December 18, 2009

Friday 091218

Rest Day

CFSCMUpShirt_th.jpg

Enlarge image

Cara Hipskind from CrossFit Santa Cruz in the CrossFit Floral Burnout shirt.


Wide Stance Squat with Louie Simmons - video [wmv] [mov]


"Metabolic Flexibility" with Dr. Barry Sears, a CrossFit Journal preview video [wmv] [mov]


"All philosophers, of every school, imagine that causation is one of the fundamental axioms or postulates of science, yet, oddly enough, in advanced sciences such as gravitational astronomy, the word "cause" never occurs.....

To me it seems that philosophy ought not to assume such legislative functions, and that the reason why physics has ceased to look for causes is that, in fact, there are no such things. The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm."

- Bertrand Russell, On the Notion of Cause

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at December 18, 2009 5:00 PM
Comments

I like the picture trend

Comment #1 - Posted by: nickPFD at December 17, 2009 5:01 PM

I concur, the pictures the past week or two have been excellent. Im sure that isnt the purpose of the photos of course...

Comment #2 - Posted by: Mike W at December 17, 2009 5:15 PM

dan m...

The ads (if that's what you want to call them) don't cost you any money, so this site is still as free as it can be. When you consider the amount of banners that line most sites this one is almost completely clear of advertising.

To Crossfit HQ please feel free to continue to post pictures of beautiful women wearing Crossfit gear and you will never hear me complain!

Comment #3 - Posted by: WVU Reb at December 17, 2009 5:24 PM

#3 do you HAVE to buy a shirt to get a WOD?

No.

They gotta pay the bills, I'm not complaining.

Comment #4 - Posted by: Evan at December 17, 2009 5:25 PM

#3 you don't have to buy anything.

CF has to pay the bills. it's free for us, but it ain't free for them to produce.

Comment #5 - Posted by: Evan at December 17, 2009 5:27 PM

Is the vid with Louie Simms gonna start a whole bitch session over how CrossFitter's are supposed to squat? Lord, I hope not, it's getting old...

#4, I agree

Comment #6 - Posted by: bburgultrarunner at December 17, 2009 5:32 PM

#3 Hey, they sell what they gotta sell. If someone wants to preresent, then let them have at it. This is a FREE website because the workouts are posted without fail, FOR FREE. The FAQ section is FREE, the exercise demos are FREE. Access to this site is FREE. and your capacity to post with without charge, OR FREE.

So here I am saying this is a FREE WEBSITE. Meaning the WEBSITE IS FREE, but if you want to buy the merchandise, right on.

#1 I agree totally, this pics are amazing. More so than it being beautiful women, but they are beautiful FUNCTIONAL women. Nothing is more appealing and spell bounding than a woman who is gracious and beautiful who can also MESS YOU UP at your own WOD.

Comment #7 - Posted by: Eric Pelletier at December 17, 2009 5:34 PM

Represent*

Comment #8 - Posted by: Eric Pelletier at December 17, 2009 5:35 PM

these pics are amazing*

Geez W.T.F. is wrong with my spelling today?!?!?!?!?!?!

Comment #9 - Posted by: Eric Pelletier at December 17, 2009 5:36 PM

Bertrand Russell's quote reminds me of CrossFit's black box model. We are interested primarily in correlation, not causation.

Comment #10 - Posted by: Russ Greene at December 17, 2009 5:36 PM

Not a day too soon. Any good references for shoulder injuries and how to care for/re-strengthen them? Pull ups have caused debilitating pain in my left shoulder for many of the past sets. :-/

I've been working on doing rotator-cuff exercises among other basic shoulder exercises, but I can't help but feel like I'm getting close to total failure with my shoulder... :-o

Nice to have a scheduled day to take it slow, thanks coach!

Comment #11 - Posted by: Joel at December 17, 2009 5:39 PM

Before everyone jumps down my throat here is what I meant: often times when someone complains about content, i.e. too far to the right, too far to the left, etc.. the common, and in my opinion, weakest comment (mind you not an argument) is "well if you don't like it go elsewhere. The Glassmans provide this website and it content free of charge."

I guess I am just sick of hearing this. Yes Crossfit is awesome, it has changed my life, but I have no allusions as to its main purpose, to sell certifications, tee-shirts, gymnastic rings, etc.. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with this, it truly is marketing at its finest and I tip my hat to the the Glassmans.

Comment #12 - Posted by: dan m at December 17, 2009 5:42 PM

Joel, shoulder issues are nothing too take lightly. I would guess that some of the regulars on here i.e. CrossfitMom and others would agree (correct me if I am wrong). Having suffered severe tendonitis in both shoulders (long career of swimming) and shattering my shoulder (broke humerus, scapula and clavicle and dislocating the whole thing) I would suggest taking it easy for a while and maybe see someone about it. Not necessarily a doc but maybe a PT.

Comment #13 - Posted by: dan m at December 17, 2009 5:47 PM

gonna use the Rest day to catch up a missed WOD or 2...

Comment #14 - Posted by: neil at December 17, 2009 5:47 PM

I liked Berty's idea the first time I read it-when it was written by David Hume.

Comment #15 - Posted by: Ron at December 17, 2009 6:19 PM

Mass causes gravity. What is he trying to say?

Comment #16 - Posted by: mikes at December 17, 2009 6:29 PM

The answer to B. Russel question lies within the ultimate goal of philosophy and physics.
Philosophy asks why? Physics asks how? In the first, to have something and not only the void in ourselves is a prerequisite. Phyics just ask deeper and deeper: how is it that it works like that?
Second this site is free. I still haven't paid anything, nor been redirected anywhere.

Comment #17 - Posted by: A.G. at December 17, 2009 6:37 PM

Not open source?
Really?

Open Source strictly means that the source code (IP in this case, i.e. the CrossFit training system) is available to be examined, a copy taken and that copy modified
It's debatable whether it also means transparency of management.
It rarely, in fact almost never, means that everyone gets to alter the original source or that modification of the source is subject to a vote. There is pretty much always a core team (which can and often does consist of 1 person) who decide the direction of an open source initiative. I'd say there always is but I can't rule out there being some active project that doesn't. I haven't come across anything that successfully operated that way for any length of time.
That core team is not even remotely obliged to make their decision making process public and the majority don't.

You can learn how to CF for free. You can take CF's methods, call them something else and use them any way you want. That's all it takes to be Open Source.

CF is definitely Open Source.

Comment #18 - Posted by: Craig Massey at December 17, 2009 6:44 PM

Im open to new ideas, this video is interesting.

But i disagree with the wide-stance-feet straight. Where the knee points is where the foot should point, end of story.

Comment #19 - Posted by: Daz - CF Newcastle at December 17, 2009 6:44 PM

Love westside barbell, people have their methods....why not 'exercise' them all..?

Comment #20 - Posted by: Jared Aquilina at December 17, 2009 6:52 PM

Joel- I am having shoulder issues too! Without an official diagnosis- I think I have bicep tendonitis going from shoulder down bipceps.

I have TRIED to stay away from overhead movements and the hspu for a bit. They are getting better but I tried to do some TGU's today- it was a no go. Frustrating!!! I just want them better and back to normal so I can have some fun!

Comment #21 - Posted by: in8girl at December 17, 2009 7:16 PM

That's b/c philosophy and religion are based on finding the whys of the world, while real science is based on the hows. Personally- I don't care about why gravity or evolution works. Just make sure that scientists can build a plane that can lift off and a science book that doesn't have the word creation in it.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Comment #22 - Posted by: sexican m/26/6'/195 at December 17, 2009 7:21 PM

Joel #10

Hey Joel, regarding your shoulder,dan m is right about getting it checked out. You may also want to consider checking out dragondoor.com, where you will find a wealth of information about kettlebells and how they can be a rehabilative and preventative tool, if used correctly. Turkish Getups and overhead presses are an excellent way to strengthen your shoulders and restore ROM. I would suggest contacting RKC certified kettlebell instructor or attend a workshop or two to learn the basics. Good Luck!

Comment #23 - Posted by: Tony at December 17, 2009 7:21 PM

Shane, the difference is that the GymJones guy spent time bashing Crossfit in an effort to build his business. Glassman knows people are going to take this stuff and move out of the proverbial house as they grow up. But you don't have to burn the darn house down when you leave. Not sure I agree with the Simmons video, but it is worth thinking about and looking at. That is the beauty here: look at it, try it out, assimilate it if you like it, toss it if you don't.

And I think the important point about the free comment is that you are never directed to another site or required to pay a penny for anything. Any expenses involved are completely optional and failure to participate monetarily does not ever preclude you from accessing the content.

Comment #24 - Posted by: Scott Andresen at December 17, 2009 7:22 PM

good I can make up my 3k today

Comment #25 - Posted by: Mad Scientist at December 17, 2009 7:23 PM

Joel and In8Girl, I hate to beat a dead horse, but seriously get some professional help. The reason I say this is because I just noticed I still put a shirt on and take it off the same way favoring my left shoulder and favor it when I lift (TGU @ 60# on the right and only 40 on the left the other day) and that's 11 years out... Just saying.

