The couch thread

sanchezero · Post by **sanchezero** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:13 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iQdsptVLM

i recommend stopping at 1:30 before the inevitable buzzkill.

btw, wtf is with embedding here? sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's total fail.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:57 am

sanchezero wrote:btw, wtf is with embedding here? sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's total fail.

yes

Alfred_E._Neuman · Post by **Alfred_E._Neuman** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:04 am

sanchezero wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iQdsptVLM

i recommend stopping at 1:30 before the inevitable buzzkill.

btw, wtf is with embedding here? sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's total fail.

I would have a really good "that's gayer than" comment for the end of that video, but I've apparently been put on "that's gayer than" probation for a turning some stomachs in another thread.

KingSchmaltzBagelHour · Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:54 pm

Terry B. wrote:
sanchezero wrote:btw, wtf is with embedding here? sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's total fail.
yes

I think you need to take the "s" out of "https" to embed it correctly.

Mickey O'neil · Post by **Mickey O'neil** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:04 pm

That was fucking stupid. Who was that guy doing sledge strikes on the tire?

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:13 pm

sanchezero wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iQdsptVLM[/youtube]

i recommend stopping at 1:30 before the inevitable buzzkill.

btw, wtf is with embedding here? sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's total fail.

Yeah you gotta take the s out of https once you clean all the bullshit out of the link.

That was kind of funny. The first 1:30 is how I feel at the Gold's I train at a couple of times a week.

SubClaw · Post by **SubClaw** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:12 pm

Mickey O'neil wrote:That was fucking stupid. Who was that guy doing sledge strikes on the tire?

Don't you like andro broads?

Mickey O'neil · Post by **Mickey O'neil** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:54 pm

SubClaw wrote:
Mickey O'neil wrote:That was fucking stupid. Who was that guy doing sledge strikes on the tire?
Don't you like andro broads?

Not really.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:29 pm

First chick - YES
Second chick - yes
Third chick - I don't want to see her John Holmes-sized clit

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:02 pm

The VO2 max increase is no joke, though, in that study. That's fairly solid.

syaigh · Post by **syaigh** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:45 am

And a common adaptation for beginners to hiit. Not really an advantage for intermediate and experienced athletes.

Best comprehensive work on the stuff, no crossfit required:http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

Cave Canem · Post by **Cave Canem** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:34 am

Ed Zachary wrote:
sanchezero wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iQdsptVLM[/youtube]
Yeah you gotta take the s out of https once you clean all the bullshit out of the link.

That was kind of funny. The first 1:30 is how I feel at the Gold's I train at a couple of times a week.

Who's the 5th mystery chick at 1:10 and 1:15?

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:35 am

HIIT isn't HICT

syaigh · Post by **syaigh** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:18 am

For beginners it doesn't matter. If they got out of breath running or doing squats and pushups, the aerobic adaptations are the same from high intensity anaerobic work. Circuits for beginners are the same as pacing intervals: Mitochondrial genesis, capillarization of the muscles tissue, increased lactic acid buffering, etc. are all short term and relatively extreme adaptations that can affect VO2 max. In advanced athletes, it all comes down to efficiency of movement.

I'm not trying to argue with you. Its just that the novice effect extends well beyond strength and coordination gains.

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:24 am

I don't think, as a group, they were beginners, but I got tired of looking for the abstract. I think it said 'fit' in regards to the subjects

I'd Hit It · Post by **I'd Hit It** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:24 am

Study attached in zip file.

Subjects were stratified based on training ability (with prior VO2max included in this), and improvements in VO2 occurred in all subjects, even well-trained ones. From the figures you can see the improvements in well-trained subjects were less than improvements in untrained subjects, but they're still there.

All subjects were Paleo before and through the training period, and the authors pointed out they couldn't account body fat changes solely to the Crossfit training given the confounding factor of the Paleo diet. They also pointed out the drop-out rate due to injury was exceedingly high, even though the subjects were under careful supervision, the programming was periodized, and they were cautioned on form, so the program may not be worth it to highly-trained athletes looking to improve VO2max simply because of risk of injury.

