January 3, 2010

Sunday 100103

Rest Day

JacksonRoyalMarinesBrunei_th.jpg

Enlarge image

Royal Marines, Brunei


"Shoulder Prep" with Kelly Starrett, a CrossFit Journal preview video [wmv] [mov]


CrossFit Mom with Andrea Nitz - video [wmv] [mov]


Read Accuracy and Precision.

Consider and post comments on January 7th, the next rest day.

Posted by lauren at January 3, 2010 5:00 PM
Comments

Nu-Skin day.

Comment #1 - Posted by: Peter at January 2, 2010 5:15 PM

Anyone else experience extreme burning from nu-skin on ripped calluses?

Hands are shredded!

SISU, love it

Comment #2 - Posted by: zballar at January 2, 2010 5:26 PM

Thought i wasn't gonna be able to make it through today. I just started the stop watch and the soreness just went away, till now!

Comment #3 - Posted by: Ricky at January 2, 2010 5:27 PM

My wife is 6 months pregnant and has been following crossfitmom.com. Today at Coach Burgener's place she snatched 50k & Clean & Jerked 60K... that is light for her but she is still one strong momma! Her Doc told her not to lift more than 20lbs over her head. That's my wifey!

Comment #4 - Posted by: josh everett at January 2, 2010 5:38 PM

What a great start to the new year! Looking forward to the day of rest and then back to the workout. I just bought 2 brand new kettlebells and can't wait to try them out.

Comment #5 - Posted by: Frosh (m/23/5'11/165) at January 2, 2010 5:46 PM

What does FRAT mean again?

Comment #6 - Posted by: Matt at January 2, 2010 6:04 PM

Thank God...Not gonna be able to walk today haha

Comment #7 - Posted by: Frank Castle (M/20/6'1''/190lbs) at January 2, 2010 6:30 PM

anybody here find it odd that there aren't very many Crossfit Level 2 certs scheduled?

Comment #8 - Posted by: Remington at January 2, 2010 6:39 PM

I signed up for sectionals..

I suppose I should start paying a little extra attention to my weaknesses ;)

Comment #9 - Posted by: allisonnyc at January 2, 2010 6:43 PM

I loved this week it was like doing a sucky manual labor job for 4 days, and finding some way to make it through it. When it was over you just got such a rush

Comment #10 - Posted by: Lupedec at January 2, 2010 7:01 PM

day after day of nothing but pullups pushups and squats....feels lke boot camp...

LOVING it!!

hooray for a rest day though!!

Comment #11 - Posted by: Deborah at January 2, 2010 7:29 PM

Howdy! Welcome to your first Rest Day all you newcomers. Gotta be honest with you, I've got a pretty standard explanation of Rest Day and what typically goes on here, but Coach and Lauren have gone and pulled a "constantly varied" on me and, well, I'm as new to this new Rest Day as all of you.

So here's a little intro to the Crossfit schedule, and while I'm typing this maybe I'll get a little inspiration about this new Rest Day stuff. In the beginning there was Coach and Lauren and a couple of folks descended from Mount Olympus who were their clients. Mythical, magical beings with names like Annie and Nicole, Tony and Greg, Rob and Brendan a few others. Coach and Lauren discovered that the most efficient and effective training schedule for Crossfit-like intensity was 3 days ON and one day OFF.

Coach, being the rather intellectual offspring of a rocket scientist (no joke...it's true), thought that perhaps a day exercising the "brain muscle" might be in order, and thus was born Rest Day. Crossfitters have been offered up a link, article, or topic and asked to discuss it in the Comments. Often controversial, usually from somewhere, shall we say, right of left, the topics and conversation were often in flames. Here is where I would typically be saying something like "don't click on the comments if you don't enjoy this", or something to that effect. But now...?

So your guess is as good as mine as to where Rest Day is heading, but as far as we know it's still 3 on/1 off. The topic of today's discussion is the topic/link posted 4 days ago on the last rest day written by Milton Friedman. Take a peek and offer your thoughts.

But if you are new take this day off and rest your body. Yes, this is all we do if we are new. No, we don't do anything strenuous on Rest Day. Go play. Take a nap. Read a book. Get l__d. Just remember that anything you choose to do "extra" today is sure to show up in tomorrow's WOD.

'Cause Coach and Santa always know.

Now if you'll excuse me we've got surprise guests chez Bingo, and I've gotta go tuck in Pony and Goat.

Comment #12 - Posted by: bingo at January 2, 2010 7:55 PM

I enjoyed these last 2 cycles!

BW WODs are a blast and very humbling as to how much they can do without any added weight, so this week was fun. I know that my body is going to be wishing for more than 1 day of rest!

I feel like M-T-W will be similar to these past few days in terms of staying consistent in some way. The previous cycle was the 1-10-1-20-1-30, then this was the Pull-Push-Squat 'Girls' cycle. Lets see what is in store! I am excited about it!

Enjoying the recent programming! It is different and keeping us on the edge (maybe some a little too on edge..LOL).

Comment #13 - Posted by: neil at January 2, 2010 7:58 PM

Rest Days are like earned rewards after a week like this - :)

LOL at #17 - I had boot camp flashbacks earlier today

Comment #14 - Posted by: George at January 2, 2010 8:09 PM

Crossfitmom.com is amazing. Great to see Andreas interview on here.

Having been a crossfit addict for just 18months...I started just after my first child and it totally kicked my arse into shape. I am glad I can continue throughout my pregnancy.

Now I am pregnant with twins and so grateful for all of the helpful information Andrea posts, my dr has approved it and as hard as it is to not do things 'for time' anymore, and to back off the heavy weights...it's great to still be able to do the scaled back version.

Thank you Andrea!