Comment #26 - Posted by: dan m at December 17, 2009 7:27 PM

if louie thinks his box/wide squat is so good for everything then why hasn't he been able to train any olympic liters to an elite level, and why don't any elite olympic lifters use the wide squat?

the range of motion in a wide squat at the knee joint is about 1/2 that of a HBBS olympic squat. how's that for no quadriceps muscle difference

Comment #27 - Posted by: dan at December 17, 2009 7:29 PM

I struggle with the photo issue. On one hand, it is nice to see some females that may not be considered beautiful by larger society (very muscular, not much breast to speak of) depicted as attractive. On the other hand the pictures of males on the main site WOD are usually from further away, emphasizing the movement, not the body. Maybe this only seems this way to me because all these pictures of women are shown one right after the other. On the other hand, advertising a t-shirt by showing an upside down girl's shapely behind doesn't seem to be doing the logo any good. It seems to be doing the population attracted to females good. The idea that Crossfit women are sex objects just as all women are in society is upsetting. Is a Crossfit male supposed to think something roughly the same as the larger society thinks of women: "Man that girl can OHS her body weight! I can't wait to look at her as less than me and demean her through relegating her to the private sector of life. Once she has kids she'll have to miss some WODs of course, but at least I won't have to. Anyway, she can get some dishes done while I'm at the box." On top of that, it seems to market to females in a way that says "You too can be sexy and desired by all these Crossfit men...maybe you can even snag yourself a fire breather if you wear the right shirt and workout in it. A females job in all locations, including a Crossfit box, is to be hot/desirable/a physical being, not a mental being." Feel free to disagree with me, these are cursory thoughts, but keep in mind, if you shoot down my opinion, have something solid to back it up. If you shoot down how females may think of these pictures, be sure you are a female or a male informed by females.

Comment #28 - Posted by: Kelly at December 17, 2009 7:43 PM

"The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm."

It is this portion of Russell's objection that I find unjustifiable. He starts off by saying philosophy may do well not to be so legislative, prescribing its laws as requirements for other disciplines. However, the connection between causation's disappearance from the frameworks of particular advanced sciences and its non-existence all together does not seem necessary or even logically tenable. It's a classic case of negating the antecedent.

Consider the following argument structure:

If there is causation in gravitational astronomy, then there is causation in the universe.

It is not the case that there is causation in gravitational astronomy.

----------------------

Therefore it is not the case that there is causation in the universe.

This a fallacy for the reason that neither astronomical gravitation, nor any advanced science, can totally describe the structure of the universe. So gravitational astronomy may fail to find causation, but that my very well be because it is just somewhere else in the universe. Furthermore, the lack of causation in the language of any scientific model doesn't even establish its disappearance from the subject of even that model itself. All it says is that causation isn't particularly useful to the aims of the model in question.

Someone mentioned that in CF we are concerned only with correlation. That may be the case, and our model would reflect such a concern by failing to include the language of causation. But no-one could take this to mean that there is no causation happening in the black box of our program. There is. In fact it bridges the correlation we see between inputs and outputs. The very language of inputs and outputs describes a one way, linear relationship that is driven forward by causation.

Comment #29 - Posted by: Maguid at December 17, 2009 7:49 PM

I don't see women or men doing movements in the pictures; I see athletes.

Comment #30 - Posted by: Squat Blues at December 17, 2009 7:53 PM

Wow, I wanna get to know Cara in the picture... :)

Comment #31 - Posted by: Jason at December 17, 2009 8:01 PM

Strange that Bertrand Russell (well, actually, knowing him it's not strange)... would claim that there is no such thing as a "cause".

In mathematics, every result has at least one function that generated it. "Nine" is the answer to many mathematical functions, say, this one: f(x) = x ^ 2 for x = 3. It always has been, and always will be, so long as the fundamental rules of the universe do not change (and how would that happen within the realms of science, other than a supernatural being)

To say there's no source for these laws is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalallalalala". Information doesn't come from nothing, and similarly, neither do laws.

Oh, and the reason "cause" never appears in gravitational astronomy is because the laws (that are the foundation of the physics behind it) are taken for granted. Why in the world would we expect the laws that govern the universe to remain unchanged for eternity?

We all *do* know that it was scientists' belief in God centuries ago that prompted them to begin studying the universe around us? They knew that God was eternal, unchanging, and utterly reliable, and therefore the universe He created must be able to be reliably counted upon to produce the same result time after time after time.

I find it funny (there I go again... no I don't find it funny, nor surprising, but rather characteristic of him) that Bertrand Russell would shun the foundations of scientific thought, that are based on belief in a reliable God and a reliable universe, and claim that there is no cause simply because he can't explain away the source of all the information and laws in the universe today.

Comment #32 - Posted by: Matt DeMinico at December 17, 2009 8:02 PM

Joel,
I have scanned the previous posts... and all are giving you good advice. I am in my last year of PT school and a Certified Athletic Trainer so my advice would be to take some time off and see somebody about your shoulder issues. Once the inflammatory process starts and the damage is already done, you need to 1) stop the activity that is causing the problem and 2) strengthen the supporting muscles of the shoulder (rotator cuff and scapular stabilizers) and 3) correct any faulty scapular and shoulder mechanics. Unfortunately, the space in the shoulder is very small and once inflamed only gets smaller, which causes more pain. Go see a PT...sounds like you may need some direction with this issue. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

Comment #33 - Posted by: John VanWey at December 17, 2009 8:05 PM

B Russell is the man!

He makes an interesting point, that changes everything and nothing at the same time. Without causation, things simply "happen." Which is understandable, but does not really jive with intuition. One of the great modern philosophers has predicted a paradigm shift in our way of thinking, and that becomes more and more apparent as time goes on.

If you are interested in his work, I recommend checking out Russell's paradox. Using logic to defy logic, crazy stuff.

Comment #34 - Posted by: Colin at December 17, 2009 8:11 PM

Russell is a bit biased here in the kind of science he's talking about, and his view of that science. He's talking about the differential equations of physics, which are supposed to represent reality without positing any causes. But those equations don't actually apply to any concrete system when they're in this abstracted/idealized form. You have to specify their application by making specific models that apply to concrete systems. And in making specific models what we're doing is developing explanations--isolating variables/parameters and providing the relations. (This is what's called a mechanistic explanation.) I think it's underdeveloped to think of explanations as non-causal. Explanations give us the what why and how. We want to know HOW allelic change occurs within a population, WHAT influences gene expression, etc. Even simulations that work with emergent properties--which are very difficult to track causally-- (models about anything from artificial intelligence to large-scale cellular response to carcinogens) give us partial explanations about HOW things interact to produce a phenomenon.

The other thing we gotta keep in mind is that science isn't metaphysics. It's not a study of the ultimate structure of the universe--rather, models that represent parts of phenomena, selectively.

And, not to hate, but what's with all this philosophy answers why questions and science answers how questions. Both answer both.

Comment #35 - Posted by: Vadim at December 17, 2009 8:12 PM

There is a lovely picture of Eva T. doing a massive front squat -- at T Nation! -- in an article about complexes, of all things. The bad example they cite is almost Linda, but all with the same bar. I was shouting at the screen, well, just use three bars, dummmy!

Comment #36 - Posted by: Fan of Eva at December 17, 2009 8:15 PM

Kelly,

To me, these women are attractive BECAUSE of their mental approach to their fitness. A female who is doing ZUMBA and eating Weight Watchers holds no interest for me while a female who understands "Murph" and is trying to eliminate grains from their diet couldn't be more attractive. The fact that Crossfit focuses on improvements in the posterior chain is just an added benefit!

Comment #37 - Posted by: WVU Reb at December 17, 2009 8:15 PM

more of Louie Simmons please, that guy is full of information that we can use for crossfit.

Comment #38 - Posted by: eugene 22/6'0"/185 at December 17, 2009 8:27 PM

Thank you to everyone who had input for me! I've had some recent contact with a Physical Therapist for a severe ankle sprain and had only minimal time for him to look at my shoulder (more so explain some rehab exercises). I will look into the kettlebell stuff. I have (what I feel) is good shoulder strength, but I find more weakness and strain happening in my stabilizing tendons (if that sounds right...).

Time to take it more easy, good thing I have xmas break coming up, I'll be forced away from my usual gym!

Need to start slowing in order to keep going! ;)

Comment #39 - Posted by: Joel at December 17, 2009 8:27 PM

Wondering if lauren's post has to do with the PIC? Maybe it has to do with the rhetoric about the PIC's and the recent comments about the images in said pictures.

Believing no matter what the content of something is does not matter--it is not how the content got there.

It is the preciption of the matter, how the content got there, and our reaction to it that is a cause.

Only with the reference to our memories about other matter and the content can we react.

Let go of reference material burdening us,
let go of oneself and the causation.

Or continue clutching 'til death!

Comment #40 - Posted by: FOREMAN at December 17, 2009 8:52 PM

Comment #32 John:

Excellent post!

Comment #41 - Posted by: Tony at December 17, 2009 8:54 PM

#16 mikes,

I'm not sure if mass causes gravity per se, although there's some discussion of its cause on this website:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.html

WFS

Comment #42 - Posted by: Ben Moskowitz at December 17, 2009 8:57 PM

Another Lou Simmons Video that was both full of content and again, waayyyyy too short! Another thing to play around with on both lighter and heavy squat days(lighter first of course).

Keep em' coming Tony!

Comment #43 - Posted by: JC at December 17, 2009 8:58 PM

what's the sub for a "wall ball"?

Comment #44 - Posted by: Mark at December 17, 2009 9:04 PM

Bartender! Full frontal man hugs and bad English all around!

Long live the FRAT!

