Crossfit RULES!!!

Thank you Coach G

Awesome picture with the flag!!

great workout today. to all of you who didnt even try, you missed out. spent more then and hour doing it, but got it done worth the sweet. sore as hell will be better because of it.

2 Rest days in a row???

#4 Russell read #3.

Tore my MCL. Any ideas on wod's I can do while my knee heals.

I really need to work on getting all these weird exercises down so i can actually do them.

Of the dozen Codes of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion, I'd say the truth-seeking principle is the one most damaging to message boards in its absence. To earnestly seek "the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake" is a requisite component to all meaningful debate.

Arguing just to win is a waste of time. To avoid this, one must always have a set of data that if legitimately uncovered could change your mind. To pick a ridiculous example, if you argue that unicorns are figments of imagination, actually being presented with a unicorn should be sufficient evidence to change your mind.

Unfortunately, too many debaters seem committed to a stance independent of contrary evidence.

The other principles are essential, but this one struck a chord.

More Tony Blauer please.....

Tug-o-War competition today!!! YEAH!!!

That huge flag is AWESOME.

Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (1945) is worth re-reading every year.

Russ Roberts, host of the "EconTalk" economics podcasts (http://www.econtalk.org/archives.html), frequently remarks about and guests often share similar stories of how they gradually came to understand Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" only with passage of time, various work experiences, visiting HardKnocks, and such.

Much needed and done as RXD 24:00:00

More Hayek please...

An intellectual giant.

pff, obviously, SHE didn't do today's WOD...

I can't hold my arms up.
Great wod yesterday

thanks coach!i feel the elite fitness when we hit it hard but i love me some good hard rest day action.
We should have a section devoted to showcasing and documenting the workout of crossfit's most elite ladies in the journal.Think the jolie piece

Good heavens. This week was amazingly challenging. The last time I did plyometrics like the broad jumps was at hockey camp ages ago. i thought I repressed those terrible memories. thanks for bringing back my horror! Ha!

Actually the fact i can barely walk is just all the more reason I love CF. I am hoping a level 1 cert will come my way.. i'd love to try it out.

Oh, thank god for rest day!

Nice workout the one of the handstand, I look like a gymnast! HAHA! but that's it, i say look like it, i didn't say i am as strong as one of them doing those circus acrobatic stuff, my shoulders feel relax and a little sore, good sore pain though not bad pain. Enjoy your rest day, Quick question? does it matter what way the back is facing against the wall when doing Diane?

SANTI

#19 SANTI
It only matters to Diane.

Tony B,

In addition to "truth", the posted article also suggested that participants should be committed to searching for the "most defensible postion on the issue at stake." I think this is useful for people (by necessity dilettantes) engaging in debate on a web-forum, and on topics dealing with issues such as those raised in the Hayek article today, that are not readily amenable to confirmation or falsification.

I would respectfully submit that "truth" is not the only legitimate object for debate. In cases where no set of data is readily or reasonably available to debaters, several of the other priniples in the LimbicNutrition piece will take on special importance: "relevance", "acceptablility", "sufficiency". Instead of "truth", a 'relevant' argument that is 'sufficient' to win the 'acceptance' of the community of debaters would seem to be a reasonable goal (I'm laying the groundwork for my critique of Hayek's piece :)).

Where the information/data is incomplete or unavailable, the question for participants should not be "what is true?", but "what is the best explanation?" - the criteria for what is the "best explanation" will likely include the consideration of what we want to do or achieve by answering the question or problem we are faced with (do we want precision or accuracy or both, in what proportions? do we want rapid response to changing prices and efficient "out utilization of resources" [Hayek] or decreased average infant mortality, or both, in what proportions?).

Tony B,

Violated the principle of Charity by not catching that you had quoted the bit about "the most defensible position". My apologies.

weightlifting in running shoes.... ewwww...

I'm aching soooo much from yesterday....hurts when I take a deep breath!!!! gotta keep working on my wall walks.

loving crossfit

#6

Kelly Starrett has some great videos on the journal in regards to rehab. He talks about rehab from knee surgery and what to do. He tells you to continue to work on your good leg as it will help your other one to heal faster. It's pretty amazing stuff. Watch it if you get a chance! So I would say do a lot of pistols!

It wasn't easy but I knocked it out

After the WOD yesterday i bet there will be a "sandbag-Hill-handstandwalk" 170m At the Games 2010 :-)

I was kind of disappointed this morning seeing the workout, but now that I realized I can barely raise my hands above my head... good call.