The sample training program and list of exercises referenced in the manuscript were not provided in the ePub. Not sure if the ePub will be updated closer to paper publication or what.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:26 am

ButterCupPowerRanch wrote:
Terry B. wrote:
sanchezero wrote:btw, wtf is with embedding here? sometimes it's fine and sometimes it's total fail.
yes
I think you need to take the "s" out of "https" to embed it correctly.

That usually is the answer but it has been sketchy outside of that for me recently.

syaigh · Post by **syaigh** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:51 pm

I'd Hit It wrote:Study attached in zip file.

Subjects were stratified based on training ability (with prior VO2max included in this), and improvements in VO2 occurred in all subjects, even well-trained ones. From the figures you can see the improvements in well-trained subjects were less than improvements in untrained subjects, but they're still there.

All subjects were Paleo before and through the training period, and the authors pointed out they couldn't account body fat changes solely to the Crossfit training given the confounding factor of the Paleo diet. They also pointed out the drop-out rate due to injury was exceedingly high, even though the subjects were under careful supervision, the programming was periodized, and they were cautioned on form, so the program may not be worth it to highly-trained athletes looking to improve VO2max simply because of risk of injury.

The sample training program and list of exercises referenced in the manuscript were not provided in the ePub. Not sure if the ePub will be updated closer to paper publication or what.

The thing is, you can't appreciably improve VO2 max in well-trained athletes. It just doesn't happen. So, these folks were not well-trained. They may have been relatively fit, but introducting crossfit introduces high intensity work which is one way of improving VO2 max. A 15% gain in VO2 max is average, but gains as high as 90% have been seen by simply taking someone off the couch and getting them moving.

In other words, sure crossfit makes you more fit. We all know that. But, its not magic and doesn't do anything that running and lifting weights doesn't do. And you are less likely to get injured doing smart things, that are planned out, and have a specific purpose. Training for the circus would get a lot of people fit as well and its fun, so why not. But, its still not magic, its just fun.

I do wish we could see the whole study. I guess its coming out in March, I have the February issue of the Journal of strength and conditioning research and its not in there.

This is the only article on CF currently published. So maybe it got pulled.

Evidence-Based Physical Training: Do CrossFit or P90X Make the Cut?
by Guy Leahy, Med, CSCS,*D

High intensity circuit training programs are gaining a lot of recent attention. Learn about their application to military fitness. From the NSCA TSAC Report.

There is no denying the growing popularity of high-intensity circuit training programs (e.g., CrossFit™, P90X™, etc.) (2,15,16). With the emphasis of such programs on hard exercise and short rest intervals in a highly competitive environment, it is not surprising such programs have become increasingly attractive to military populations. For example, over 58 non-profit military CrossFit affiliates now exist, including installations such as the Pentagon, the United States Military Academy, Fort Bragg, Fort Meade, and Luke Air Force Base (17). The rapid incorporation of these training techniques into military fitness programs has led to concerns about the safety and effectiveness of these programs, elsewhere referred collectively as extreme conditioning programs (ECPs)(3). Anecdotal reports of improved fitness test scores resulting from participation in ECPs have been countered by similar reports of serious injury and even lawsuits associated with the use of ECPs (14,16). Because increased rates of injury would have negative impacts on military readiness, it is important to assess ECPs from an evidence-based perspective, in order to determine whether or not ECPs enhance, or produce a detriment to, military “fit to fight” capacity.

There do not appear to be any studies of ECPs in the peer-reviewed literature. A CrossFit affiliate group at Fort Hood conducted a study in 2009, but this work remains unpublished. One non-peer-reviewed study on CrossFit was published in 2010 by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (17). The study subjects were 14 students of the College, and “were a mix of men and women with varying levels of physical fitness and CrossFit experience.” The study was eight weeks in duration, and the subjects performed an initial assessment of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), plus three CrossFit workouts. After the training intervention, the subjects were post-tested on the same pre-assessments.