Comment #45 - Posted by: Playoff Beard at December 17, 2009 9:12 PM

#43 Mark,

Try dumbbell thrusters with double the total load. So for a 20lb. wall ball, use two 20lb. dumbbells.

Comment #46 - Posted by: Ben Moskowitz at December 17, 2009 9:21 PM

I am a female who has been in the CrossFit community for well over a year now. I personally do not feel that CrossFit portrays women in a negative or sexual way. CrossFit posts pictures of strong women doing beautiful movement, it is the men who choose to comment on the pictures that make them sexual. I personally grew up thinking I was fat and unattractive because everyone made me feel like the perfect woman is skinny. CrossFit is one of the few places where I feel beautiful BECAUSE I am larger and stronger than other women. I love CrossFit because I finally love the way I look. And if some guys want to make some stupid sexual comments, so be it. Im sure there are plenty of girls who make stupid sexual comments when there's a hot guy on here. Im not saying that your wrong Kelly, I totally understand your feelings, Im just merely saying that everything is in the eye of the beholder. One guy could see the pick from yesterday and say "Damn, look at that fine ass!" and another "That's awesome, I hope I can do handstand pushups some day like that chick." One objectifies it, one doesn't. My vote is that I love the way CrossFit appreciates a strong woman.
And PS. Crossfit Santa Cruz is the best!! Come work out with us strong, beautiful ladies!

Comment #47 - Posted by: Gilly McGraw at December 17, 2009 9:25 PM

I find analytic philosophy intriguing, its great to see a quote from Russel. It'd be interesting to see where Russel went with this, in particular I'd like to get a better grasp of what he meant by causation. From what little interaction I've had with analytic philosophy, I recognize that it has of a course a unique and highly specific language. What we consider a priori is often to them a posterieri (thank you for "clearing this up" Kant).

My interpretation of causality in this quote was the notion of a one to one mapping between an observed effect and a cause. This is the notion that if a the position of a golf ball is known and all other parameters such as wind speed, arc path, air density, final location, etc. where known, then the golf club that struck the ball can be perfectly described. An observed effect corresponds to a definite cause. To make analogy, what I see in physics is more or less a series of effects: a description of the phenomenon observed.
The equations are descriptions, they do not specify the mechanism that is at play when the effect occurs. In that way, a black box is drawn at a certain place, with an equation (sometimes many) taped on top. This is how electrical engineers characterize the performance of filters without taking them apart. It's also apparently a method employed by crossfit (I don't think I've read a formal description of the crossfit black box model).
I think its time to quote Baudrillard. "There is a proliferation of myths of origin and signs of reality" The danger in using signs to describe reality is that others may take the taped description on top of the black box to be the real description. Electrons don't measure the radius between them and take the divide by that value squared to figure out how they are going to repel. The action occurs and columb's law is a good model for this behavior.
I really enjoy Heidegger's philosophy, one of the points I really enjoyed was the notion of knowing an object. As I understand, for Heidegger knowledge of the physical world is gained by direct experience. Abstractions come when there is a disconnect between one's understanding and the object. This is something we see all the time in crossfit when a crossfit coach tells someone learning an Oly lift that they're overthinking it. Speaking of which, I have an essay to write. Peace!

Comment #48 - Posted by: kafkaBro at December 17, 2009 9:39 PM

I like the picture trend. It is great seeing the hot CrossFit ladies and I think those who are pleased with the trend vastly outnumber those who don't like it.

I have my own home gym so I like to support CrossFit by subscribing to the Journal, attending certs, and purchasing the odd tee shirt. In fact, I think I will be placing an order for one of the Infidel shirts.

Keep up the great work HQ.

Comment #49 - Posted by: Ronnieboy at December 17, 2009 9:52 PM

Just as we use "chest up!" to cue correct lumbar extension in a deadlift, so we say "cause & effect" to describe the behavior of entities.

Everything has an identity, its unique nature, and will behave accordingly, interacting with its environment and other entities according to its nature. To deny causality, you would have to deny that things are what they are.

If you understand causality as the behavior of entities, you can avoid the Rationalists' and Idealists' trap of reifying the concepts of causation. (Reifying = mistaking the map for the territory, mistaking a concept for that thing in reality which the concept merely refers to. Don't treat Cause & Effect as 'things' -- they are ideas referring, pointing, to the abstracted aspects of all things which have identity and change over time.)

Aristotle was thoroughly correct in his accounts of identity and causality; 2300 successive years of flatulence have done nothing to substantively improve or revise his understanding.

Comment #50 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at December 17, 2009 9:53 PM

I've got to keep reading this. I have no undergraduate "baggage" with the author, so I can just take it as it stands. But here's my problem: the assertion that we ought not assume such "legislative functions" between "cause" and "effect" is, to Russell, justified by saying physics no longer speaks in such terms. To which one might say "so what?" What claim to ultimate truth have physicists any more than philosophers that we should disregard the seemingly useful notion (let's assume Russell's physicists could be correct) for describing our world? Physicists has of yet no sufficient explanation for that thing we've come to know since man could think called "gravity". You know, the thing/force keeping your butt in that chair. If they are as of yet not up to that basic, mundane task, why should I disregard the notions (even if in some cosmic sense not "true") of cause and effect?

He hasn't convinced me. At all.

Comment #51 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at December 17, 2009 10:12 PM

LOUIE IS A GOD AND WESTSIDE PRODUCES 1000# BACKSQUATS I WILL LET HIM TEACH ME HOW TO SQUAT ANY DAY.

Comment #52 - Posted by: Abi at December 17, 2009 10:44 PM

Cause and effect:

“He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. He created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Whether they are kings or lords, rulers or powers— everything has been created through him and for him. He existed before everything and holds everything together.” -Colossians 1:15-17

Comment #53 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 17, 2009 10:54 PM

I hope the Simmons video is a joke.. It is completely natural to go into a full squat, ass to calves. To train the for skills that are essential to succeed in the crossfit wod's -- clean/jerk, snatch -- one must be able to shoot into the bottom of a squat with extreme precision of movement.

I cannot see how training with a wide stance could have any carryover to anything but competing in the squat at a competition level, where regulations permit contestants to look like a dork when they move weight.

To me, I would much rather train in movements like the clean and snatch which have been tested time and time again with carryover to sport. The 'meathead' squat .. not so much.

Comment #54 - Posted by: afcb at December 17, 2009 11:04 PM

@ cash reynolds,

Very well written, I'll do my best to respond, you have defined your terms well and made a succinct argument. You mention, citing Aristotle that the concepts of Cause and Effect are a framework for describing the interaction of entities. When cause and effect is used as a framework to describe the interaction of things, what is gained and what is lost? My impression of identity as you described it was something that goes far beyond what can be analyzed and abstracted about a thing. I think this is important, there is a limitation to our rational intellect. In your definition, cause and effect work as long as they are not reified. This suggests flexibility; cause and effect seem to play the part of metaphors, referring to how an object without fully describing it. However, as references, they are very ripe for reification. Using the metaphor of cause and effect comes with the baggage of having to consciously learn not to reify the concepts. Perhaps there is a metaphor that comes prepackaged in a way that this cannot occur. I certainly don't think cause and effect are the only framework for describing the interaction of things. Reddy's 'Conduit Metaphor' goes into great depth on a way to make the effects of interpretation of abstracts very visible, so that the map isn't mistaken for the territory.

Comment #55 - Posted by: kafkaBro at December 17, 2009 11:52 PM

@ Greg/M2,

I think your viewpoint is perfectly valid and I respect it. This is my interpretation of the Buddhist perspective. That being said, I don't think its right (I don't think I really have the privilege to knowing what is right), just an interesting alternative perspective.

If he existed before everything, then he existed before time right? Because in order for an omnipotent being to exist for all eternity, he must exist in a realm in which time does not exist so that there is no "before." That being the case, such a realm must be permanently unchanging, no new information must ever be created or destroyed in order for it to be timeless. Omnipotence presupposes timelessness.

That means that God exists in a realm where everything has always and forever already happened and not happened. And by definition we must be in it or there will be a before an after inside the timeless God-realm. There isn't an ounce of causality there!

"Oh Sariputra, all things here are characterized with emptiness: they are not born, they are not annihilated; they are not tainted, they are not immaculate; they do not increase, they do not decrease... there is no attainment [and yet] he reaches Nirvana" ~ The Heart Sutra

Comment #56 - Posted by: aether_tron at December 18, 2009 12:08 AM

For time:
21 Pull-ups
21 Handstand Push-ups
18 Pull-ups
18 Handstand Push-ups
15 Pull-ups
15 Handstand Push-ups
12 Pull-ups
12 Handstand Push-ups
9 Pull-ups
9 Handstand Push-ups
6 Pull-ups
6 Handstand Push-ups
3 Pull-ups
3 Handstand Push-ups
Handstand push-ups are "nose to floor" and pull-ups are "strict" or non-kipping.
DID THIS TODAY DIDNT HAVE TIME THE OTHER DAY
AS RX BUT HEAD TO FLOOR NOT NOSE DONT NEED BLOODY NOSE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
M/30/5'11" 170
15:57

Comment #57 - Posted by: chris at December 18, 2009 12:10 AM

From Kelly (#27)

> Is a Crossfit male supposed to think something
> roughly the same as the larger society thinks of
> women: "Man that girl can OHS her body weight! I
> can't wait to look at her as less than me and
> demean her through relegating her to the private
> sector of life.

