Coach Rut has kept the affiliation with CF in tact.

Another interesting thread off PM was here: http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/sh ... php?t=2560

Basically its a small group of crossfitters who are moving away from blindly following the mainpage and getting better results all around (increased strength work, drastically reduced metcon volumes). The thread has been allowed to stay which is surprising.

thanks for that waste of my life....did someone reinvent circuit training?

for all the hormonal twitterpating you'd think they'd just get on a low does of transdermal testosterone and call it good.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

Anavar and winny and low dose dbol for @F girls...this has the bonus of making them hornier than fuck, which is exactly what Couch & Cronies wants.

[RPC]

Was that Grant Gimes thread? I read it mostly.

There are big problems with the "neuro-endocrine" mindset. Basically, that shit doesn't really matter, especially endogenous growth hormone release. You can optimize it, and that's cool and all, but you cannot cause the body to release supraphysiological doses of hormones....the homeostasis of the endocrine system is way too tightly regulated.

And optimal basically means "I feel better, I'm in better health". Optimal doesn't mean "it's making me stronger/leaner..." etc.

Yeah that was Gant's thread. There's a bunch of those guys opting now for a strength biased approach to their training now, and are dosing much less metcon now. I think he said in the thread how, after stalling out on the "WODs" he switched to this type of training and started PRing on bench marks like crazy. The underlying theme here (and in Coach Rut's article) is how the hell do you expect to ever get significantly strong when you only go heavy 1-2 times per month (I counted it up and that's about what they're averaging).

What's more is when you start getting really damn strong it has carryover to those metcons.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Anavar and winny and low dose dbol for @F girls...this has the bonus of making them hornier than fuck, which is exactly what Couch & Cronies wants.

Good thinking...pecially if hypohydration knowledges about winny are true....dry cootchies provide more friction for couch's pencil.

[Anon]

I’m not in a position to explain the change because I had nothing to do with it. And pointing the change out is in no way a criticism of CF programming past or present – it’s simply an observation. Finally, my humble opinion is that the change is an improvement, as all evolutions should be.