The 2010 CrossFit study suffers from several deficiencies. The sample size was small; there was no control group, and no comparative group which trained utilizing protocols that have been demonstrated to improve military fitness (7,8,10,11,12). Laboratory measures of aerobic fitness/strength/power were not conducted. Differences in “average power” were the outcome variables used to assess performance improvements. The post-test results were reported as percentiles, and not tested statistically to determine if the differences were significant. For the APFT, post-test improvements of 7.33% and 4.77% were reported for the push-up and sit-up components. Some subjects recorded declines in performance on both tests. The 2-mi run was not assessed post-training due to inclement weather.

Another recent study which appeared in a non-peer-reviewed online journal examined the P90X ECP (23). This study evaluated the energy cost and exercise intensity of four different P90X workouts. The study utilized 16 subjects (9 men and 7 women). Pre-test assessments consisted of a treadmill test to measure maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and maximal heart rate. The subjects practiced each of the four P90X workouts selected for the study prior to the testing period. Heart rates (HR) were recorded at 1 min intervals, and used to calculate predicted VO2 and energy expenditure for each workout. The results predicted an average HR max of 67 – 83% for males, and 65 – 88% for females. Average VO2max values were 45 – 70% for males, and 45 – 80% for females. Average calculated calorie expenditure was 10.5 – 16.2 kcals/min for males, and 7.2 – 12.7 kcals/min for females. The authors concluded the four P90X workouts met American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommendations for energy expenditure and exercise intensity, and represented an alternative option for exercisers looking to improve aerobic fitness and/or lose weight (23).

This P90X study suffers from some of the same design issues as the CrossFit study; small sample size, no control group, and no alternative intervention to compare the results (1,13). An additional problem is that HRs measured during discontinuous exercise appeared to be higher than those recorded during steady-state exercise, even when matched for VO2 (5,6). Therefore, VO2/energy consumption values calculated from HRs collected from circuit training protocols, like those in this study, could overestimate actual VO2/energy cost (5,6,21,22). In fact, recent evidence suggests discontinuous training protocols and steady-state aerobic exercise are very difficult to compare, when different rates/type of fuels used during exercise/recovery are considered (5,6,21). One study which directly measured energy cost during circuit weight training found lower absolute average expenditures of 9.0 kcal/min and 6.1 kcal/min (22). Measurements of VO2 from other circuit training studies suggest these protocols may not produce increases in training intensity sufficient to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, though the energy cost of such exercise may be beneficial for weight control (5,6).

An additional concern with ECPs is the risk of injury; as these programs do not typically follow progressive exercise models recommended by organizations such as the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) and the ACSM (18,20). Injury incidences from ECPs are unknown beyond isolated case reports of exertional rhabdomyolysis (ERM) and delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) (3,19). Exertional rhabdomyolysis is frequently caused by excessive, vigorous exercise, and by untrained/low-fit individuals who “ramp up” the frequency/intensity of training too quickly (9). A recent review of ERM in the U.S. Army found annual rates of 7 – 8 per 10,000, a rate 300 – 400% higher than the estimated rate in the U.S civilian population (9). Those at greatest risk for ERM are soldiers with a record of previous heat injury, male, younger, African American, less educated, and shorter lengths of military service. It is unknown to what extent ECPs may contribute to these high ERM rates.

A related concern is whether or not ECP trainer certification protocols are sufficiently rigorous to meet nationally recognized standards of quality, such as those established by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA). According to its mission statement, the NCCA “helps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of the public through the accreditation of a variety of individual certification programs that assess professional competency,” (4). The NCCA utilizes a peer-review process to ensure the goal of its mission statement is met. Listings of NCCA accredited certification programs are available on the NCCA homepage. For example, the NSCA and the ACSM certification programs are NCCA accredited. At the present time, no ECP program has achieved NCCA accreditation.