You must be joking, right?

> Feel free to disagree with me, these are
> cursory thoughts, but keep in mind, if you shoot
> down my opinion, have something solid to back it
> up. If you shoot down how females may think of
> these pictures, be sure you are a female or a
> male informed by females.

Okay, now I know you are joking.

Be aware I am working with all other males on the planet (in concert with CrossFit) to demean women and get them to clean the dishes dirtied by males while looking incredibly sexy. Our plan is achieving enormous success so far and this is only the beginning. The future is a bright one, indeed.

Comment #58 - Posted by: TomC at December 18, 2009 12:45 AM

@ TomC,

The objectification and domestication of women has a rich history. Though fortunately most men throughout history didn't follow lockstep with the social ideals, there's no denying that Kelley is drawing on truth. Just read a maxim magazine or even men's health mag to get a taste of this idealogy's much tamer offspring. Women are "hot babes" to be won, once you get one you can learn all these creative techniques to keep them happy and under control.
Fortunately, those days are -- in many ways -- behind us.

@ Kelly,
I've been meaning to say that I appreciated your post. I get very mixed messages from the pictures posted from crossfit HQ. Sometimes I don't know whether to see the aesthetic they give women as a critique of standard physical beauty or as a fetish of the female body. The series of pictures really are that ambiguous! With the more sexual shots, are they simply grafting this new aethestic on to the standard fitness context (many pictures of fit women are revealing), is every picture a product of a muscular body fetish or has my mind interpreted sexuality where there is none?

I really feel that crossfit HQ is critiquing standard beauty to allow for other possible models of beauty. But then again, I'm a big optimist.

Comment #59 - Posted by: kafkaBro at December 18, 2009 1:49 AM

Well, since we're quoting random books and acting like it's the be all end all of answers:

"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." TRATEOTU Ch. 1

Still, there's not a meat to chew on for this Rest Day "article". Seriously, just two paragraphs poorly describing causation as an antiquitated illusion. Oh well, at least the discussion about the female photos has been nice to read, though I'll stay out of that discussion.

Comment #60 - Posted by: Nukemarine at December 18, 2009 2:40 AM

I'm not drinking the Louie cool-aid on this one. You can't convince me that spreading your feet really wide with toes pointed forward is a good way to lift heavy. Westside gym might produce folks that can do 1000# squats but coaching like this is what got me injured in high school. I'm sticking with keeping my feet at slightly wider than shoulder width. I may try to widen my stance as he suggests for air squats but that is about it.

Comment #61 - Posted by: Glenn at December 18, 2009 3:29 AM

@Kelly... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I'm with TomC in that you've made this into a crusade of sorts by blowing it way out of proportion. I do know that objectification of women and men has gotten a bit out of hand, like all things with potential rewards attached to them, but it just seems you have a personal vendetta leading you to be overactively vigilant in defending women against this trend. I'm not upset at all, but I see what I believe is a sore spot that is probably pushing your judgement way to one side.

Simply put, men are objectified too, but more women are because visual stimuli involving the opposite sex work better on men than they do on women. It's a difference between the sexes that isn't going to be bred out, educated out, or stamped out of society because it's part of the genetic make-up of our species that is, by and large, split on gender lines. You may not like it, and that's fine if that's just how you feel, but recognize that this crusade has certain flaws in it inherent to all attempts at pure "equality" in a sterile, scientific, 50-50-on-paper sense. That is, it doesn't stop at issues that are solely man-made (hah... pun half intended), but attempts to create a gender-neutral society that makes no sense in the real world and which ignores the advantages of being different (in *any* sense). You don't realize you're asking for a world painted in grey and beige where we all think alike (in at least the ways you think are important) and have no emotional excesses, physical differences, or significant mental advantages over others in any respect.

Now, I realize I'm on my soapbox now and may be painting you with a few strokes you don't deserve as I have only a single post to base my opinions on, *but* your writing does have a touch of victim-mentality to it and one who indulges in that characteristic alone usually sees their entire world from that vantage point (or, hehe, disad-vantage point). At least, so my experience has taught me, living in California, where a person given two ways of taking something often choses the one where they get to be [the most] hurt by it.

The language that really stands out to me is your desire to, if I may paraphrase, only be responded to by women or men informed by women, which implies, in its best possible meaning, that you want a balanced opinion on it. Perhaps that's where I should leave it, but you should know that the way you state it implies that the issue is one which only women can understand, meaning a man without the enlightenment, guidance, or molding of women to guide him, isn't fit to respond in his own way to your post. That suggests you have an inability to defend your position against anyone who doesn't already agree with you or doesn't at least come it from your side, and that's no way to foster any kind of reasonable discussion about something.

Looking back at what you wrote, I suppose I am now responding more to the taste your post left in my mouth rather than to the post itself, but my original point stands as such: Just because a woman is viewed in a sexual way (which is inbuilt) doesn't mean she has no value other than that.

Your experiences with men or how men have treated those around you may have you feeling otherwise (that's not ad hominem, just a logical inference), but I believe you are looking at those examples with a confirmation bias in mind. Men will almost always *look* at a woman sexually at some level, but that hardly precludes men from enjoying her at many other levels as well. Picture are worth far less than 1000 words, and, being visual in nature (and matching men in that regard), inherently select for visual qualities. Thus, women will give off much different impressions than men when depicted in *ANY* way, regardless of their position, independence, business savvy, education, financial prowess, literary or artistic ability, etc. etc... as they are all visceral qualities, not done any justice by a picture. To wit, an picture of an apple proffers 1/1000th the nourishment, mental (aesthetically, kinesthetically, etc) or physical, of the real, visceral thing in one's hand or mouth. In the same way, a woman in the flesh has myriad amazing qualities that are part of an honest-to-God experience. I'm not speaking just sexually, I'm talking about knowing a woman in any one of the billion ways in which you can know her and connect with her.

I'm reminded of Nixon's consternation and sigust over the decision to televise debates and political proceedings, as he felt himself to be less visually attractive than many of his opponents. On the radio, he believed he was on more even footing, but politicians who wanted the the cheap, yet effective, and possibly exclusive, advantages of being good/better-looking had won the day. That's the key here: the medium sets the rules of the game. It limits the perspective, culls the information received, and interacts with our personal, genetic, cultural, and other attributes to produce results that are never the whole picture (man... I just can't stop it with these silly puns).

Ok... I could go on for days and probably would, but I have to get back to invoicing clients. I hope you can take this without too much feeling of personal attack, but at the end of the day I believe the Stoics had it right: only you are truly in control of the way you feel. Best of luck out there, both in the gym and elsewhere. I hope you will allow a bit of this post to reach you beyond any defenses you, like the rest of us, construct to protect a fragile ego. (and no, that's not an insult).

Comment #62 - Posted by: SplinShints at December 18, 2009 3:29 AM

Sheesh people lighten up regarding the pictures. They are shots of men and woman doing an athletic movement. They are attractive images. Try to simply enjoy or appreciate beauty in various forms without over analyzing it. Yes, if a picture of an attractive female is posted there will always be some knucklehead guy who will make a crude remark sure as gravity. Just ignore and move on.

Comment #63 - Posted by: phil g atlanta, ga cf since 8/21/09 at December 18, 2009 3:35 AM

Proof 1- All things that begin to exist have a cause.
Proof 2- The universe began to exist.
Conclusion- The universe has a cause.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"- Genesis 1:1

Comment #64 - Posted by: J at December 18, 2009 4:33 AM

Joel ~ I am almost 60 yrs old & have been a weight lifter for over 30 years. As you can imagine I have had to seek numerous healing methods throughout the years. The obvious is chiropractic which I could not continue to lift at my age if it wasn't for my chiro. Aside from skeletal issues though, my 2 favorite remedies are acupuncture and a method called ART, or Active Release Techniques. Both have helped healing when nothing else did. You can go to activerelease.com for more info. Good luck to you in your healing!

Comment #65 - Posted by: Judie at December 18, 2009 5:54 AM

J,

Instead of Proof 1 and Proof 2 you might mean Premise 1 and Premise 2. In Logic, a valid argument/proof is one where a conclusion follows from a series of premises. Only thing is, and here's the draw, the premises must be true.

Yours is a classical argument for the existence of God. Most people learn it in a freshman philosophy course. And the typical counters to the argument are as follows:
Issue #1 - To say all things in the universe need a cause to exist requires a leap of faith. In keeping with our rest day article, does gravity require a cause in order to exist? Difficult to say for sure.
Issue #2 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - Genesis 1:1. Okay, now what? Does that mean God exists, or merely that God existed? I have a watch that is 100 years old. Still keeps perfect time. It was made by a watch maker. But the watch maker long ago ceased to exist.

Comment #66 - Posted by: Alex at December 18, 2009 5:57 AM

Today is my 16th birthday and im bummed its a rest day. So can anyone give me a good wo to do???

Comment #67 - Posted by: Kevin Walls at December 18, 2009 5:59 AM

Bertrand Russell has far more intellect than me, but the fact is he is dead. This leads me to ask,"what caused the death of Betrand Russell?" Well the fact is he died of influenza. It seems funny to me that a man who did not believe in "the law of causality" actually had a cause to his death. The law of causality has existed since God first created and even though men try to think it away it continues. Maybe because we know that this law exist we should not try to avoid it, but rather focus our thoughts on the One who created it.