Val

Comment #15 - Posted by: Val at January 2, 2010 8:12 PM

Guys just my 2 cents on the whole sucking it up think. Don't be a sissy and punk out beacuse you are sore. Yes we did a lot of the same thing but who cares if you listen to your body then you will be able to tell if you are at risk for an injury. On the other hand don't get hurt because you where to stuborn to scale down because if you do then you just don't get to crossfit for how ever long. We don't need to wine and complain about the workouts because you can always do something else and that isn't wrong, but we also don't need to poke fun at those who are scared of a possable over use injury. Not everyone here is 25 with a body used to doing hundreds of squats or pushups in a few days and we need to respect that, but also respect those who push through and finish WOD because we all know how hard it can get. I may just be the new kid that doesn't know anything but take from this what you will.

Comment #16 - Posted by: Tylor at January 2, 2010 9:06 PM

I went to a big family Christmas party today with my hands all bandaged up from these last three WODs. Everyone was confused as I tried to explain as briefly as possible. Anyone else have funny stories about when people inquire about strange CrossFit habits?

Comment #17 - Posted by: Brian Kerley at January 2, 2010 9:49 PM

3 very rough days.

I hope to see some pure strength work next cycle.

Comment #18 - Posted by: Justin at January 2, 2010 10:05 PM

I finally watched the Mikko Salo Video and all I can say is he is one of the most humble and awe inspiring people I have had the honor of watching on this site. He is definitely the embodiment of this great sport. Congrats again Mikko on one hell of a job. Can't wait to see what he brings to the games next year. A resting heart rate of 31 bpm. That is sick crazy!!!

Comment #19 - Posted by: Tommy in TX at January 2, 2010 10:10 PM

I will have to choose between of my favorite "rest day WODs"....either Nap for time or 1RM Nap. I always have a hard time deciding which one is the best, so I tend to double up and do them both.

I really have enjoyed the recent programming....the 1-10-1-20-1-30 series was as much strength as it was mental. The row-snatch-row was a great challenge. The BW girl "menage a trois" (coupled with a half-marathon the same day as Cindy) has been a blast. Looking forward to tomorrow to see what is in store for us next!

Comment #20 - Posted by: Bryan K at January 2, 2010 10:54 PM

#4 josh Everett that's awesome congrats for the new member my best wishes for your family...a child ís a bless, an extraordinary source of strength and inspiratíon

Big hugs and bad english for all

BTW Mikko Salo ís NOT human....you are amazing Mikko out of this world

Comment #21 - Posted by: s'more at January 2, 2010 11:07 PM

Two things.

I'm in a funk over my recent, shoulder over-use injury. Recently I've hit a plateau with the WOD where I feel like I'm regressing rather than improving or maintaining my conditioning, and I believe that pushing myself caused this injury.

1. How do I get through this without losing motivation to continue with this regimen? Anyone with personal experiences? What worked/didn't work?

As far as accuracy and precision, I'm grateful for the target analogy to explain the terms. Sometimes I need things to be broken down "Barney-style" to get it. But as accuracy and precision relate to measurement, I'm a little perplexed that the standards of measurement used in America are different than everywhere else.

2. What is the resistance to adopting the metric system and retaining the English system (which is another oddity as the UK adopted the metric system)?

Ernest 39/M/61"/167

Comment #22 - Posted by: twiki2 at January 2, 2010 11:11 PM

Just loved "Sisu". Mikko is a great representative for us Scandinavian people. The high work ethic is common by Swedes and Finns.

Comment #23 - Posted by: Richard m/35/181cm/88kg at January 3, 2010 12:30 AM

Thoughts:

1. I'm glad the un-relenting right-wing, anti-global warming articles have stopped (temporarily at least). Nothing wrong with them per se, but the lack of any articles from opposing camps was relegating the whole Rest Day concept to propoganda.

2. The description of Rest Day as some sort of neutral "brain exercise" (see Bingo's descriptions over the last while) rang hollow where the article selection policy was so strongly slanted in one direction.

3. The selected essay makes sense in a self-satisfied, dry intellectual manner. But the over-whelming reaction I have to such economic discourse now is anger! Not very cerebral, I know. But economics is always great at predicting the recession that's just happened. They'll craft wonderful explanations of how we - the ordinary people - lost the run of ourselves. They'll then appear and in sombre tones impart their wonderful ideas on how we now need to pay the price of our folly - supply / demand "science" brought to bear to reorder society and wealth. From economists. Makes my blood boil.

4. Our politicians hide their own lack of vision and courage behind the sham of bowing to economis science, blind to the fact that they are charged with running a society and not an economy.

5. The part about language being key to understanding and filing for a positive science was revealing. Make up a new language and you can pretty much say what you like. Your rules, your game, your result. I'd be really impressed with actual vision, in plain language, uttered with conviction.

Comment #24 - Posted by: J1 at January 3, 2010 4:50 AM

just started the program. Awesome so far. Skipped yesterday and took the little one snowboarding all day instead. Hope the Crossfit gods will forgive me. As far as the sore hands, my daughter suggests a pair of gymnast "grips".

Comment #25 - Posted by: john at January 3, 2010 5:46 AM

twiki2 - take a few weeks off. It does wonders to both body and soul. Awhile ago many of the older guys (like us) were doing a 3 week full intensity - 1 week half intensity 3 times rotation then taking a week off. I haven't seen anything posted lately about it so I don't know how it worked out for them so I can't recommend or not.

I often wonder about the metric system thing too. I can't help but think that US goods would be more competitive if we didn't either force different sizes of things on the world or make two separate versions, reducing the economies of scale. Interesting that Brits call it the Imperial System where we call it the English System.

J1 - Feel free to find articles and post links to them during the debate on rest days. Just because Coach starts with a right wing article doesn't mean you can't bring in the left wing view. People will read and respond as long as its relevant to the topic.

Comment #26 - Posted by: jpw m/40/6'0"/155 at January 3, 2010 6:32 AM

@Twiki2

Based just on what you posted, it sounds like you might be over training yourself a bit. You may find that taking a week or so for some active rest and recovery does the trick. It's been my experience that some periodic rest, above and beyond the 3 on 1 off schedule, actually improves my performance.

Just remember, the goal is to remain functional and motivated throughout your life. From a physical and psychological standpoint, that's going to be hard if you're constantly hammering yourself and not periodically stepping away from the intensity.

Comment #27 - Posted by: Jarrett at January 3, 2010 6:47 AM

I just read the Friedman article, and came out here hoping to read a spirited discussion about it. I guess people are sleeping in today!

Anyway, a couple of things occurred to me as I read the article:

1. I think that Friedman would predict that we are in for substantial future inflation, given that we have seen such a huge increase in the money supply in 2009. I personally think that such an increase was probably necessary to avert economic disaster, but now that the worst appears to be behind us we will need to be very diligent about managing the risk of future inflation. Is our government up to that task?

2. Can we take the discussion regarding hypotheses and apply it to Crossfit? That is, what hypotheses have been developed around the Crossfit methodology and how have those been tested? How do we know, for example, that 3 on and 1 off (as Bingo mentions above) is "the most efficient and effective training schedule"? What assumptions, if any, have been allowed to creep into the determination of the validity of the Crossfit-related hypotheses? Not sure if there are answers to these questions, but I thought I'd throw them out there.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Comment #28 - Posted by: MattP at January 3, 2010 7:01 AM

What would you guys expect would happen if I did "Cindy' every day, then the WOD? Forget about burnout.

Comment #29 - Posted by: Max at January 3, 2010 7:02 AM

No rest day here : lots of snow to shovel for time ! Good cardio and fun !

Comment #30 - Posted by: Tou/m/31/5'8''/182 at January 3, 2010 7:51 AM

@ Max
I'm going to assume you already know doing Cindy everyday completely contradicts the CF method.

If you're doing your WODs with proper intensity, you could expect

1. Overuse injuries.
2. A performance plateau followed by a decline.

Comment #31 - Posted by: Jarrett at January 3, 2010 7:58 AM

MattP #28,
I too was intrigued by the Friedman section. Responding to your first point, the increase in money supply is but one of so many factors affecting our economy and the risk of inflation. There is little doubt we avoided another great depression, but the robustness of the rebound is very much in doubt. Money supply concerns me less than the immense role the government has taken in the economy. Humans thrive with freedom and the government can't even manage its own finances. How can it possibly drive a booming recovery?

2. I would hope that many will read the discussion regarding hypotheses and apply it to all aspects of fitness. The true scientist is a great skeptic. Always doubting, always testing, always re-evaluating. I thought his analysis of the supply and demand argument was fascinating, particularly when considering that many real world factors affect both supply and demand. The oversimplification of cause and effect is dangerous in all realms.

To respond to the 3on/1off question specifically, we have yet to find anything better for the broadest spectrum of conditioned athletes. But the main site workouts are simply that: main site workouts. Individual athletes, affiliates, and trainers all over the world experiment with different formats, and that is encouraged.

CrossFit is a thinking person's endeavor. Take nothing as dogma. Read, consider, experiment, evaluate. Listen to the top CrossFit coaches and athletes. Listen to what their detractors say. Compare that to the results that you see and experience.

And, relating this to the Friedman piece, when someone says x causes y, remain skeptical of over-simplified cause and effect. Might there be other things going on? Are there alternative explanations?

As we seem to have a lot of newbies on the site in January, I'll say this about fitness. Most people in the world are not in great shape. Why? Is it because they are doing 5on/2off instead of 3on/1off? Is it because they are doing Atkins instead of Paleo instead of Metabolic diets? No. The great majority of folks are not in great shape because they aren't training consistently and are eating like cr@p.

If you're new here, please take the long course. Gradually exceed what you've done before. You'll most likely need more rest than the elite athletes. Scale appropriately. As long as you're doing more than you did before, you're going in the right direction. Have fun, and keep a long trajectory.

Comment #32 - Posted by: TonyB at January 3, 2010 8:23 AM

Twiki2:
Just another thought about your shoulder injury.
Many of the soreness issues we experience can be worked through pretty easily, but shoulder pain can be due to rotator cuff injury which can get worse without specific action. I'm not a coach, but I think it's worth working some rotator cuff work into crossfit. I do light reps during my warm up. This will probably help you avoid problems

Comment #33 - Posted by: bob at January 3, 2010 8:41 AM

did some light rotar cuff work.
Speed Bench 185 x 3 x 8
easy 20 minutes on eliptical.
Feel alot better then yesterday, ready for tommorrow.

Comment #34 - Posted by: tom at January 3, 2010 9:19 AM

ran 7.5 miles
53:00

Comment #35 - Posted by: mike/40/6'3"/225 at January 3, 2010 9:31 AM

TonyB #33,

Thanks very much for your reply. Guess it's just us, huh? :-)

I also don't have a huge amount of confidence in the government being able to drive a booming recovery. On the other hand, some of the freedom to thrive you refer to contributed to getting us into this mess in the first place. I'm specifically thinking about the lack of regulation around credit default swaps and the abject failure of many of our large financial institutions to understand and manage their risks. It's always going to be a fine balance, and I think you and I probably agree that it would be preferable for government to start backing off rather than taking on a larger role.

I liked your comments regarding Crossfit, healthy skepticism, just getting started, and keeping a long-term point of view. I've been Crossfitting for a little over a year now, and am in better all-around shape than I have been since I was in college (and that includes over 25 years of regular exercise in the interim). The best advice I can give to newbies is to echo your "scale appropriately" comment. I have found the Brand X site to be invaluable in that regard.

Comment #36 - Posted by: MattP at January 3, 2010 9:55 AM

made up Barbara today

As rx'd

3:04
3:15
3:23
3:34
3:45

time: 17:03

legs are still destroyed from this past week plus the 12 mile hike yesterday. Thank the Lord for my rest day tomorrow.

Comment #37 - Posted by: Adam (m/23/5'9"/163) at January 3, 2010 10:11 AM

I'd enjoy discussing Friedman's methodology, but without the hot-headed political skirmishing. This subject is dear to me. Writing is difficult for me anyway but because it's important, I'm standing at the edge of the cold water vacillating about the leap.

This particular article is rich with intricacy (some deep mistakes) and historical significance. Friedman's contentions here largely inspired the formation of the Foundation for Economic Education, on the belief that progress in improving our country's leadership rested less on unyielding political opinion, and more on simple ignorance of how economics works. Leonard Read, influenced by Friedman, believed (for example) that if people understood HOW a stimulus package would reward and entrench poor decision making, failing to let poor results and free capital movement correct the situation, then they wouldn't support or tolerate the vested political and corporate interests that would find a stimulus package expedient.

I mentioned 'deep mistakes', and noted the superficial issue of its historical significance. I'll stick just to the deep mistakes now, the methodology.

Methodology refers to the beliefs which inform and determine the substantive content of a branch of knowledge (or science, or method, or technique, all of them rest on beliefs about HOW the world, and the systems in question, work.)

Using CrossFit as an example, the belief that functional movements are the best use of human anatomy and physiology for expressing or generating *power*, is a methodological proposition. The belief that power, now viewing power as 'intensity' to describe the quality of execution, plays the largest explanatory role in the success or results of exercise, is another methodological proposition. Observations of different metabolic pathways, very different capacities over different time domains, how different modes of exercises yield capacities with different carryover to other modes, are all methodological principles for crossfit. (I speak lightly and hesitantly, because I feel far less qualified to speak of crossfit than of the metaphysics and epistemology of economics.)

Comment #38 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 10:13 AM

Love the video on shoulder prep from Kelly- it would have made such a difference to me and would have prevented my rotator cuff injury that subsequently came. I'm now doing the shoulder prep before all my WODs - it's definitely making a difference and I highly recommend it!
http://leahallinger.wordpress.com/

Comment #39 - Posted by: Leah at January 3, 2010 10:25 AM

tom,
what on gods green earth is a speed bench?
best wishes
jackie boy
xo xo

Comment #40 - Posted by: jack johnson at January 3, 2010 10:27 AM

(First note caught in the filter, above.)

In economics, beliefs about how humans gain knowledge, what guides our decision making (eg. altruism, social pretentiousness, etc) have massive consequences for how economists form their scientific beliefs. Coupled with natural historical and developmental stumbling, economics is in a really awkward position as a science: historically its subject matter was business transactions. Early economists, and contemporary economists, businessmen, political leaders and we, the lay public, quite naturally could not have known that the principles we developed to observe and describe economic phenomena are actually more biological in nature than, for example, some sort of physics or chemistry of financial transactions.


The physical sciences, and the awesome (in every sense of the word) success and progress of the physical sciences, has always caused problems for the sciences which observe and describe biological phenomena. These are methodological issues (ie metaphysics and epistemology) and the problems are not solved, not to my awareness. The Austrian economists, notably Friedrich Hayek, have been the most keen to observe how our models of how physics work have disastrously misled our attempts to ground, interpret, and develop economics. And for that matter, psychology.

The facility of quantitative analysis for economics has made matters even more confusing -- because quantification and prediction are based in physics, which is everyone's exemplar of what a science can and should be.

Economics does describe decisionmaking in a quantifiable world. It does yield predictions which quantitatively are comparable in their reliability to physical systems (being as general as "demand curves slope down" and chaos theory's 'butterfly effect' or sensitive dependence on initial conditions is helpful for this claim.)

But trying to use the most rudimentary classical mechanics (physics) and the same quantitative methods for prediction, as the model for how to develop a biological science, is flawed.

The easiest vantage on this flaw is Hayek's charge of 'scientism' for how 19th century economists (and political hyperactives since) aspired to treat an economy as a machine which can be engineered and managed by a properly trained engineers.

Friedman tied his wagon to a very popular, very intuitive epistemic model called the analtyic-synthetic distinction, in this article on the methodology of positive economics. I hope I'll continue forthwith.

Comment #41 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 10:40 AM

Comment #33 - Posted by: TonyB "Humans thrive with freedom and the government can't even manage its own finances. How can it possibly drive a booming recovery?"

If you want to know how that can happen, study China. China's command economy has grown at 10% a year for the past 30 years.

The libertarian approach to financial regulation can no longer be supported by positive economics. You need to use normative economics to support those ideas. In other words, even though loosely regulated financial markets create a boom and bust business cycle (dot com boom, housing boom), they afford greater freedom and for that reason govt should stay out of the financial sector.

Friedman wrote his article in the wake of the New Deal when Big Govt was king. He was arguing that policy makers first look at what works rather than what should be done. The example was the minimum wage. Now if we look at what works, we know a hands off approach to Wall Street does not work. So if that is pursued, it's either pursued because "it's the American way to do things" or simply because Wall Street has so much influence in Washington, it's impossible to rein in their greed.

Comment #42 - Posted by: Leonard at January 3, 2010 10:47 AM

@ CF Pleasanton's On-Ramp class today...

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 dumbell snatch + situps.

I didn't die doing it! Dare I think I am progressing?!

Comment #43 - Posted by: Maurice at January 3, 2010 10:49 AM

(2 previous posts caught in filter, above)

What the hell is positive economics? Is this a rebuttal to the disparaging moniker "the dismal science?"

A positive science is any idea(s) which describes how the world is. It answers the question, "What is it? How does it work?" without commenting on "How should it be?"

In physical training, we look at a deadlift, a squat, a shoulder press, and we observe "Hey the bar is directly above the middle of the foot!" -- we're doing positive science. We're just seeing how it works and describing it. We have said nothing about how you should execute the lift or even whether the bar's position in the frontal plane or directly above your center of gravity has any implication for how you execute the lift.

So when we say "positive" science it is in contrast with "normative" science which expresses how things ought to be.

A nice methodological trick for getting through the swamp of "Can ethics be objective? Can there be a normative science? Can morality or ethics be scientific at all?" is the following:

Observe that humans have a nature which cannot be altered at whim. We can describe this nature, how people behave, and form a (positive) description of human behavior.

Next, instead of saying something like "cuddling is so sweet, and sweet is so good, humans should cuddle," use a series of positive statements and a conditional statement. For a simple example, let's see a couple statements of fact followed by a conditional, which thus has a "prescription" we might call "normative":

1) Physical touch stimulates both a great deal of serotonin and dopamine, and acclimates a person toward further activity of these neurotransmitters.

2) Increased serotonin and dopamine levels are experienced as elevated mood, happiness, with corollaries of hopefulness and increased activity

3) Therefore, IF (conditional statement) you want a human to exhibit elevated mood and hopefulness, then, ceteris paribus (important qualification), an increase in physical touch will help


I'm just trying to help people who may be unfamiliar with some of the jargon and what we mean by it, to understand. And grounding ourselves in these simple examples, which I hope are clear, can be helpful even to sophisticated parties.


CrossFit makes a positive claim about the role of intensity in generating -- at least in the level 1 certs and the way we use it as trainers -- almost all the desirable effects of fitness. Want fat loss? Intensity is the key. Want brain-derived neurotropic factor increases? Intensity is the key. Want longevity, increased bone density, greater stamina, greater cardiovascular endurance? Intensity is the key.

These are statements of fact which can be tested.

How do they become a prescriptive, normative system? We add a goal, which can be expressed as a conditional statement, an "IF". IF you want to live longer, intensity is the independent variable which best explains increased longevity.

Have I said that crossfit is the best? No, I said IF you want to live longer, you should do crossfit. Let's not assume that everyone wants to live longer. But if they do, intensity is the best independent variable explaining observations of increased longevity. As a safe, effective, efficient means of maximizing intensity in your physical training, crossfit is an ideal means of incorporating this causal factor.

Comment #44 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 11:07 AM

Made up for skipping out on the girls on New Years (FF Football game)....

With Chief:
CFWU x3

CFT - 706 (busted knee, could've done more with Squat, didn't want to push it)

FF Biceps Workout:
Seated curls x 3
35 - 40 - 45 Alternating curls
30 - 35 - 40 Iso curls
Barbell 1-1-1 Max (160)

First CF post....been doing it for about 6 mo....ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!

GO STEELERS!

Comment #45 - Posted by: Dave Pit at January 3, 2010 12:04 PM

1) I have 2 intro posts caught in the filter, above, and 2) I love Friedman's economics. I am deeply sympathetic with most of his economic prescriptions. I want to say this because, if I could ever follow through on my treatments of his methodology, I would thoroughly eviscerate his methodological pretensions.

The distinction between "formal logic" and "empirical observations" is easy, intuitive, natural. That ease is the basis for the analytic-synthetic distinction which Friedman so enthusiastically employs. When he says, "Viewed as a language, theory has no substantive content; it is a set of tautologies" and elaborates with the filing system metaphor, he is describing human knowledge.

This is rubbish in economics. The observations of homo economicus are definitely 'substantive content', and these observations do in fact inform and guide economic science. You cannot achieve this separation of foundations and substantive content. These theoretical and methodological principles are also thoroughly empirical.

Friedman's son is far, far better in this respect as an economist, so reading for example David Friedman's _Hidden Order_ is a great counterpoint to Milton Friedman's toadying to 19th century epistemology.

"The answers to these questions depend partly on logical, partly on factual, considerations" -- this statement further demonstrates how Friedman's epistemic doctrine separates "logical" from "empirical" content. This is a view of logic that divorces it from reality --- as I said, it is an intuitive, natural, easy view. It has been with us for at least 2,500 years.

Look at Raphael's mural, "school of athens," in which Aristotle and Plato are depicted to symbolize the antipathy of their philosophies: Plato's hand is pointing toward the heavens, Aristotle's fingers grasping toward the ground. This conflict has been eternal, because of its intuitive nature to human consciousness. We DO experience logic as separate from sensory experience and 'intuition'. But, no, our standard for what constitutes 'theory' should not be the artifacts of formal, symbolic, logic and mathematics.

As this doctrine is rubbish in economics, so it is rubbish in physical training. Our theoretical foundations are in fact empirical observations. The belief that strength increases depend on hormonal changes is a theoretical, methodological principle, but it is also 'substantive content', and an empirical observation.

The same is true in economics. The hairy, greasy, unfriendly truth that economists would love to avoid is that most methodological principles come from the painfully controversial 'human nature'. And while economists have not previously delved into evolutionary and cognitive and social psychology to ground their science, they are beginning to.

(distractions are mounting here, so I may not continue and already my post is compromised.)

Comment #46 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 12:11 PM

Did yesterdays wod today done in 25:02 love cross fit!!

Comment #47 - Posted by: gale at January 3, 2010 12:14 PM

Catching up on Friday 100101, "Cindy".
15 going on 16 (got to 7 in the squats).
Pull-ups toe-assisted from set 7.
Push-ups varied (wide, hands high-low) from set ?9.

Comment #48 - Posted by: kidari at January 3, 2010 12:55 PM

M/49.94/153/1-1-06

Borrowed from old Navyseals.com, done w/ L'il bingo

6 RFT
Run 200M
30 Squats
21 Box Jumps 21"

20:11

PR is 17:22; think a lousy diet has an effect...

Comment #49 - Posted by: bingo at January 3, 2010 1:38 PM

Max #30-
I would expect you to have a lot less physical strength and mental focus to devote to your second WOD, so you might get better at doing Cindy but you're not going to get any stronger or better at other workouts or skills.

Comment #50 - Posted by: Eric at January 3, 2010 2:10 PM

M/17/158?

Done with Bingo

6 RFT
200 M Run
30 Squats
21 Box Jumps 21"

17:36

Comment #51 - Posted by: lil' bingo at January 3, 2010 2:30 PM

Beltless dead stop deadlifts (no touch and go or bouncing reps):

270x3
300x3
320x3

Strict no kip pullups, chest touching bar:

50x3
50x3
50x7

Comment #52 - Posted by: Kelly Moore 46/F/5'/114# at January 3, 2010 3:07 PM

Have set multiple PR's over the last two weeks!! sounds great right? but here is what baffle's me?? I did the zone diet strict for 8 months with OK performances, but the last month I have been gording myself with whatever I want. But the strange thing is my workouts have been better the last month eating whatever than when I was on the zone! weird? any answers why?

Comment #53 - Posted by: Puckett at January 3, 2010 3:17 PM

Nice "Rest" day in Maine... shoveled 2 feet of wet, heavy snow that the snowblower wouldn't touch. Hoping tomorrow does not involve a bending, lifting, throwing motion...

Comment #54 - Posted by: Peter at January 3, 2010 3:44 PM

I got my Christmas present today.... x-country skis. Bring it on, winter.... I'm ready!!

Comment #55 - Posted by: JuliePlatt at January 3, 2010 4:17 PM

Question

should I do other things on top of crossfit or do get enough work by doing crossfit only

I just feel the need to go run my butt off

Comment #56 - Posted by: Lupedec at January 3, 2010 4:52 PM

Puckett:
I don't really have an answer for you, but I tried the zone for a couple of weeks and it just wasn't for me...Maybe try Paleo?

Comment #57 - Posted by: kiedis at January 3, 2010 4:53 PM

Comment 54-

I just do crossfit, but many people practice other sports in addition to CF. A lot of the CF'ers I know do martial arts as well.

Comment #58 - Posted by: Izzy at January 3, 2010 4:56 PM

I practice BJJ and MMA but Im in a town with no gym so I hope this well get and keep me shape. Ive lived her for 6 months and have put on 25 pounds and am so rusty I hate the sticks

Comment #59 - Posted by: Lupedec at January 3, 2010 5:07 PM

#51 Puckett

There could be any number of factors contributing to your success. If you were on the zone, you may have just been eating too few blocks. Many athletes alter the zone to fit their needs by adding significantly more fat and protein to their diet. Paleo could be a good choice as well. Try tinkering with the zone a bit or going Paleo. A good zone starting point might be to up your daily block total by 2 or 3 and then go 5X fat. Try eating at least 1g protein per pound of body weight. If that's not doing it, hunt around, get some info on the Paleo. For a person like you that seems to do well on a less restricted diet Paleo sounds perfect for getting great results while still staying lean.

Comment #60 - Posted by: Jesco at January 3, 2010 5:26 PM

front squats 1, 10, 1, 20, 1, 30

loads in pounds:
315, 255 x 10,
345 (PR), 225 x 17 + 3,
315, 155 x 30

total = 1,610

Comment #61 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 5:28 PM

In addition to precision and accuracy --- yes your understanding is sharper, your language more valuable, your thoughts more substantive when you understand and employ the meanings more fully --- the concept of "sensitivity" is also very valuable.

"Sensitivity" indicates the capacity for small quantitative inputs to yield relatively large outputs, or consequences, in a system. A sensitive microphone detects and signals a very quite noise. Sensitivity to carbs, glutens, or insulin is very different between individuals, and not very different between individuals of the same ethnicity. Sensitivity to grains, alcohols, sugars and even dairy is much higher in the indigenous populations of north america, australia, south america, in comparison to the nations of europe which originated agriculture. These differences (in sensitivity) probably should inform nutritional practice as you strive to improve your results.

These are examples of positive science: the identification of differing reactions to environmental stimuli from one person to the next are questions of empirical observation and measurement. They are also methodological principles for all of nutrition, which is a normative science... once you stipulate the goals, or ends, which your nutritional principles are intended to help you achieve.

Comment #62 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 6:50 PM

Boston area alternate rest day format:

For time:

Shovel 60' X 20' driveway
8" of snow

Post time to comments........

Comment #63 - Posted by: CGS (m/35/6'/195) at January 3, 2010 7:39 PM

I have one critical insight I want to share here, I hope introductory posts above (2 are still held in filter as of this writing) will help a little. My treatment is tangential only because my differences are too fundamental and substantive to elaborate a volume on epistemology.

If there is a single greatest malpractice among scholars, intellectuals, and most pointedly among social scientists, it is implicitly assuming ethical norms while practicing in their specialized field -- then preaching and integrating their unexamined ethical norms as if they were part of their objective science.

We all need to be schooled in the distinction between ethics and science. If you think the data clearly show carbon emissions causing global warming, AND you also think you know enough to argue that the resultant warming will cause unhealthy or irreparable harm --- excellent. That is an empirical proposition to be argued by evidence within the science of climatology.

But when you then jump wildly out of your field of positive science and start prescribing political action, you are no longer in your specialty. You cannot claim that the science supports you. It doesn't. The scientific conclusions are one province; your glib treatment of ethics, politics, and in fact economics, is just arrogance (in the most accurate meaning of the term). Now you are practicing as an ethicist and political philosopher. Which may be fine if you're prepared to identify, define and justify your ethical positions. Most Hollywood stars -- and sadly most scientists -- don't seem to be aware of their presumption, however.

So I'm arguing for increased awareness of the smuggling of ethical norms into positive science.

Let me elaborate and justify this further.

Your ethical norms should be decided in only one realm, one analysis; and those principles should then be true for all phenomena. But the analysis does not need to be repeated or renewed in separate bodies of knowledge which treat different phenomena. The phenomena treated by ethics -- namely, human nature, what is the good, and how humans must act to achieve it -- belong only to ethics. The phenomena treated by economics, namely the tradeoffs and resource allocation decisions faced by rational, learning agents and systems while trying to satisfy their individual and collective needs and wants, belong only to economics. Ethics gets done in its field. Economics gets done in its field. You do not treat the same phenomena differently; truthful conclusions in one field should not be challenged or enlightened differently in another. But certainly, conclusions in one field can be brought to inform the analysis in another field.

Steven Pinker has a very good sense of these problems, even if he has not yet articulated why very well, and his overall treatment on human nature and epistemology is probably the best in class to date.

- - -
You cannot assume that I am advocating the pithy "render unto god that which is god's and unto caesar that which is caesar's". Not a bad approximation, but science is the process of identifying that which exists. Ethics belongs every bit as much within science --- identifying the facts of human nature and the requirements of human life and happiness --- as does physics, biology, economics.

This is why the domains must be understood and respected. Earlier I tried to show that normative principles can reduce to positive claims. Observe:

1. human beings consist primarily of behaviors aimed at satisfying a fairly standard array of needs and wants

This is not far out of an empirical treatment of human nature, but it's pretty robust as a possible methodological principle for treating ethics. Certainly far from comprehensive, but it IS a potent ingredient.

Trying to return to my theme, it is that all sciences are essentially positive --- including ethics. And once true propositions are fixed within a domain, they can inform other domains, but they certainly cannot be contradicted or overturned in other domains / by other sciences.

So, do your ethics once, and only once. If you want to spout off about ethics while talking climatology, or taxes, be clear that you are combining ethical doctrines with substantive claims.

Similarly, in fitness, do not ASSUME the goals or ends to be achieved by your fitness program (or fitness programs as such), and then mouth off about the superiority of your prescription. If you think yoga is superior to crossfit... marvelous. How truly delightful and splendid for you. But... superior at achieving what goal? Superior by what standard? Without establishing your goals or standards --- ie. your normative beliefs --- evaluating your positive claims, like "Yoga is better," is impossible. A better statement would be this: "Yoga achieves greater capacity for coordination and balance with greater efficiency and safety than modern dance". Once you have stated your goals and standards, your positive claims suddenly become meaningful and relevant.

CrossFit seems unique in having clearly stated its goal and its standard for measurement. We're providing a metric for people to measure their prescriptions against. So far, I have yet to see any trainer or critic of crossfit address methodological principles of work capacity, or our prescriptions for achieving enhanced work capacity by constantly varied, functional movements at high intensity.

Comment #64 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 7:51 PM

Bingo @ 1:38 pm wrote, "M/49.94/153/1-1-06"

I don't know if he's reporting a WOD done in 2006, but nevertheless, birth date by definition (ie. tautologically, as Friedman would say) will be the same each year, so:

.94 x 365 = 343

365 - 343 = 22

I think Bingo's birthday is 1/1 + 22 days = Jan 23rd.

Because the 1/1/06 confuses me, I'm not sure if he's turning 50 or turning 54. :-)

Comment #65 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at January 3, 2010 7:58 PM

Puckett #51-
Calories, if your hitting it hard you need more calories. That's why you initially felt better in your workouts after eating everything, you had enough calories to support a heavier work load. If you upped your calories the right way with clean food you would feel even better. I thought Jesco's post was pretty spot on, up your blocks, more good fat for energy and more protein to aid recovery. Another idea would be to consult an RD, but find one that doesn't support the classic ADA diet recomendations (most RD's that have done sports nutrition research will not support the ADA rec, I am one such RD so I know they exist:)

Another thing I do for my clients that Crossfit or do other very body stressful workouts is have them take an extra L-Glutamine and Arginine supplement post workout and post bedtime to aid recovery. I know that it does wonders for my husband. Keep at it!!

Comment #66 - Posted by: Dani at January 3, 2010 11:29 PM

Congrats Josh!

My wife used Andrea's workouts during her pregnancy - after posting a 405 CFT at the end of the first tri - and really benefitted from Andrea's work. Great pregnancy and fourth home birth - and she's bouncing back very strong now. Thanks CF Mom! Paul

Comment #67 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 201 45 yoa at January 4, 2010 3:58 AM

Just havin' some fun, Cash! 1-1-06 is the day of my first CF WOD. .94 is just fanciful as I count down, or rather up, to 50.

Comment #68 - Posted by: bingo at January 4, 2010 4:28 AM

As i can' t do muscle up, i' ve scaled it as followed
3 rounds for time of
48 Pull ups
48 Ring dips
75 squats
Total time 26' 54"
Question: When you scale muscle ups with pull ups and dips, is it with regular dips or ring dips?

Comment #69 - Posted by: nicovats at January 4, 2010 4:38 AM

Can'd do muscles ups....replaced with

1 MU = 3 Pull Ups & 3 Dips.....

Miscopied WOD...12 turned into a 15 in a light rain storm....

End of the day count
135 PU
135 Dips
225 Squats

2 hands ripped to shreds....

Kill.

Comment #70 - Posted by: TMD-0311 at January 4, 2010 11:20 AM

I'm so glad a video posted about crossfitmom. My husband and I have been crossfitting for almost 3 years. When I found out I was pregnant, I thought I wasn't going to be able to crossfit anymore AND THEN I stumbled across crossfitmom!! Yay! I did it my entire pregnancy up to 4 days before I had my son. Thank you Andrea!

Comment #71 - Posted by: Ami at January 4, 2010 4:55 PM

Cash-

Thank you for your posts. I feel a lot better about that piece (by Friedman) thanks to your explanation. Completely agree with you about ethics being "smuggled in" to the positive sciences AND with your claim that ethics ought to be decided "in its own realm" and then applied in a principled fashion to the other areas.

I think this should be true for individuals, as well as more generally (in theory). It makes life, if not more rewarding, certainly more principled. It provides a certain fidelity, and unity.

Thanks again, Cash.

Comment #72 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at January 5, 2010 7:09 AM

Cash and Dale,

Late post. Read the Friedman (F) when assigned, then got busy with life. Use of "precision" and "accuracy" below as in last rest day's post (companion piece to F's on "Positive Economics").

I too am concerned about smuggling ethics into economics. I think this trade should be above board, scrutinized, subject to the bright light of the competitive and open market.

F argued that the "precision" of a theory is one sensible indicator of its value (I agree with this). The theory F chose to focus on in this reading is the "economic" theory that people tend to make rationally self-interested economic decisions. He focuses on the predictive power of economic theories (perhaps all "scientific" theories?) and wants us to evaluate theories based on whether they enable us to make predictions that are more or less borne out by the data that is subsequently collected. I agree that the ability of a theory to predict future events is an important element of a theory's value. I would look upon a theory of planetary motion that predicted Mars to be in the wrong part of the sky tomorrow as an obviously flawed theory.

F would like us to spend less time worrying about the assumptions upon which economic theories are based (rationally self-interested economic decisions), and to spend more time scrutinizing the predictive power of the theories we are using. This is intended to be an empirical method, and it is, to a degree.

However, I think that if we stop questioning the assumptions on which a theory is based in order to focus on its predictive power, this should be on a temporary basis only - in order to focus our powers of analysis on a particular problem for a particular duration.

While the assumptions on which a theory are based may not seem to have relevance for "precision" initially, I think they can have a high level of importance for the "accuracy" of a theory. And, as the Jan 2 rest-day article makes clear, there are important differences between "precision" and "accuracy". In my opinion, if we can demand "accuracy" as well as "precision" from an engineer, we should be able to demand it from an economist (don't laugh - we should set our sight high!).

For the importance of the "accuracy" of a theory in addition to its "precision", consider the comparitive "accuracy" and "precision" of the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the solar system. At one time, a geocentric theory (Ptolemaic) was considered to have more or less accurately described the data/observations that were then available (high predicitive power). We now view this geocentric theory as fundamentally flawed, and would not rely on it for any predictions we would like to make about the movements of bodies in space. Although the theory may have allowed for "precision" (relatively speaking), it was not "accurate", and therefore in some respects it was not adequate.

The main point is that once the geocentric assumption was rejected and the heliocentric (gravitational) assumption adopted, this helped to set the stage for an immense swell of scientific progress (we are still benefiting from this, F is a child of Koestler's "sleepwalkers" and I suspect he would have like to have been named as such). The gains made in "accuracy" resulting from the change in assumptions about the solar system had corresponding and larger gains in "precision" - "precision" in new areas, and with respect to new phenomena, previously unidentified phenomena, phenomena that beget phenomena, so that the world around us became richer, bigger, smaller, more "accurately" described, and more USEFUL to us.

Now, if we consider the lessons about the value "accuracy" in addition to the uses of "precision" to the field of economics and F's "positive economics", I think it suggests that challenging ASSUMPTIONS about human economic behavior (its motivations and contexts) is not an unscientific preoccupation, but an indispensable one for scientific progress. Many economists are satisfied with the relative degree of "precision" afforded by the economic theories that assume people make "rationally self-interested economic" choices". The question I have for those who are satisfied with this "precision" is: are these theories "accurate" (are they "predictive" only [geocentric], or "predictive" and "accurate" [heliocentric])? Is Friedman satisfied with the limited accuracy of the predictions of Ptolemy? Is he asking the economist Galileo to forsake his budding theories, and to get on with the sensible business of verifying or refuting his colleague's predictions?

I think that the predictive power of a theory (especially economic theories whose relative predictive power is low) is important, but it should not be cited as a reason to avoid scrutinizing the assumptions on which the theory is based. Ultimately we want "accuracy" as well as "precision", because we know that with increased "accuracy" comes increased "precision" (after a little work).

Consider whether you think the theory that people tend to make rationally self-interested economic decisions is "accurate" as well as "precise" (it may be so!!). But ask yourself why you think that if you do. When you formulate the reasons why, how quickly do you find yourself thinking about the value, the goodness, the justice of that theory, or about certain traits of human nature, psychology, morality that it ASSUMES. Why are judgments about these other things so easily bound up with judgments about the strength of this economic theory? Why are moral/psychological/legal/political COMMITTMENTS so closely bound up with the ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS that underpin the theory that people make rationally self-interested economic decisions?

I think F's advice (if I am permitted to call it that) is suitable for boys and girls in graduate departments working out problems for their supervisors, I think it is also suitable for bank-economists (private and public) who are concerned about the present and next quarter. I don't think F's advice is good for the fledgling "scientists" of economics.

Comment #73 - Posted by: Prole at January 8, 2010 9:19 PM

Cash and Dale, (Matt, JI)

One in the hole for you.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Prole at January 8, 2010 9:20 PM

Great to see bootnecks in the photo again

Comment #75 - Posted by: ChrisM at January 9, 2010 4:32 AM

Hi, I am a student working on an news article for CrossFit. I have a few questions to any trainer that would like to respond or help.
What is CrossFit?
What made you want to be a trainer?
How is Crossfit different from a normal gym, or just working out?
Can you notice a difference in yourself since you started CrossFit?

Comment #76 - Posted by: Warren at September 6, 2011 9:34 AM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?