In summary, though ECPs such as CrossFit and P90X are very popular, this popularity does not appear to be warranted. There is little evidence from peer-reviewed studies that ECPs are safe and/or effective, particularly when compared to established training programs documented to improve military task performance. Though much more research needs to be conducted, ECPs do not seem, at this time, to represent training programs likely to improve military readiness.

*The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policy of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

References
Alcaraz, P, Perez-Gomez, J, Chavarrias M, et al. Similarity in adaptations to high-resistance circuit vs. traditional strength training in resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25(9): 2519–2527, 2011.
Anderson, J, and Pattillo, A. Ex-CrossFit devotees take new gyms to the next level. Army Times.com, September 2011.
Bergeron, MF, Nindl, BC, Deuster, PA, Baumgartner, N, Kane, SF, Kraemer, WJ, Sexauer, LR, Thompson, WR, and O’Connor, FG. Consortium for health and military performance and American College of Sports Medicine consensus paper on extreme conditioning programs in military personnel. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 10(6): 383-389, 2011.
National Commission for Certifying Agencies. NCCA’s Mission and Vision. http://www.credentialingexcellence.org/ ... fault.aspx.
Farrar, R, Mayhew, J, and Koch, A. Oxygen cost of kettlebell swings. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24(4): 1034–1036, 2010.
Gotshalk, L, Berger, R, and Kraemer, W. Cardiovascular responses to a high-volume continuous circuit resistance training program. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18(4): 760–764, 2004.
Harman, E, Gutekunst, D, Frykman, P. et al. Effects of two different eight-week training programs on military physical performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 22(2): 524–534, 2008.
Henning, P, Khamoui, A, and Brown, L. Preparatory strength and endurance training for U.S. Army basic combat training. Strength and Conditioning Journal 33(5): 48–57, 2011.
Hill, O, Wahi, M, Carter III, R, et al. Rhabdomyolysis in the U.S. Active Duty Army, 2004 – 2006. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 44(3): 442–449, 2012.
Knapik, J, Darakjy, S, Hauret, K, et al. Increasing the physical fitness of low-fit recruits before basic combat training: An evaluation of fitness, injuries, and training outcomes. Military Medicine 171(1): 45–54, 2006.
Knapik, J, Harman, E, Steelman, R, et al. A systematic review of the effects of physical training on load carriage performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26(2): 585–597, 2012.
Knapik, J, Reiger, W, Palkoska, F, et al. United States Army physical readiness training: Rationale and evaluation of the physical training doctrine. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(4): 1353–1361, 2009.
MacDonald, C, Lamont, H, and Garner, J. A comparison of the effects of six weeks of traditional resistance training, plyometric training, and complex training on measures of strength and anthropometrics. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26(2): 422–431, 2012.
Mitchell, B. Lawsuit alleges CrossFit workout damaging. MarinecorpsTimes.com August 17, 2008.
Mitchell, B. CrossFit: The workout sweeping the fleet. NavyTimes.com June 22, 2008.
Pattillo, A. Extra sweat, bigger payoff: P90X, CrossFit take your workouts way beyond ordinary PT. AirForceTimes.com July 8, 2010.
Paine, J, Upgraft, J, and Wylie, R. CrossFit study. Command and General Staff College, 1–34, July 2010.
Pearson, D, Faigenbaum, A, Conley, M, et al. The National Strength and Conditioning Association’s basic guidelines for the resistance training of athletes. Strength and Conditioning Journal 22(4): 14–27, 2000.
Petrofsky, J, Batt, J, Bollinger, J, et al. Comparison of different heat modalities for treating delayed-onset muscle soreness in people with diabetes. Diabetes Technology Therapy 13(6): 645–655, 2011.
Ratamess, N, Alvar, B, Evetoch, T, et al. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand: Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41(3): 687–708, 2009.
Scott, C. Quantifying the immediate recovery energy expenditure of resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25(4): 1159–1163, 2011.
Wilmore, J, Parr, R, Ward, P, et al. Energy cost of circuit weight training. Medicine and Science in Sports 10(2): 75–78, 1978.
Woldt, J, Porcari, J, Doberstein, S, et al. Does P90X really bring it? ACE Certified News, 1–4, November 2011.
This article is from NSCA TSAC Report 22. Gain access to more journal articles with an NSCA membership.
About the Author
Guy Leahy is currently serving dual roles as the interim flight commander/exercise physiologist at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, AZ. Leahy is a member of the ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine), NSCA and is CSCS® certified. Leahy is the author/co-author of over 30 professional articles, including original research which has appeared in publications such as the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, TSAC Report, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Nature, Science, and Scientific American. He has presented at several conferences, most recently at the 2011 NSCA Annual Meeting, where he was also an invited speaker at the TSAC Special Interest Group. Leahy holds a Master of Education degree from Western Washington University and a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Oregon.