Comment #68 - Posted by: Joshua Case at December 18, 2009 6:01 AM

Bertrand Russell was an ardent atheist so i took the quote to be an argument against the "first cause" argument which st. thomas aquinas put forward. basically that says everything that exists has a cause, the universe exists, therefore it has a cause-god.

But because of physics, not against physics, we know about the conservation of energy and mass, and so it becomes suspect that the universe did have a cause. Why did anything have to cause the universe? we can imagine the universe extending infinitely in time forwards so why not backwards? that is the universe without causation i think russell is talking about.

Comment #69 - Posted by: badnews at December 18, 2009 6:10 AM

Maby I can get some suggestions on workouts that I coud do? I am currently recovering from knee surgery and limited on what I can do. Any help would be great.

Comment #70 - Posted by: Cain at December 18, 2009 6:18 AM

M/40/175/6'

Some guys that do CF at the Y came up with this WOD. I just got done with it and it was a fun one. If anybody wants to try it, post it for today and put the name arron in it. That way I can search it. I would love to here what anybody else thought about it.

my time 9:40

10 Power cleans at 135lbs
20 Push-ups
9 PC
19 PU
8 PC
18 PU
7 PC
17 PU
6 PC
16 PU
5 PC
15 PU
4 PC
14 PU
3 PC
13 PU
2 PC
12 PU
1 PC
11 PU

Comment #71 - Posted by: Judd at December 18, 2009 6:27 AM

Kelly: You are a little unclear, but I are you saying that HQ is purposefully protraying CF women in a sexual manner??? If so:

I just took a cursory look at the main site pics since 01 Nov (admittedly small sample) and cataloged them:
1. Scene, those with scenery or a group of people as the main focus (18)
2. Cert Pics (6)
3. Men: Pics with men as the primary focus (12)
4. Women: Women as the primary focus (10) 1 Dec was the first, so Dec is lopp-sided
5: Kids (1)

Only ONE female pic was posted of a women wearing modest clothing (Army PT uniform). I am fairly certain that none of the remaining NINE women were coerced into wearing revealing tops and form-fitting pants. My opinion is that the advertised T-shirts are relatively modest and non-sexual, so any concern is with the rest of their clothing.
-If we omit the 4 pics that could clearly have CFHQ influence, 6 pics remain that were submitted by the CF community. 5 of those 6 portrayed females in tight-fitting or revealing clothing they chose as appropriate to wear and submit to the site. Maybe you should direct your attention at the community of women who choose to perform in clothing that can be construed as sexual. Can you offer an alternative that provides the performance/comfort benefits of the pictured clothing that is less likely to be seen in a sexual manner?

Compare: Of the 12 male pics, three were shirtless with long MMA/Surf style shorts. The rest were fully clothed in T-shirts and long/loose shorts. 11 of 12 male pics appear to be submitted by the communtity without HQ influence.

If it is an Issue, it is a community issue, not CFHQ.

Also please make a note of the person who posts the WoD and pics.

Please grind your ax elsewhere.

Comment #72 - Posted by: Rossco at December 18, 2009 6:47 AM

Kelly,
Sounds to me like you might be over-reacting to the pictures; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for the camera shooting more close-ups of women than men, you can look back at the archives if you have time to waste on such frivolousness. I would recommend you workout instead, but if it is important that you “fight against” self-perceived female inequalities in all facets of life, then feel free to waste your time. I am certain that you will end up feeling empty, defeated, and probably ugly.

Advertising is advertising. Crossfit is a fitness program. Please give me one good reason why the pictures would not “highlight” positive aspects of fitness. I know it might seem ridiculous once you become a seasoned fitness enthusiast, but if you talk to people about what brought them to CrossFit or any other fitness program (especially women); we often hear “well, I want to look better or I want to lose weight.” Women perpetuate this cycle of wanting to look a certain way. CrossFit is selling what women want. Why is it so terrible that the pictures taken of the women might be physically appealing to the men? We want to sell CrossFit to men too, right? What is the point of marketing and advertising? Have you ever looked at one of the pictures of the men and found his body physically appealing? Is anyone besides you really trying to make this into a social statement? I know of a few undesirable blogs that you might find really offensive if you were to search for them. They take pictures of women with bulging muscles and blow them up to over exaggerate the effect CrossFit has had on the “domesticated housewife.”

Stop viewing yourself as a sex object; remember that is what MEN are for. It is your job to be the best athlete you can be. You are who you are and who you want to be. Embrace the community where being a strong woman is not frowned upon, but applauded. I would also recommend submitting a few tasteful photos to HQ. Good luck realizing your dream of objectification!

Comment #73 - Posted by: Jeannie Barrow at December 18, 2009 7:01 AM

In "Blink," Gladwell discusses the Warren Harding effect where we are blinded by appearance [Harding - handsome man, pitiful President]. So when you drool over a hot guy or gal in the Crossfit "pic-O-the-day," remember that the person, while beautifully sculpted, may be shallower than a wading pool.

To really dive off the deep end, consider Tiger Woods...he may be the Athlete of the Decade, but he won't be winning any Father/Husband of the Year awards anytime soon.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Dom m/175/6' at December 18, 2009 7:21 AM

in8girl #21 (& Joel #10),

I have had pain in the same area you described. For me OH Squats (even lowbar backsquats) and especially ring dips really bothered it.

Went to a PT and it seems to be bicep tendonitis. It's been over a week and I've seen the PT 3 times and laid off certain pushing/OH movements. Feeling much better.

Here's a link on the CF message board with more details of what I've done:

http://www.board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=53495

I'll say again...I recommend seeing a sports related PT first. Worked for me so far with 2 unrelated issues in the past 2 years.

Comment #75 - Posted by: TP M-39 6'1" 198 # at December 18, 2009 7:21 AM

I appreciate CrossFit extending the olive branch to another training methodology that is obviously successful and effective. Undoubtedly, each one has something to offer the other. This is the key to continued sustainance in this great fitness movement. Too often, folks in the training game take the certainty in the methods with which they train and shut the door on critical analysis of the rest of the knowledge that is out there..."Try them all, see which one works best for you, and be able to articulate why one may have an advantage over another in a given situation."

Comment #76 - Posted by: Ryan Kenny at December 18, 2009 7:26 AM

I've been doing heavy squats as a post WOD extra, focusing on deep range of motion. The wide stance looks like it would be more appropriate with lower weights until comfortable, but heck, that's common sense when learning any new movement. Thanks for the video Mr. Budding!

Comment #77 - Posted by: James H. at December 18, 2009 7:39 AM

I agree with kelly with have to keep women domesticated. Its time to put an end to this trend of women having to much say in society!

Comment #78 - Posted by: Dave at December 18, 2009 8:36 AM

AAGGHHHH!! I couldn't just take a day off now could I? Nope! I went in and jumped rope for about 35 minutes at a high intensity with many variations and then did some...ABS! Yes I know

Comment #79 - Posted by: BrooksT/M/6'2"/192 at December 18, 2009 8:40 AM

SplinShints @ 62:

Well stated. In the Nixon/Kennedy debates, didn't those listening on the radio believe that Nixon had won, while those on TV believe that Kennedy had? Anyway, very well-written post.

Comment #80 - Posted by: Nick at December 18, 2009 8:47 AM

In regards to # 11

I had my supraspinatus (sp) tear last year (surgery in April). I am not sure if it occured prior to a heavy split jerk or overuse. In retropsect it was a blessing in disguise. Here is what I learned and I pass on to my clients.

1. If you need to bail on a weight, bail don't let it land on you (my mistake) but a PR (I know ego thing).

2. Use bands and dumbells in warm-up to strengthen the small muscles ie: rotator cuff exercises.

3. Listen to your body. If a WOD calls for overhead or a large amount of pull-ups scale or do an alternate. Sometimes your age and lifestyle can dictate what your body can handle. Most of use aren't as elite as we think we are.

4. Don't deviate a lot from the site. Basically, if you are going 3 on 1 off, example - I wouldn't back up the program with a traditional bench press program. If you follow the program a day or week behind you can sub in alternate workouts as you see fit, so you do not overtrain with reps.

5. ICE the pain.

6. Look at your form. Sometimes we think we are doing things right when we are not.

Hopefully, you are in phase of overuse that can be resolved with some simple small muscle work, ice and not a complete tear. Mine caused a lot of swelling after minimal use so I had it repaired. I rehabed for 1.5 months (traditionally). Came back slow with bands, dumbells, wall push-ups, to the present (8 mo), almost 100%.

Finally, - listen to your body - it's a great program adapt as needed. Know your goals!

Comment #81 - Posted by: Eric at December 18, 2009 8:49 AM

I'm just getting into CF and trying to figure out how often and what days 'rest days' normally are. Is there some kind of schedule or just something you have to learn to flow with?

Thanks guys! xoxo

Comment #82 - Posted by: Sarra at December 18, 2009 8:57 AM

Anyone who has read any of Louie Simmons articles on his website should be able to clearly see what can be taken an applied to crossfit.

I believe the biggest thing that can be taken from his training is 1. dynamic and max effort days. I am constantly checking out the programming of affiliate websites, and I see a common trend.

I almost always find a strength workout followed by a metcon of some type. I like the idea of this, but I do think the strength programming on the websites could be better. If you look at most of the crossfit strength programming done by affiliates, you will notice the trend of:
DL 5 X 5; FS 5 X 3 ; Presses 7 X 1

I think you would see some bigger gains if some dynamic days were incorporated some days and max effort days later in the week. Example: 8 X 2 Squat w/ bands (using about 50% of 1rm) or presses w/ chains while focusing on exploding through the movement.

If you can learn to move 200 lbs faster with more force all the way through a squat, you will in be able to blow through that 400 lb 1 rm.

My favorite thing about crossfit is the merging of so many ideas and methods. I believe the best trainers are the ones that are constantly adapting and learning new things to apply to what they do.


Comment #83 - Posted by: cl at December 18, 2009 9:00 AM

Another question...How do you understand the running 3K, 5K...WHAT IS 'K'?? It's a really basic (and probably extremely stupid question) but I have never enjoyed running and have NO IDEA how I'm going to meet whatever the WODs are asking from if I don't even understand the language :'o(

..thanks again.

Comment #84 - Posted by: Sarra at December 18, 2009 9:04 AM

what's the name for this philosophical WOD dealing with "causation" and should i have attempted to complete it for time:)

Comment #85 - Posted by: AMIIGAS DILLIGAS at December 18, 2009 9:05 AM

Interesting. Russell was a fantastic mathematician and a brilliant thinker. To be frank though, this debate generally seems to become moot in application. We all already have our underlying feelings of skepticism or confidence regarding various scientific, philosophical, religious theories. Nobody with an active mind really lives their life full-on rejecting "causation," as we've spent most of our days gathering such bias in order to (hopefully) regularly make informed and good decisions.

I really prefer to leave whether its philosophical/logical residue should be called "correlation," "effect sequencing," or whatever you want... to the analysis witch doctors.

Comment #86 - Posted by: Slav 22/m/68"/150 at December 18, 2009 9:07 AM

@Alex,
I appreciate the correction in my use of 'Proof'. I made the mistake of presenting an argument for which i don't have the answer to any rebuttal; a mistake that i will learn from. I enjoyed your 'watchmaker' argument, however i know there is a well-rounded and definitive answer to your argument. Since i can't provide that answer i will direct you here if you would like to listen to a great Christian philosopher speak, whom i believe has argued against exactly what you are saying. I'm sure you would enjoy listeneing to him.
Ravi Zacharias @
www.rzim.org
check out any of his podcasts.

Comment #87 - Posted by: J at December 18, 2009 9:09 AM

I see David Leys in the background of this pic today! What up bro?

Comment #88 - Posted by: Jonesy at December 18, 2009 9:23 AM

#84 Sarra,

Not a stupid question at all.

"K" is just short for kilometer, also sometimes referred to as "clicks". One kilometer is the same distance as .62 miles. So if the workout calls for a 5k, just multiply .62 x 5 and you get roughly 3.1 miles.

Hope that helps and happy running!

Comment #89 - Posted by: Playoff Beard at December 18, 2009 9:27 AM

CrossFit is doing itself a service by embracing the teachings of Mr. Louie Simmons. If you are okay with mediocre strength, go ahead and turn tail to what he has to say. In the meantime, I will be advancing my athletes' and my strength and knowledge.

Be on the lookout for wide-stance box squats at crossfit757, sooooooooooon...

Comment #90 - Posted by: JoeyG at December 18, 2009 9:27 AM

m/57/5'10"/180

Today:

8 Rounds: 1 minute jump rope, 2 minutes heavy bag
Total 24 minutes
Double-unders now coming fast and furious.

I was going to follow it with a Tabata on the C@. Instead, I did 5 rounds for time of:

10 Burpees
10 Situps
10 Pushups
10 Squats

11:38 (which sucks, I think.)

Burpees REALLY suck. Unfortunately, I think they may be the single most effective exercise I do.


jmsny111752

Comment #91 - Posted by: jeff at December 18, 2009 9:57 AM

Re: shoulder issues
When I started CF (about 11 mo. ago) I was totally seduced by all the pullups. They were a huge weakness of mine and I attacked them with vigor. And got worse at them. It took me 6 months to admit I had a problem and see a PT. By then my shoulder was totally inflamed (20 years of surfing 3-4x per week had left a previously-dislocated shoulder hypermobile but unable to withstand heavy stresses, and bicep tendonitis had progressed to tendonosis). It took another 2 months to accept the blow to my ego that scaling & subbing required. Now that I'm using bands or replacing them with bent rows, I'm finally actually getting stronger.

Comment #92 - Posted by: Benny1 40/74"/220 at December 18, 2009 10:04 AM

Did a modified 300 workout:

28:03

25 pull-ups with 105# assist
50 deadlifts 40#
50 push-ups
50 box jumps with a 24-inch box
50 "floor wipers" 40#
50 "clean and press" dumbbell at 35#
25 pull-ups with 105# assist

Comment #93 - Posted by: Linwood Wright at December 18, 2009 10:39 AM

For my 50th birthday, the Filthy Fifty.
50 reps of each:
Box Jumps
Jumping Pullups
kettlebell swings
walking lunges
knees to elbows
push press
back extensions
wall ball
burpees
double unders- subbed box jumps

38:15
I'm halfway to 100.

Comment #94 - Posted by: Major Dad 50/6'3"/162 at December 18, 2009 10:39 AM

I wonder what caused Bertrand Russell to write that piece?

Comment #95 - Posted by: kyle at December 18, 2009 10:53 AM

Let's use the map vs. territory metaphor to gain a valuable perspective on 'cause and effect'.

Only with the tools of memory, and the formation of abstract concepts, are humans able to freeze perceptions and thus imagine a static, unchanging state. No such state actually abides in reality; only in our abstracted consciousness of it. In reality, everything is constantly changing, according to its nature. Some so quickly, or so slowly, we cannot even gain awareness of it; nonetheless -- causality is axiomatic. For Bertrand Russell or any other coffee lounge muser, in order to question or argue against causality, they must implicitly rely upon it, invoke it, depend upon it, and resort to our common understanding of it. These thieves are always drawing credit on the money in your wallet, and using this credit to pickpocket you.

We can imagine a frozen snapshot, a temporal slice of reality -- and to a large extent, concepts require this. To posit 'cause' and 'effect' we will have to use these frozen snapshots and refer to them as 'before' and 'after', and voila, from the constant flux of reality we formed mental constructs to refer to temporal slices and named them as cause and effect. It was only nature unfolding as it always does; the cause and effect pictures were in our minds. Which is not to say they aren't accurate and justified. They usually are indeed reasonably accurate for our purposes, hence our meaningful understanding of the world around us.

Comment #96 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at December 18, 2009 10:55 AM

#82 Sarra

Your "K" question was answered. Your other question on days on/off are 3 days of mind-numbing, booty kicking, muscle aching WODs (Work Out of the Day) followed by a very cerebral (and sometimes mind-numbing) rest day. Scroll through the main site and you will see the routine. Since you are new, be sure and scale (limit repetitions and/or weight) so you don't hurt yourself.

#94 Major Dad

You are my inspiration and I am only a couple of years behind you. 50 is the new 25!

Comment #97 - Posted by: Dom m/175/6' at December 18, 2009 10:55 AM

Good job to all females, especially non-gymnasts, who are throwing out the muscle ups and ring dips

Comment #98 - Posted by: Koshi, CrossfitFTF at December 18, 2009 11:04 AM

I love this community, so many helpful people!

#75:
Your injury described in your forum link are of the same nature as mine. I will be reading through that with care!

Aside:
I also received a nice email referring me to the book "The Frozen Shoulder Workbook" by Clair Davies. Looks like it should help.

#92:
A lot of my pain started with pull ups, and I too feel like I'm getting worse at them. It's nice to have the extra voice saying "it's OK to scale, you'll get there eventually".

I've got to be in this for the long haul; no blow-outs at 21! :-D

Thanks again to everyone that commented!

Comment #99 - Posted by: Joel at December 18, 2009 11:11 AM

Ran a 28 min 3 mile which is really good for me, I'm climbing that damn athletic performance ladder one rung at a time

Comment #100 - Posted by: Mad Scientist at December 18, 2009 11:22 AM

#56, aether_tron,

Hi, interesting thought you shared. I appreciate your sharing it with me. It made me think, and so I will share some thoughts in response. :)

Time is a measure of a beginning, and an and. If God has no beginning, and no end, then there is no time associated in Him. This does not imply that time does not exist for the things He created, whether they be in His realm, or not. It also does not preclude Him from being able to maneuver between the realms He created, be they time restricted or not. An infinite being, could have an infinite complexity, beyond our finite understanding, which He created. For example, a computer program can not define the complexity of the programmer on its own, unless it was pre-programmed to do so by the programmer, and then it would only be able to do so in the terms laid down by the programmer, not by its own set of rules.

It also does not mean that His (Jesus/God) realm is unchanging. For an eternal being could create things that are temporal. His omnipotence does not mean that the things He created can never be destroyed. Omnipotence is assigned to God, and not His creation. It also does not mean that the things He created also existed forever, or they would never have been “created.” The Logic of “The Heart Sutra” is flawed, because it is the logic of the thing created, attempted to define in absolute terms the omnipotent being that created it. One of the definitions for omnipotence is the ability to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

With that said, God has created in us (unlike the animals) the ability to discover through our observations, many of the complex things He created. This is what we refer to as science. It is not only good, but fun. It allows us the freedom to live in His creation with the excitement of discovering the things He created. The God I love, and follow, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is infinitely good. My heart grows fonder of Him everyday. :)

“Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him." -Hebrews 10:38

Peace

Comment #101 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 18, 2009 11:51 AM

Amusing that most daily comments have no relevance to the workout of the day.

Comment #102 - Posted by: Liam at December 18, 2009 11:54 AM

Crossfit has Louie Simmons, or vice verse; this is huge! The guy consistently turns lifters into the strongest people on the earth, not to mention he is a Legend in his own right.

Comment #103 - Posted by: D. Price, Akron, 33/m/215 at December 18, 2009 11:56 AM

Not enough time to respond to everyone right now.

SplinShints:
I appreciate your commentary. I specifically make no attempt to hide personal feelings on the matter as I feel attempts made by people in that endeavor are silly; we are subjective in opinions, that's why they're opinions. I also really like all the responses I've read (so far, no time on my hands to read them all) in regards to the "women or men informed by women" part. This has been something I've been doing lately: refusing to take men's opinions on how women feel, think, or are affected by something without letting them know I find it invalid unless it meets the previously stated criteria. The issue I aim to address with this is that even academic feminism can get overrun by men letting women know how they are or are not feminist. The idea of a man telling me that wearing tight pants while I crossfit is unfeminist (feminist to me is an equal rights proponent, as Kafka Bro said in a post, language of certain domains is very specific) is so frustrating. I wear tight pants because I HATE when my double-unders are broken up because my pants are falling down and I don't want to pick wedgies during overhead squats. However, a man looking at a feminist issue without addressing actual females can come up with ridiculous stuff like this. So while I may sound sexist or mean when saying that, or maybe at worst ignorant, I carry this belief into my work. I work with refugees and I will not let myself or my coworkers hash out ideas about problems facing the refugee community without actually talking to refugees every step of the planning process. To me, discussing an issue of discrimination or disadvantage or objectification without including the object of these things is pointless.

And yes, of course I've had many horrible experiences with the sexualization and objectification of females. Every 30 seconds a woman is raped in this country, at least.

In regards to themes in other posts:
I did mention in my post that I like the photos for their propagation of a different standard of beauty (the one of the woman doing a monkey bar thing being the best example of this).

And just a quick note on the domestication and relegation to the private sector of females: if you don't believe it, read some books from a women's studies 101 class or talk to a group of soccer moms when their husbands aren't around. This is honest advice.

Oh and another quick note, yes I was 'joking' as implied in an earlier post if joking means making a horrible underlying current in our society beyond blatantly obvious by putting passive aggressive attempts at the control of women into a few word quotation. Keep in mind that the cognitions a person thinks aren't always what's really being thought. People really did get up and buy that popcorn in the movie theater even though they thought they were thinking about a movie trailer.

Comment #104 - Posted by: Kelly at December 18, 2009 11:59 AM

Jeannie,
Now that's a big bite for me to chew. The last paragraph of life advice, I'll skip and only address the meat of your point which, to me, seems to be that selling women as objects to look at works, CF wants to sell, so go for it CF. That's totally understandable. I suppose my issue (which really isn't a huge deal to me like you seem to think, it was just an idle 2 minutes I had and posted a comment because I felt like it) is that Crossfit seems to me to aim itself towards function. Beyond that, it seems that superficiality is scoffed at by CF (re: crossfit makes women hot and men skinny) in the name of function over body builder bodies. So if that seems to be the stance, I just feel the pictures don't fall in line with what I, personally, only individual little unimportant me, see as their goal. It does, however, fall in line with your stated goal of selling. I suppose this is the crux of the situation, in my opinion: when it comes to selling, women are the ones thrown under the bus and used for aesthetics and not function. Maybe tomorrow's pic will be Khalipa in Crossfit boxer briefs, pulling a tire in the rain, and I'll be wrong. We'll wait and see.

Comment #105 - Posted by: Kelly at December 18, 2009 12:13 PM

SplinShints:
I made a HUGE response to you and the internet machine ate it! It said it was posted, but it seems that that isn't true. Oh where oh where did my little post go. I'll repost it later when I have time.

Comment #106 - Posted by: Kelly at December 18, 2009 12:15 PM

Kelly,

1 Corinthians 11:8-9:
"For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man." :)

Comment #107 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 18, 2009 12:19 PM

Greg,

Are you a biblical literalist? I'm getting that sense from your posts, but would like clarification.

Comment #108 - Posted by: Nick at December 18, 2009 12:35 PM

AMRAP in 20 min
500 m row
25 TGU W/60 lbs

rounds: 1 + 500m Row + 5 TGU

Rough. Nearly crushed my nuts.

Comment #109 - Posted by: adam (m/23/5'9"/162) at December 18, 2009 12:48 PM

Perhaps Mr. Russell is right in describing the advanced "physical" sciences as having no use for causality, but we forget the biological sciences and those fields dealing with conscious, rational beings. Surely we can see ourselves as causal agents who operate in a more-or-less causally functioning reality.

Furthermore:

As a man who appreciates beautiful women, I'm grateful for the ones who embody both beauty and strength. Thank you CrossFit.

Ernest 39/M/61"/167

Comment #110 - Posted by: twiki2 at December 18, 2009 12:53 PM

No rest day for me, but I enjoyed everyone's comments.

6k row, 21:53. 3 rounds practicing wall balls 12 lb., box jumps, handstands, 1-arm db swings. Isabel scaled to 95 lbs, not for time, just for reps. Darn it, I am still not fully committing to jumping under the bar, but I am at least getting more confident and practiced at the motion.

Comment #111 - Posted by: Kamper/M/45/74"/200 at December 18, 2009 12:54 PM

"300" - 25 full extension pullups (no kip), 50 deadlifts (135lbs), 50 pushups, 50 squats (135lbs), 50 4count flutterkicks, 50 hanging clean & press, 25 pullups. 22:29.

Comment #112 - Posted by: BW at December 18, 2009 12:56 PM

Greg/M2-
I find that offensive, sorry. I won't respond to that statement as I would any other because using a book of unknown origin to make a point that I was created for men is base. I know that goes against your religious beliefs and I don't want to offend you but you chose to share them with me in this manner. To me, that statement is laughable. I don't want to get into a religious discussion on here as the christians and athiests on here have been shown to have all out brawls on rest day comments and I'm pretty sure nothing ever ever comes of that. Your faith will never be proven wrong to you, as it is faith and cannot be proven or disproved. Just understand that that statement is illogical when compared with my daily experiences and is offensive to me.

Comment #113 - Posted by: Kelly at December 18, 2009 12:57 PM

Major Dad, way to go brother!

Comment #114 - Posted by: BW (m/30/5'7"/180) at December 18, 2009 1:01 PM

@ Dan M #12-

Yes, CF sells things, but I've yet to see CF-brand rings for sale. Do you also look down at NFL owners for allowing team t-shirts to be sold in their stadiums? What about bands for selling tour t-shirts? And CF certs give people some knowledge that they can then go use to become better trainers, produce healthier clients, and generate income of their own--what's wrong with that?

Are the Glassmans (and others at CFHQ) getting rich off CF? Probably, but I don't resent them for it. They came up with an exercise program that produces big results and have marketed it effectively. Supply and demand doesn't mean they're taking advantage of CFers. Profit motive is only a bad thing if it's pursued without regard to the rights of others, or if the primary goal is not to provide customers with a useful product or service.

Comment #115 - Posted by: Eric at December 18, 2009 1:17 PM

Kelly,

The books origins are well known, and knowable. As far as the statement made by the author that offended you, it’s not mean to demean woman, but lift them up. Your offense may be due in part to a lack of understanding. When one realizes why they exist, and what their purpose is, they become truly liberated.

Some men may view that statement by Paul as demeaning, but I do not. If Eve were asked who she was in the Garden of Eden, she would have replied, “we are Adam.” The two were “one” in love, in purpose, in friendship. Even though the woman was created for the man; they were both created in the image of God, and together they lived in harmony and brought Him pleasure.

I look forward to the day when God restores us all to our rightful relationship to Himself, and to each other. :)

Peace

Comment #116 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 18, 2009 1:32 PM

Wonder what Bertrand Russell thinks about jury nullification?

# 106 Greg/M2, what does Paul say about jury nullification in Corinthians?

Comment #117 - Posted by: AUSA Mike at December 18, 2009 2:05 PM

You have got to be kidding me!

Comment #118 - Posted by: jakers at December 18, 2009 2:24 PM

M/29/145lb/5'6"

Been a little under the weather and taking it easy the last week. Went in and maxed out on deadlift (285lb) and squat cleans (165lb) today. Felt good to get back in the gym. Happy holidays, everyone.

Comment #119 - Posted by: Mike at December 18, 2009 3:04 PM

Ron #15:

Exactly right about Hume; Russell, an accomplished copycat Big Thinker and quite the ladies' man, too, was very late to this party (Hume probably was, too, and although I can't exactly recall 40 years later which of the Greeks got there first, I'd be willing to bet at least one of 'em did). I can dimly recall dozens of animated discussions into the wee hours about causation and related topics in analytical philosophy--animated by intellectual curiosity, Boone's Farm, and whatever else was available and free. (The truth is that I only dimly recalled those discussions the very next morning, also.) Damn, that stuff seemed to matter more than anything back then (except maybe one thing). Analytical philosophy was far more than an academic major, it was an addiction.

I'll never forget G.E. Moore's "proof" that an external world exists:

1. Here is a hand
2. Here is another hand
3. There are at least two external objects in the world
.: Therefore an external world exists

Russell lived long enough to see his magnum opus "Principia Mathematica" (co-authored with A.N. Whitehead) absolutely obliterated by Einstein's Princeton walking buddy, Kurt Godel, whose eponymous theorem is one of the most beautiful moments in the history of pure thought. I even wrote a song about it:

http://stambosongs.blogspot.com/2007/05/godels-theme.html

Enjoy.

Jeff

Comment #120 - Posted by: jeff at December 18, 2009 3:17 PM

I think the excerpt today is an interesting one.

In crossfit we believe that if we follow the crossfit methodology we will become healthier, leaner, faster and stronger (philosophy). We know this because by amount of force we move will be determined by the amount of gravity associated with that object.

To think of philosophy with the absence of cause is ridiculous. We are ruled by the natural laws (non-cause sciences) that effect the way we think about things. This is why philosophy will never reach the point high sciences and never will.

Comment #121 - Posted by: Eric Fred at December 18, 2009 3:30 PM

Russell among many scientists (dawkins,susskind) often downplay cause because they know the cause is something they do not want to acknowledge. Many posters use big words but I'll make it simple. It is widely agreed upon that the universe has a beginning, that the big bang happened. Now using Occam's razor, what is more likely that an intelligent designer created everything and made everything fall perfectly in place or that somehow by accident all this came from nothing and it's just luck that every particle just fits?
Liberalism is a mental disorder-Michael Savage

Comment #122 - Posted by: Spicoli at December 18, 2009 3:43 PM

Who cares if CrossFit tended to post pics of girls in their clothes rather than guys?? Its not sexist, its the marketing truth! If you have tons of pics of guys in CrossFit clothes doing stuff, you'll probably get some guys buying the clothes, but a lot of girls might not check out what girls' clothes there are. A picture of a female will draw female shoppers to look at the clothing they think looks good on another girl, and the men will check out the clothing cause that chick "..looked so damn good in it.". The truth is that women tend to be shoppers, so why not appeal to that demographic more heavily? And the bonus is that if its a cool pic, guys will probably check out the guy's clothes too. It just makes sense.

But I highly doubt this was the thought process of HQ.

If CrossFit was really only worried about aesthetics, then they would have taken pics of us in the rain posing like models, perhaps with our shirts halfway off or something like that. But they didn't, we actually worked out in their clothes. We did CrossFit in CrossFit clothes. What's wrong with marketing like that? It just so happened that some of the best pics ended up being of the women. And I know for a fact that's just cause we looked damned good compared to our boys who all make silly faces when they work out ;) (Im joking here, I love our boys)

In fact, I personally know the people who choose photos to put up ( I actually had a conversation with them before they chose the pics to put up on the main site), and they do not think about women as marketing items. I know for a fact that they chose these photos of women because they were the "coolest" pictures that came out the best. There were just as many boys in their clothes as girls and just as many photos of boys in the clothes, I guess the boys' photos just didn't come out as well.

A very wise person once told me: Your business is your business, and what others are thinking about you (or thinking about anything else) is not your business. Don't assume CrossFit thinks a certain way or is posting pics for a certain reason, its just simply not worth it to make assumptions than worry about it.


Comment #123 - Posted by: Gilly McGraw at December 18, 2009 3:58 PM

Does anyone have the plans or suggestions on how to make the pvc pipe racks that I often see athletes doing hand stand push ups? I want to make sure it's strong enough so I don't snap it and break my neck...thanks.

Comment #124 - Posted by: Bob D at December 18, 2009 4:05 PM

They are called parallettes. Here is the link:

http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/13_03_Parallettes.pdf

Louie Simmons is the man! I try to soak up everything he says like a sponge. Genius.

Comment #125 - Posted by: Kevin Simons at December 18, 2009 4:30 PM

EVERYONE IT'S A GIRL IN A SHIRT....SERIOUSLY

Comment #126 - Posted by: Nikki at December 18, 2009 6:04 PM

Greg M2

so...what is woman's purpose?

Comment #127 - Posted by: nick in sydney m/38/6ft/183 at December 18, 2009 6:12 PM

Women deserve to be strong, and young girls deserve to see strong role models. These pictures show great images of strength and the pictures are stronger than any demeaning opinions. Gilly's picture is art, it is a powerful expression that moved a lot of us.

Comment #128 - Posted by: Paul_C m/39/6'/175 at December 18, 2009 7:10 PM

23 / M / 5'9" / 135lb

Catching up some posts after a bit of Internet trouble.

CrossFit Total
Squat 220
Press 90
Deadlift 235

I've been trying for months to press 95lbs, but alas...


Max rounds in 20 minutes of
Row 500m
60lb turkish get-up x25 (scaled to 20lbs)

1 round plus 500m plus 14 tgu

One round seems so sad; maybe should have used the gym's fancy 17.5lb dumbells. Oh well. Turkish get-ups rule!

Comment #129 - Posted by: BC at December 18, 2009 8:02 PM

#127, Nick in Sydney,

Hiya Nick, its been a long time since I visited Sydney (87-88). Great place, great hospitality! My opinion matters little, but since you asked, a woman's purpose is to be man's friend/helper. :)

Comment #130 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 18, 2009 9:01 PM

120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 150

Comment #131 - Posted by: Hari at December 18, 2009 9:53 PM

well, I'm sure Sydney has changed a little since then, although I didn't get here til 10 years ago.

re your answer, I was afraid you were going to say that.

you seem very committed to your faith so it probably won't upset you, but I would think you are lucky that not many people will refer back to these ncomments now. there may be more than a few women looking to disagree with you

Comment #132 - Posted by: nick in sydney m/38/6ft/183 at December 19, 2009 1:20 AM

#118 Merry Christmas, Jakers; just wanted to make sure you were still out there.

Comment #133 - Posted by: AUSA Mike at December 19, 2009 4:04 AM

40
50
55
60
60
62.5
65

Comment #134 - Posted by: Sebastian M/23/183/81,2 at December 19, 2009 7:35 AM

#132/ Nick in Sydney,

Yes, I am sure it has changed, most things do. As far as my thoughts on the purpose of women, some women may be upset, some may laugh at it, others may agree. It matters very little, as like I said; “my opinion,” which you asked for, matters little. Never the less, my response is a Biblical response. :)

Genesis 2:18:
“And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

-Notice it does not say, a helper less then him, but comparable to him. Prior to the fall of man through sin, this woman was more then likely just as strong as the man, truely his equal in all respects of character and love. ...Who knows


Interesting thought from a Biblical commentator:
The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. "Desire" does not refer to sexual desire in particular. (Gen 4:7). It means, in general, "turn," determination of the will. "The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee." The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.
-Barnes' Notes commentary

Comment #135 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 19, 2009 9:51 AM

135x5
155
185
195
205
215
215
easy, still nursing hammy

Comment #136 - Posted by: j hinds m/41/5'11"/220 at December 19, 2009 10:44 AM

Muscle up practice followed by

100 ring pushup workout

Comment #137 - Posted by: gregorioz at December 19, 2009 3:51 PM

I wish there was a printed transcript to go with the Louie Simmons video. I found myself struggling to hear exactly what he was saying in a few places... poor sound quality/editing.

I got the gist, but missed some particulars. I'll listen again.

Comment #138 - Posted by: Wade Smith at December 20, 2009 9:02 AM

Since I'm new to the game I take it the pictures have nothing to do with the current WOD. Where do I actually go to get details on what the exercise really is.

Comment #139 - Posted by: Rehanah at December 20, 2009 9:31 AM

# 139 -Rehanah,

Have you tried looking here:
http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/excercise.html

It may be a good idea for you to spend some time exploring the left side of the main page. There are many useful tips there, and the answers to many questions. :)

Comment #140 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at December 20, 2009 1:35 PM

Alright, I'll bite. I'm eating a bowl of strawberries and drinking my first whiskey, and will reallocate--it's 9:42--15 minutes to this. 9:57.

The problem here is that of induction. How do we KNOW that because the sun has always risen, that it will always rise? How do we KNOW gravity will always work?

From a common sense perspective, these are useless questions. However, for people who aim to do high level thinking well--to drop their projects in slots that will fit them--these are important questions.

Comment #141 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 21, 2009 6:58 PM

Hmmm ... I haven't read too much on Russell, but Causality is pretty fundamental in physics.

In quantum mechanics, it's handled via the time evolution operator, which is equivalent to the Hamiltonian.

In general relativity, simultaneity is not preserved for all observers (unlike Newtonian mechanics), but causality is: every observer has a past and future light cone. Also, we use 3+1 spacetime as a basis, and rule out higher dimensional theories with more than one "time" signature because 3+2, 4+2, etc. doesn't preserve causality.

There may be some confusion, in that newtonian mechanics is time reversal invariant (e.g. interactions can be "played" backwards and forwards with no distinction), but quantum field theory violates T-symmetry; instead, we postulate CTP symmetry (charge, parity, and time -- all taken together -- are invariant).

Thermodynamics is the best indicator for causality: drop an egg, watch it break. You won't ever (well, within the lifetime of the universe) see a dropped egg reassemble itself.

Entropy is known as "Time's Arrow", for the reason that you can tell the time direction of an interaction by measuring entropy "before" and "after", where "after" always has higher entropy. There are a large number of papers on this topic, which can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+times+arrow/0/1/0/all/0/1

Comment #142 - Posted by: Adam G at December 28, 2009 9:45 AM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?