Skipped the workout yesterday due to some overuse injuries (self inflicted!) but I'll be doing the handstands today!

Kudos to the article from von Hayek, I was very pleased to see that up here; seems fitting that people who work as hard as Cross Fitters do would be equally hard working when it comes to intellectual matters. You have to workout the grey matter as well!

ran 4mi- 33:51

ThanX #25!

I have a question: does someone in the HQ have a graduate degree in economics or political science? Waiting these intellectual treatments on rest days is as fascinating as waiting what the WOD is.

By the way, those with access to JSTOR may find a more readable version of the article from here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1809376

I am trying to master the muscle up...and I am hurting! My shoulders, elbows and biceps are on fire worse than any upper body weight work out has ever caused? Is this normal?

I am so close to my first muscle up. The rings are 1 1/2" above my head and I am doing a jump/kip into the muscle up. Just cannot get the swing/kip yet. Any suggestions?

Limbic Nutrition link is dead.

Everyone needs to read Hayek!!

This was my first full week of training had to sub some workouts but this is going to be a very needed day.

Question for the group. Do those of you the do Crossfit in unaffiliated gyms (Non-Crosfit gym) get members complaining about you? We workout as a group of 4-5 guys and lately have been getting bad vibes form the locals and management. We’ve been doing Crossfit here going on two years Just curious as to the experience of others. Thanks

Prole - glad to see you, again!

Now, why do I suspect that you're headed down some socialist "greater good" path with your critique of Hayek?

The ground rules for reasonable discussion need not include an agreement as to the "absolute truth" of the matter, nor do we need to have some moral element to it - what's "better". We frequently aren't arguing about "data" or known matters, but opinions. Yet when we hear two people arguing/debating, setting aside our own emotional attachments to a particular position, we usually have some sense of who had the "better of it" or made the better case. Even when we're not disinterested observers, we've all had a moment in the heat of an argument when we've realized "Oops. I'm wrong." It's our pride and ego - our emotional, unreasoning attachment to what we want to be true, not what IS true - that gets in the way of us actually admitting the other person has made the more compelling argument.

Happens whether we're talking about Duke v. Kansas or Hayek's economics v. "central planning". I'll caveat that and say there are times where it's "too close to call", but anyone who has ever sat as a moot court judge or mock trial competition, knows that it's less about the substantive issues than the presentation of the argument for one side or the other.

It's why Gerry Spence gets paid what he does and other lawyers chase ambulances. You know who's done the better job of arguing the case when you see it. It's why OJ is still walking around... oh, wait, never mind. (That's got nothing to do with his lawyers' abilities).

Cheers.

PS - Love Tony Blauer's stuff. I seriously need to get to one of his certs. If for no other reason than to get the "hi-gear" on and have some fun.

In my life I have found that the "truth" is always elusive if not utterly unattainable, even while discussing issues with people who I would consider "rational."
While reading the codes of conduct, I kept remembering the words of a long-time friend who said to me at a very young age, "Always leave yourself room to be wrong."
In my experience, to be humble in all that one does is the best conduct.
And a wise man once asked the question, "Would you rather be happy, or would you rather be right?"

#33

Do you have a kipping pull-up yet? If you do, take a look at the muscle up progression in the journal. It should give you some tips on how to work up to one. Also practicing deep rings dips really helped me when I was learning. The soreness on your body is probably because your not used to the movement. Take a break and try it again when you are less sore. The muscle up is a very difficult movement to say the least. Good luck.

Did a workout called "Christine" today: 3 rounds of 500m row, 12 BW deadlift and 21 2' box jumps. Painful...13:10.

Workout for the 5th day in a row...mostly to see if I could. How stupid am i?!

3 rds for time:
21x KB Swings 25#
21x GHD Sit-Ups
21x GHD Back Extensions
21x Box Jumps
21x Lunges (per leg)

@19 minutes, including rest time while letting workout partner kill *himself* on the GHD.

Felt like absolute death for about 30 minutes, but feeling pretty good now. Very awesome!

Perfection.

Perfection.

If anyone knows how to get a hold of Miko Salo, buy him a bottle of wine named "Sisu" from kukkula winery in Paso Robles, CA...just a few hours away from the site of the Games.

My friend owns the winery, I could get the Fins connected!

I can't wait to be able to wods like yesterday as rxd. Yesterday was the first wod that I couldn't do as rxd in a while. Just makes me want to get better at the gymnastic part of crossfit.

Dale,

I agree with you entirely. That's why I find it suspect when Hayeks says: "The question is....." a dozen times in one article. If you get the judge to buy into the way you have framed the question/issue you're off to the races. That's why Friedman in his piece was so concerned with steering the "positive science" of economics away from preoccupations about assumptions. He wants us to focus on precision - an indispensible virtue in a theory no doubt. However, I don not think the "science of economics" is just the science of producing wealth. I'd be willing to agree that it is if you want, but then I'd want Friedman to avoid drawing ethical conclusions from his science of wealth creation. I think of economics as imbedded in a large social science which includes moral philosophy, politics and law. If that is the case, then the moral/political/legal assumptions you make for your economic theory have very important consequences.

Anyway, next day.

Anyway, for next day.

Excellent, a WOD I can complete.

Comment #32 - Posted by: johanness at January 15,

J - Coach and Lauren like to learn (which works much better than getting a degree although those two things are not mutually exclusive). But no, to my knowledge, neither set out to pay a lot of money in order to obtain academic credentials.

It has always seemed to me that many of the elements of CF's implementation are aligned with a libertarian philosophy. EG, the affiliate model vice a franchise model. Paul

Can someone post video or explain what a Wall Walk is?

Thanks!

#37 Steve:

I have not had problems at my gym recently but when I worked out in college people used to complain, even to the point we were not allowed to hang rings anymore. Unfortunately the problem is probably that with 4-5 guys everyone will want to "work in" on you and if you don't let them they will go complain that they can't use the equipment you know? I think the reason I don't get complaints now is that I have been working out alone.

Dale, imagine my delight in dropping in on rest day only to find you here!

My thoughts on the CoC - which I quite enjoyed thinking about - go in two flows. One is that I am aften reminded of the biblical account of the Tower of Babel. Whether one believes this tale is a recording of human history or a fascinating way for a culture to record an insight into human nature and pass it through generations, I quite often have the sense that it is literally impossible for folks to understand each other.

The other thought is that Steven Covey's articulation of the 'seek first to undersand, then to be understood' principle works as well as a guide when interacting with folk one genuinely cares about.

A stray thought - we know we will never do a perfect clean, perhaps not even a perfect air squat, but we benefit from the pursuit of same. As Prole writes about the inability to identify truth in some cases, my thought is that we never do but benefit from the sweaty pursuit of it nonetheless.

Lastly, there's a skillset involved in winning a debate or dominating another participant. That skillset is altother different than truth seeking. Truth seeking, dialogue, these likely benefit from a code of conduct, wheras arguing to defeat does not. Loyalty to the truth is also not useful in arguing to defeat. Most discussion defaults to arguing to defeat.

That's why I'll be ready to say "you are dead wrong", Prole, on the 18th. The answer is we want both. The question for me then becomes why is it so clear to me that liberty generates both and government intervention contradicts both, whilst others, perhaps due the actions taken at the Tower of Babel, seem to think the balance falls on the side of govt intervention. Paul

***FRAT***

What's up Crossfit brothers and sisters? Just thought I would drop in and say hello!

I'm doing six weeks of SS, so it'll be a while before I post any main site WODS. Don't think I'm not reading though...

Hope everyone is doing great and I'll see you soon.

~Never Quit!

#37...yes...I get blank stares and they complain a ton...they wonder what the heck I'm doing..I guess it's because I'm actually working out!

steve,

are you monopolizing equipment (5 people doing crossfit at once...)? are you friendly, or arrogant to the other gym patrons? I have never been victim to bad vibes, but I treat the gym and everyone in it with respect (not implying that you are not).

#37. i actually get the opposite. i get people complementing my form, my style of working out, they ask my how to do certain lifts..etc.

i think your big problem is that you have 4-5 guys. It is usually just me and my buddy doing the crossfit workouts or Oly Lifting.

Steve,

I have been slowly building up my home equipment over a couple years and now I have a fairly respectable set up that with a little improvising I have been able to complete WOD's basically as RXD. It may be a little more money up front but after you add up the fees your charged at most well equipped gyms it pays for it self rather quickly. Especially if your group can work out how to split up costs. I love no longer having to worry about the hassles of going to the gym.

The draw back is you need some extra space to have some equipment....garage, extra room or something. I have one small room where I keep my rack, weights and pull up equipment and just move to the garage when I need a bit more room.

Just a thought.....

23 / M / 5'9" / 135lbs

Three rounds for time of:
Walking lunge, 50 meters
Standing broad-jump, 100 meters
Run 200 meters

28:31

Did it in 50m lengths and lost about ten seconds thinking that I'd skipped a length of jumps.

Wow. The lunges were the worst. Except for the broad-jumps; those were the worst too. And the running was worst of all.

Comment #32 Paul:

I like the idea that "laymen" without the academic exposition read stuff from the classical economic literature. That's just so honest. I come from a european "welfare" society where it would be out of the question that someone out of the academia (ie. majority of the voters) ever read the wall street journal or even knew the word libertarianism, it would sound really strange.

Badass pic - GO GIRL!

Prole - Now you're making me go back and re-read what I thought I understood. Hmmmm...I'll be looking forward to your next rest day post.

By the way, my first CivPro professor always used to say that he didn't care about the answer, or even the debate, or the facts, as long as he got to "control the question." I would concur (mostly) that how the issue is framed up makes all the difference in how everything goes from there.

did back squat 5x3

255
265
275
285
295

did a short metcon
21-15-9
deadlifts 225lbs
box jumps
ring dips

4:26

Hey, Paul!! What's up?

Good to see you here and on the journal. (Be nice to Linc. He's a good dude, even when you might think he's wrong.) Which bring to mind your post above - can we have it both ways? Argue for defeat and seek truth?

Other judicial systems are inquisitorial ("truth-seeking"), rather than adversarial. The Founders certainly thought it would be better (and more protective of liberty) for someone faced with the power of the state to have someone specifically chartered to defend their cause - no matter how heinous the crime or the offender. They "opted out" of the inquisatorial system on purpose. Despite what others may think, I still think it's the best system there is, for all of its warts.

So, I'm not certain that the adversarial method is necessarily bad, or that the truth can't be had even in those arguments where it is adversarial. The fact is that not all opinions are equally valid. Not all deserve the same recognition or consideration. More to chew on and work to do.

Cheers.

How cool! My Crossfit Games roomies Dale and Apolloswabbie are here on Rest Day. Cheers Fellas!

Upside down WOD from ystd. Details there.

Here it is... "There is a principle which is bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - That principle is Contempt prior to investigation."

To the debaters today... If you're looking into the style of debate and the actual competition aspect of it then I suggest a reading of Aristotle's "Rhetoric". He explains that there are 3 functions involved in "winning" a debate: ethos, pathos and logos (character, audience appeal and logic respectively). Even Aristotle had to grudgingly admit that to win you cannot rely on logic alone, and that is because you're trying to convince a third party and you'll have to pander to them.

However, if you're looking to find the truth of a matter than logic is all that should matter. You need to start from a necessarily true starting point and use logic to deduce your arguments from there. If your chain of logic is sound and the facts you've used are accurate than you can say you've come to the truth of a matter. The opposition should only attack your specific facts or use of logic and reasoning. In general that is how dialectics works.

As for the economics of Hayek, please remember that he (and the rest of the Austrian economists) are of a mind that economics is an apriori science, like math, that is purely reasoned out. Because it revolves around human action and decisions you cannot treat economics like you would a natural science: there are no standard actions or measurable facts that you can gather BEFORE an event takes place; all facts necessarily can only be gathered ex post facto.

To argue economics is to argue theory vs. theory. When you see graphs and equations that will supposedly predict the future then you know you are about to be lied to.

If anyone is interested in the subject please feel free to shoot me an email.

1-1-1-1-1-1-1 power cleans @ 135#.... recovering from a sore/tweaked back, so I stayed light!

plus a 5km row (24:??.?? mins.) I didnt push this either.... overall it was a "take it easy" WOD.

Very disappointed that my post was not allowed through.

M/33/5'4"/142lbs
Did JT today. Finished in 8:14
Then did Annie, finished in 5:28

Perhaps this is too onersous for the forum moderator (understandably), but if the new rules for rest days include the requirement that we think about a topic for several days before posting, I would hope that as few rule-compliant posts as possible will be filtered out.

Perhaps there could be a link on the site somewhere indicating how posters can reduce the chance that their post will be filtered out - (vocabulary, length, format etc).

Thanks.

Second that, Prole. With apologies for typos, he essence of my point was that too often, words are used to obfuscate truth. We fool ourselves with logic when we know, intuitively, what the right thing to do is. When convenient, we get all intellectual and lose ourselves in the relativity and uncertainty we can create with our intellectual oninism. This is the enemy of truth. We have an intuitive spark and are hard- wired to know when we're being unnecessarily selfish, or cruel, or lazy.

Guidelines for rational discourse are all well and good, but it's healthy to get angry about injustice. It's human. Being detatched is a tool we employ to good effect but we are often in danger if losing that emotional reaction that would drive us to greater heights.

Every single person reading this will know they are avoiding an uncomfortable truth through a nonsensical justification - elaborate apparatus we are using against our own instinct. This could be the unsatisfying relationship you're tolerating instead of sorting out or walking away. Could be the friend you still see, who really isn't a friend anymore. Could be the money you're spending you know you should save. The truth persists through all of these charades. We ignore it at our peril.

This carries over to discussions of politics and economics. The liberttarians know they're philosophy is at heart a cruel dogma of strong over weak. The Left know that at the heart of their dogma lies unjust support for people who don't deserve it. Truth will set us free.

Ran 3.5 miles and did 6 sets of crappy handstand pushups.

about 30 in all.

NOIF, individual liberty, inalienable rights and the desire for peace and free trade is "at heart a cruel dogma of strong over weak." [?!]

You might want to take your blinders off and rethink this one.

Mike #74, "NOIF"?

Liberty is a fine ideal. And market efficiency can be a useful tool. But "libertarianism" can often consists of blithely carrying on with whatever it is you want to do, and dressing it up as some sort of primal puruit of happiness, under a set of divinely ordained personal rights. This is not living the good life. We are on a small planet, with undeniable interdependancy. Modern life means that our actions and those of our governments, states, companies and "tribes" have consequences for many with whom we do not have personal relations. This de-personalising of consequence has helped contriute to a world with unconscienable inequalities of resource and advantage. Trumpeting "libertarianism" with the set of circumstances facing us is cruel. It's strong over weak because it suits those fortunate enough to be "strong" now. This strength is largely from historical accident and not personal endeavour. But we don't ever acknowledge this or ask how it is that we have so much while so many have so little.

My post above also highlighted a potential rot at the core of "Leftist" thinking, but you didn't bother to pick me up on that - blinkers, anyone?

m/44/185

Made up Thursday as Rx'd just at 29 min.

Sorry for the typo: I meant NIOF [non initiation of force].
The standard of living in much of the world is better now than that of kings two hundred years ago through science, technology and capitalism. There will always be inequalities. Every single measure of man creates a Bell Curve. No political system can change that. Free people, free trade, strong defense and rule of law is the best prescription for continued prosperity. All else is propaganda of elitist's with a lust for power. One man's opinion.

Mike,

This brings us neatly back to today's actual topic about effective rational discussion. You state after your prescription that:

"All else is propaganda of elitist's [sic] with a lust for power".

I'm not accusing you of bad faith. But that statement is hardly squarely within the Truth-Seeking Principle, which reads as follows:

"....one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue".

I'm recognising that freedom, secrity, market-efficiencies, free trade and rule of law are all good things. I can see a legitimate reason for people to be nervous of "big government". Above, I deliberately highlighted a problem at the heart of "Leftist" doctrine of unjust enrichment.

But do you really not see any need for intervention, equalisation, subsidy and the principle of economic justice? Do you really not see that libertarianism carries within it a very hard centre of Darwinism which is inappropriate to rational, altruistic people finding themselves on this planet, in our countries, right now? Do you not feel some sense of responsibility to the poor living outside the castle walls? The people not driving an SUV on cheap gas, drinking large coffees from Guatemala and wearing shoes made for half nothing in Indonesia?

I'll stop now, in deference to Fleck's Addendum.

J1 (whoever you are),
Thomas Sowell was a Marxist for most of his young life all the way through and after receiving his PhD in Economics. He details his conversion to conservatism in his autobiography "A Personal Odyssey". Recommended reading. WFS http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Odyssey-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0684864657/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263752774&sr=1-4

You missed the mark completely with your criticism of the left. I guess we're supposed to think "Aww, they just don't want to take the chance that someone will be left out". A truer criticism of the left is that their programs generally leave the target worse off than before while enriching a new group of bureaucrats and buying elections for themselves with other peoples money. "Economic justice", you have no idea what that means do you? To you it means taking what people have earned to give it to people who have not earned it. By force. And you are the compassionate one?

5k- 22:51