syaigh · Post by **syaigh** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:58 pm

The truth is, if someone did a crossfit study where they compared a large group of individuals doing not just crossfit, but one or two other programs, nothing at all, and a basic strength and conditioning program, with all the proper controls and a standardized test for everyone, I think it will show what we've been saying all along: Its no better than anything else, lacks volume training, and the risk to benefit ratio is high. Ie, you can get better results with a lesser dose of intensity and better individualized planning.

Couch has done a great job of denouncing science and getting his folks to believe that its true. However, the funny thing is that if a good scientific study were to be done comparing crossfit to other methods of fitness training with the tests not being "how much better did I get at crossfit", it would show to be about the same as most other relatively intense fitness regimens. The truth is, science does explain why crossfit works. It also explains its limitations.

Some of the best crossfit women at the box were I used to train were amateur triathletes who took body pump and spin classes at the Y. And they came in with those abilities and kicked the crap out of the folks that had been there for over a year. And yet, the affiliate owner took the credit for their fitness when it was based on years of training their own way. Should be also noted that all three who joined, left within a year because of injury and decline in triathlon performance.

If Couch stuck to his original model of cf being a short little thing you tacked on to the end of a real workout to enhance conditioning, that would be fine. They were kind of like Frosted Flakes, ie, not as beneficial without the rest of the meal. But, now it has annexed just about everything and I won't be surprised if someone comes up with cf yoga or cf zumba.

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:03 pm

I agree, plus greater risk of injury

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:05 pm

this is what happens when we let women post here

Hymen Asshole · Post by **Hymen Asshole** » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:01 am

Open 2013 begins with this clever little burpee and snatch marathon

Workout 13.1
17 minute AMRAP of:
40 Burpees
30 Snatch, 75 / 45 lbs
30 Burpees
30 Snatch, 135 / 75 lbs
20 Burpees
30 Snatch, 165 / 100 lbs
10 burpees
Max rep Snatch, 210 / 120 lbs

CharlieBob · Post by **CharlieBob** » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:25 am

Hymen Asshole wrote:Open 2013 begins with this clever little burpee and snatch marathon

Workout 13.1
17 minute AMRAP of:
40 Burpees
30 Snatch, 75 / 45 lbs
30 Burpees
30 Snatch, 135 / 75 lbs
20 Burpees
30 Snatch, 165 / 100 lbs
10 burpees
Max rep Snatch, 210 / 120 lbs

...The Fuck?!? Aside from all the usual injury prone retarded programming found here, how do you have a "max rep" scheme in a AMRAP workout?? Don't those two things have the complete opposite goal?

I don't understand how, but this shit just keeps getting more and more retarded.....

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:39 am

Hah! Was copied on an email that detailed this 2 days ago

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:47 am

It'd take my fat ass 17 minutes to do 40 burpees.

IGX

The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread