CrossFit | 200322


Workout of the Day


On a 15-minute running clock, for max reps:

5 rounds of:
20 seconds of deadlifts, rest 10 seconds
20 seconds of push-ups, rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of:
20 seconds of squat cleans, rest 10 seconds
20 seconds of pull-ups, rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of:
20 seconds of hang power snatches, rest 10 seconds
20 seconds of sit-ups, rest 10 seconds

♀ 135-lb. deadlift, 85-lb. clean, 55-lb. snatch
♂ 215-lb. deadlift, 125-lb. clean, 75-lb. snatch

Post total reps completed at each exercise to comments.

Comments on 200322


Comment thread URL copied!
Kury Akin
July 26th, 2020 at 2:10 pm
Commented on: 200322



10 dl @50kg and 10 fist push ups (102),

4 squat clean @ 30kg and 9 ring rows from horizontal (rnds 1&2) then diagonal (65),

8 hps @25kg and 12 sit ups (101). Only one bar so needed about a minute to change weights between sets.

Went too heavy on the squat cleans. Probably should have scaled to 25kg or even 20kg.

Comment URL copied!
Manchild Manchild
July 9th, 2020 at 5:37 pm
Commented on: 200322

outside, 24# dbs, subbed:

burpee deadlifts

shoulder press

squat cleans

bent-over rows

hang power snatch

tuck jumps

138 reps

Comment URL copied!
Nate Gordon
June 1st, 2020 at 5:20 pm
Commented on: 200322

push ups = 63

DL = 40

pull ups = 38

squat cleans = 18

sit ups = 48

hang power snatch = 39

Comment URL copied!
Jeff Chalfant
April 12th, 2020 at 9:14 pm
Commented on: 200322

As RX’d:

31 deadlifts (took it slow and dropped each)

62 pushups (narrow grip gymnastic push-up)

14 cleans

35 pull-ups

39 hang power snatches

50 situps

-231 reps total

The squat clean pull-ups combo was the hardest as expected, glad I took it a bit easy on the deadlifts, as I was really gassed going into the first set of cleans. Used 1 bar and barely had enough time to switch out 1 side of the bar during each of the last 2 two 10 second breaks each round. In switching to squat cleans I didn’t quite have the whole 20 seconds the first round.


Comment URL copied!
Giuseppe Petrillo
April 11th, 2020 at 10:23 am
Commented on: 200322

Deadlift 64kg 10 - 15

4 - row 56 kg 6

5 - 10 (last 6 14)

Comment URL copied!
Dan Kremer
April 10th, 2020 at 1:12 am
Commented on: 200322

205 DL 32 PU 51

115 SC 8 Bent Over Row 27

75 S 22 SU 40

Comment URL copied!
Cy Azizi
April 8th, 2020 at 3:18 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlift: 20

pushup: 47

squat cleans:11

pullup: 24

hang snatch: 19

situp: 50


Comment URL copied!
Morgan Greene
April 1st, 2020 at 7:41 pm
Commented on: 200322

had to take a slightly longer break in between 5 min rds to strip weights otherwise as rx'd:

DL - 38

Pushups - 68

SQ CLN - 16 (these were brutal and affected my PU)

PU - 17 (strict-ish)

HPSN - 29

SU - 57

Comment URL copied!
Jeffrey Howard
March 30th, 2020 at 8:30 pm
Commented on: 200322

237 - Rx

Deadlift: 11-10-9-8-9

Push-up: 15-12-10-10-8

102 reps

Squat Clean: 4-5-5-4-4

Pull-up: 5-5-5-5-6

48 reps

Hang Power Snatch: 5-7-7-6-9

Sit-up: 11-10-10-10-12

87 reps

Comment URL copied!
Matthieu Dubreucq
March 29th, 2020 at 1:51 am
Commented on: Zoë Harcombe on The Game Changers

Thanks Dr Harcombe for giving us the 3 simples questions to ask a vegetarian.

Comment URL copied!
Greg Glassman
March 26th, 2020 at 10:47 pm
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

Jay McCormick, Huey Kwik, Brooke Salaz, and John Brosnan,

So the king of the panic now claims that Gøtzsche, Ioannidis, Noakes, Harcombe, Ginn, et. al. were correct in doubting the doomsday scenario. Or...has Ferguson joined them and me in becoming "irresponsible", "dangerous", and "reckless". Is it "reckless", "irresponsible", and "dangerous" for me to report that the Imperial College is now in league with the doubters?

The Imperial College projection of 500,000 deaths and a shortage of ventilators, ICU beds, and critical care providers becomes 20,000 deaths, half of whom were going to die in a year anyway, no overrun hospitals, and about those problem there too.

I understand your likely disappointment on learning that the most cited data and analysis to support your cause is admitted by its software creator to be dead wrong. What I cannot imagine is how you process, if you can, the fact that you've embraced nonsense that has crippled the global economy and done significant damage to the lives of millions while attributing reprehensible behavior to those that knew/suspected there was no evidence. My guess is you don't care even a little tiny bit and that there was a motive here that had nothing to do with public health, data, science, or regard for human welfare.

Perhaps in the end it just turns out that you were "reckless", "irresponsible", and "dangerous".

Comment URL copied!
Michael Eades
March 27th, 2020 at 1:26 am

Perhaps Neil Ferguson changed his mind based on the article out of Oxford, or maybe it was the Wall Street Journal article by the two professors of medicine at Stanford, but whatever the reason, in my view, he made the right call the second time around. (Apparently the UK health authorities agreed, as they downgraded the virus to non-high-consequence-infectious-disease status on March 19.) It's mind boggling that an economic machine, such as the United States, could grind to almost a standstill driven by over-the-top 24/7 media hype. The perception of risk skyrocketed as a function of the Availability Bias, not as a serious calculation by reasonable, knowledgeable experts. This perception of risk will even contort the statistics when the panic is over. Everyone admitted to hospitals who tested positive for the coronavirus and subsequently died could be tallied as a death by the virus even though the patient may have had a handful of co-morbidities, any or all of which may have been the real killer. This pollution of the statistics could make it difficult in the end to even get a real idea of the true death toll from the virus.

There is no doubt that the shutdown, driven by the panic, will result in fewer deaths from the coronavirus. And probably from flu as well, along with deaths from a handful of other infectious diseases and even pedestrian deaths and car accidents, since fewer people are out driving and walking about. But at what cost? People get up in arms when human lives are equated with economic well being and that's understandable at a personal level. "How many lives is a booming economy worth?" they ask. I've heard some say that saving a single human life is worth the shutdown. But is it? If it's your life or your child's life you might be tempted to say yes. But people make economic decisions every single day that put them at risk for death or disability. Almost 40,000 lives could be saved each year if automobiles were banned, yet virtually no one would recommend banning driving as a life-saving measure, because the economic devastation would be total. The same people who are at risk for the coronavirus are at risk for the flu (22,000+ have died in the US from influenza this flu season alone--a statistic that dwarfs the number of people who have died from coronavirus by 20 times), yet the economy never shuts down when flu season approaches. And influenza, unlike the coronavirus, has killed 139 children 4 and under this season, a startling number, where none in that vulnerable group has succumbed to coronavirus. This has been a media-driven panic, costing, literally, trillions of dollars. I'm glad Neil Ferguson changed his mind based on reality, and I hope the US follows suit.

Comment URL copied!
Huey Kwik
March 27th, 2020 at 2:55 am

Hey Greg, it took me maybe 60 seconds to find Ferguson on Twitter:

Look, it’s not like I’m enjoying this stay at home policy we have in California. I liked going to the gym and eating out at restaurants. I wish you’re right and that this is “just another flu”, I just don’t agree with that conclusion. I would at least hope, since we’re in the same community, you’d engage in a more respectful manner — I never claimed you were reckless (read the thread!)

Comment URL copied!
Brooke Salaz
March 28th, 2020 at 3:27 am

I don't think you made it through the article you linked to on Ferguson's statements, Coach Glassman (if this is in fact you writing these posts attacking people who clearly as Huey says are part of the community you founded). He comes very far from endorsing anything the Laura Ingraham approved Aaron Ginn article offers us. I think you would do well to listen more to the people on the front lines who are seeing exactly what is going on vs. an arrogant individual claiming non-existent expertise by cherry picking a few data points and making some pretty graphs with a pathetic lack of in depth analysis.

Comment URL copied!
Jay McCormick
April 1st, 2020 at 1:46 am


I find it interesting how motivated your reasoning is. Rather than looking for contradicting evidence of your theory (that this is a panic), you glibly cited someone else's account of Ferguson's ostensible revision of his estimation of 500,000 deaths in the UK.

Like Huey, I found, in about 20 seconds, Ferguson's statement explaining his updated analysis, which he presented to Parliament. He writes: "if anything, our latest estimates suggest that the virus is slightly more transmissible than we previously thought. Our lethality estimates remain unchanged." Nothing about the rate of transmission or likelihood of death has changed.

He continues: "My evidence to Parliament referred to the deaths we assess might occur in the UK in the presence of the very intensive social distancing and other public health interventions now in place." That is, he was predicting the delta that recommended public health interventions would have, not revising his original estimate.

He concludes: "Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand)." So if those public health interventions are lifted, the UK would return to the path toward 500,000 deaths.

A simple example to help you follow: if I predict that 100,000 people will die from automobile accidents because automobiles don't have seat belts, it is not a revision of that prediction to then predict that only 10,000 people will die from automobile accidents now that seat belts are mandatory devices in all automobiles. I'm just updating my prior beliefs and generating a new prediction using new information. The world is dynamic, Greg, you know that!

Motivated reasoning is always something to pay attention to. Feynman expressed it pithily: "you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." I'm sure that you'll continue to dig deep on this topic, as you have on nutrition and exercise. I hope that your reasoning going forward is objective, rooted in detached curiosity, and not motivated by a belief that the experts must be wrong because what they are predicting and recommending feels unsettling to you.

To respond to a few of the more personally-directed points you made:

  • I would not be disappointed to learn that these horrifying predictions were wrong.
  • I'm not sure why you are calling me reckless, irresponsible, or dangerous for pointing out why you are wrong.

Honestly, I am disappointed that you are using your company as a platform to espouse unfounded beliefs about this pandemic. You earlier related the story about how Gold's Gym fired you for disagreeing with their nutrition recommendations. That is, Gold's Gym was using its company as a platform to espouse unfounded beliefs. Uncanny parallel, don't you think?

Comment URL copied!
Veronique Oomen
March 25th, 2020 at 2:55 pm
Commented on: Zoë Harcombe on The Game Changers

I agree with everything Zoe Harcombe says. However, what she is leaving out is that we probably don't have the space to put all animals necessary for a animal-based diet, into a healthy pasture in the hills. The problem with the game of trying to win the argument is that we don't get to talk about solutions that are truly sustainable for the health of all 8 billion people on the planet, while providing animals with a decent life and not destroying the planet.

Right now the total weight of all livestock dwarfs the total weight of all wild animals in the world by a factor larger than 10. (source: Think about this. In terms of weight, we have 10 times as much in cows, pigs, chickens and the like on earth, then all the deer, elephants, rabbits and so on combined. All animals need to eat, and there is only so much land available to grow their and our own food. It's a real problem.

I totally concur with Harcombe that we need to go back to integrated agriculture, where livestock is combined with cultivation of plants. This is more labor-intensive, and all food will be more expensive. We cannot expect everybody to be able to afford this, if we don't change the perverse system of incentives that has subsidies for high-fructose corn syrup but not for vegetables and assigns zero value to the health of the soil. A healthy ratio of plants vs livestock on the land will mean that we can eat some meat, but probably not as much as we may want. And that's OK. As omnivores, we can thrive on a wide variety of diets.

Comment URL copied!
Viktor Wachtler
March 25th, 2020 at 8:46 am
Commented on: 200322

88kg deadlifts (4 kettlebells on a shovel handle)

Double kettlebell cleans 24kg

Double kettlebell half snatches 20kg

DLs 5-5-5-5-5 25reps

Push-ups 28-20-20-16-17 101reps

Cleans 5-4-5-5-5 24 reps

Strict ring pull-ups 5-5-4-4-4 22reps

Half snatches 3-5-5-5-5 23reps

Sit-ups 10 reps all sets 50 reps


Comment URL copied!
Jim McCary
March 24th, 2020 at 9:00 pm
Commented on: 200322

DLs/ push ups: 7/14, 7/10, 7/10, 7/10, 6/8; 86 total

s.cleans/ pull ups: 2/4, 3/6, 3/6, 3/6, 3/6; 41 total

p.snatch/ sit ups: 5/8, 5/8, 6/8, 6/8, 6/8; 68 total

total: 195

185# DLs, 95# s.clean, 75# p.snatch

Comment URL copied!
Peter Shaw
March 24th, 2020 at 6:36 pm
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

This is an interesting paper that highlights the problem with taking new data at face value. The reality is that there are many factors at play with this pandemic and none of them should be excluded when considering how we defend ourselves against it. As Einstein said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” We would be naive to assume that we have the answer to this virus after only a few months worth of data.

The author begins by talking about the lack of need for context when analyzing data. My argument would be that context is everything. My notes are intended to highlight how the thought process in analyzing the data changes in different contexts. The author doesn’t seem to make any unsubstantiated claims, but in order to understand what must be done with the information we must understand the circumstances in which they were measured.

1.“Total cases is the wrong metric”

  • At this point in time, given that there are plenty of recovered cases, this metric is less practical than previously when the virus was initially spreading.
  • Total new cases per day seems to be a bit more useful given that it matters how many empty hospital beds are available on any given day.

2.“Time lapsing, Per capita, & spread”

  • Time lapsing is effective for understanding the growth rate of the virus.
  • Per capita is not as useful a measurement as proposed given that the containment measures per country, per province/state, per city differ greatly by degree.
  • If we really want useful measurements, we would measure individual cities or communities at the epicentre of the viral spread.
  • Second to that, given that the author agrees that spread continues he should agree that the number of cases per capita will increase over time in the U.S.

3.“Bell curve & flattening the bell curve”

  • Highlighting the fact that the spread rate follows a bell curve only tells us that it will eventually slow down. What it doesn't tell us is the acute impact it will have on the healthcare system (# of deaths directly or indirectly caused by COVID-19 overload; $$ spent on training or retraining frontline healthcare workers, protective equipment, beds, building entire hospitals (China)).
  • It seems logical that a smaller number of patients sent to Emergency & ICU all at once would = less death & less money spent.
  • The author highlights a graph from the Imperial College Of London to highlight the bell curve.
  • What the graph is intended to show is that the UK will need ~90-275 critical care beds per 100,000 people at the peak of the curve in any scenario. Currently the UK only has 6.6 ICU beds per 100,000 (

4.“Low probability of catching COVID-19”

  • It is impossible to draw these conclusions based on the data available due to:
  • Inconsistency of testing
  • Inconsistency of reporting

5.“Common transmission surfaces”

  • The author compares the transmissibility of COVID-19 to the flu. It is comparable, but later the author shows that current data show COVID-19 to be slightly more transmissible. 
  • CDC estimates that the flu leads to 9M-45M illnesses per year in the U.S.

6.“COVID-19 will "burn off" by summer”

  • The author makes the argument that the warmer areas of the earth are not getting hit as hard, therefore there is evidence that it will “burn off”.
  • The author also states, “95% of all infections are in a latitude encompassing 55% of the worlds population.” Would it not be possible that the population density is causing the high number of infections and weather is simply a correlate?
  • Another consideration is that above 22.5 degrees north you will find majority of the wealthiest countries in the world. These populations will have a higher tendency to travel and spread the virus country to country. (

7. “Children & Teens aren’t at risk”

  • The author correctly cites the current observations about the virus being apparently lower risk for children and teens than adults.
  • However, if we use the authors own comparison of COVID-19’s transmissibility to Influenza, we can expect anywhere between 90,000-400,000 cases in individuals under 10 years old within a year.
  • In terms of mortality rate below the age of 10, we haven’t seen any deaths from COVID-19 but this virus is very new and we only have a few months of data. If we are looking at Influenza for clues, we can see here that there is huge variability in mortality below the age of 10 (
  • Exposing my child to COVID-19 is not a risk I would personally be willing to take.

8. “A strong but unknown viral effect”

  • The author cites an article saying that the infection rate is declining
  • Could the decline not be due to the measures taken to prevent spread? China is the only country who did not know the virus was coming. They had zero time to implement needed measures to prevent spread, therefore you would expect a high infection rate. As it spreads country to country, you would expect everyone to be more prepared and implement measures to lower the infection rate.

9. “What about asymptomatic spread?”

  • I think it’s clear, based on the authors cited evidence, that we are unable to make conclusions about asymptomatic spread.
  • Icelandic data will provide some good evidence over time, but lifestyle factors and living conditions from country to country ultimately contribute to increased or decreased viral transmission. More data needed here from other countries.
  • In Canada, for example, we have very few tests and thus have a very specific screening criteria to be tested. Unless more tests are done, it will be impossible to make observations about asymptomatic spread.

10. “93% of people who think they are infected aren’t”

  • It is interesting to assume that people think they are infected considering it is the public health authorities who control who gets tested and not the individual themselves.
  • For example, the Public Health Agency of Canada have made the criteria for testing very clear and individuals that meet these criteria should be tested. It is known that there are many possible causes of these symptoms, but if your goal is to prevent spread you need to know who is infected and so a large net must be cast.

11. “1% of cases will be severe”

  • This is a bold prediction to make considering the story is only beginning in the U.S.
  • The author likes to use the data from other countries to make conclusions based on many things, but not this…
  • If you use China as a comparison (as seen in the image posted by the author), the U.S. could see up to 20% of cases categorized as severe or worse.
  • If you take the authors word for it and the U.S. only sees 1% of cases categorized as severe, this could still lead to 90,000-400,000 hospitalizations if you’re considering COVID-19 transmissibility is similar to Influenza. This would be the number would be over 1 year, so over a month it would be closer to 7,500-33,333 hospitalizations for the entire population. This amounts to 2.3-10 beds needed per 100,000 people, which appears at first to be something the U.S. can handle given their number of ICU beds per capita ( However, if you consider that most ICUs run at or near capacity this becomes a problem.
  • Linda Green wrote an article in 2002 highlighting the use of ICU beds in New York State—
  • In 1997 ICU beds in NY were on average 75% occupied
  • If NY has 35 ICU beds available (per 100,000), this leaves 8.75 open
  • So even if only 1% of cases are severe, and the transmissibility is as low as Influenza there is potential for overload. If more than 1% are severe, there is high likelihood of ICU overload. So, context matters here.

12. “Declining Fatality Rate”

  • Here the author cites predictions of a 0.5-3% fatality rate. In the last section he said 1% of cases would be severe. I would definitely consider death as a severe case, but I would also consider near death a severe case… as would most of the references he uses in the last section.
  • In this section I was mostly confused by these ideas conflicting with one another.
  • If we focus on the “severe” cases for a second longer, this would mean that up to 3% of cases will lead to death and will definitely qualify as severe. At 3%, you would end up needed 6.8-30 beds per 100,000 people if the virus has the same transmission rate as Influenza.
  • Even the author tells us that COVID-19 transmissibility is slightly more than Influenza. Therefore more beds needed.
  • With only a couple of percent increase in death rate, even if the virus infects a low number of individuals comparatively to Influenza, we see that New York state will certainly run out of beds. Especially since there will be more severe cases than just those who die…
  • “The US has 100M adults with underlying chronic illnesses” who are more susceptible to death from COVID-19
  • This is slightly less than one-third of the US population. This population alone has the potential to increase the fatality rate significantly.
  • At the end of this section the author downplays the importance of hospital capacity as playing an important role in fatality. Here is a comprehensive list of hospital capacity by country —
  • This is a major measuring stick of a countries ability to battle this virus
  • If critical care units are over capacity, patients receive inadequate treatment and are more susceptible to death.
  • Is it a coincidence that the two countries (Japan, South Korea) with the highest bed capacity per 1000 people were able to curb the virus effectively?
  • Is it also a coincidence that Wuhan had a higher death rate than outer provinces when they were blindsided by the virus and had to build entire hospitals to deal with the overload. Whereas outer provinces saw it coming and braced themselves accordingly?
  • Context matters and the question becomes, how prepared are your hospitals to deal with a surge?

In his conclusion the author raises legitimate concerns about the effects of a long term “lockdown” on the economy. He proposes that we should look to South Korea and Singapore for clues as to how to handle the virus without having to isolate citizens in their homes. I agree that we should take tips from countries who have successfully defended themselves against this virus, however to assume that what worked for them will work for us is short sighted. Social culture and perception of government could potentially play a role. We know that Asian culture is different from American culture in many ways so we can’t assume each population will react the same to a “social distancing” call from their leader.

I am no epidemiologist, but logic tells me there are three main factors determining the outcome of this pandemic and they all need to be balanced according to the uniqueness of a countries economic climate and healthcare resources.

1. Testing — If we could test every body, we could easily prevent spread. But we don’t have that many tests so there will need to be a compromise and strategy.

2. Hospital capacity — If we could accommodate and give adequate care to everybody no matter how many come at once, we could easily handle the surge in cases. But we can’t so there will have to be a compromise and strategy.

3. Lockdown — I view this as the most extreme version of social distancing. If we could keep everybody away from each other for two weeks, there would be no spread. This is not possible, so there will need to be a compromise and strategy.

These factors play off each other and all contribute to whether or not a country will be able to curb the virus. If you are very strong in one area, you may be able to get away with ignoring the others. If you are very weak in one area, you will have to make up for it somewhere else. These factors can be balanced and will need to be by most countries as it will be impossible to go “all in” on one.

Comment URL copied!
Clarke Read
March 24th, 2020 at 9:06 pm

Peter, thank you for taking the time to write all that out. A couple specific follow-on thoughts:

Re #2: From what I've seen (which I always caveat could be a non-representative sample of what's out there), I think you are spot-on regarding the need for more specific measurements. The data from Italy seems to suggests that this is a virus that has been tremendously impactful in certain geographic areas (i.e., Lombardy) and relatively less impactful in other areas; early data in the U.S. appears consistent with this. If this is the case, (1) single, country-wide metrics will overestimate the risk in many areas but underestimate risk in a few critical areas and (2) we can improve our response by targeting efforts specifically where they are needed most.

Re: #3: My particular concern regarding the ICU beds scenario is, given the projections in both the best-case and worst-case scenarios, are the current efforts actually trying to solve a problem, or are we hammering at a screw? Put more directly - if the expected number of beds is at least 10-15x current capacity, what efforts can be made to develop alternatives? It seems the focus on "flattening the curve," while possibly necessary, is far from sufficient to actually solve this problem...what is being done to raise capacity, or reduce reliance on existing capacity, and what share of our resources are dedicated to that? I'm certain smarter people than I are already well underway in pursuing these measures, but given these numbers, it would seem the extent to which "flattening the curve" has dominated the prominent dialogue does not reflect the nature of the most probably effective solution to the problem. Maybe I'm just misguided? Your point #11 seems to echo a similar problem, where containment efforts are insufficient to solve the ICU problem, to the extent that we need an alternative solution (e.g., I've heard increasing consideration of out-of-ICU ventilator use, if that makes sense at all) moreso than preservation of existing resources.

I am hopeful - maybe naively so, but if it wasn't at least a little naive I wouldn't call it hope - that with the quality and quantity of resources we have dedicated to this problem we can figure out a solution, even if nothing we've seen prevented in the U.S. so far looks like one. Ginn provides a scenario in which the severity of the problem may be overstated; if he's right, great, though you and others here have provided good arguments to suggest that this article is insufficient to tell you whether he is or isn't. But if he's not right, your comment makes abundantly clear that an effective response will rely on expanding our toolbox at least as much as increasing our ability to maximize the tools we already have. I'm hopeful we will see a similar level of imagination as we attempt to control prevalence in the long haul.

Comment URL copied!
Shianne Chlupacek
March 24th, 2020 at 3:22 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlift #105- 43

Push-ups(knees)- 50

Squat Cleans #65-16

Pull-Ups(green band assist)-19

Hang Power Snatch #55- 16

Sit-Ups- 45

First real WOD in a week, took time off to go travel which consisted of hotel room workouts and hiking. Good WOD to get back into it!

Comment URL copied!
Chris Meldrum
March 24th, 2020 at 12:43 pm
Commented on: 200322

As modified below.

Left leg Romanian Deadlift, 50# Dumbbells


8-8-8-8-8 / 18-16-14-13-13

Pistol (left leg)

Strict Pull-up

6-7-7-7-8 / 7-7-7-7-5

Seated DB Snatch (alt. arms)

GHD Sit-up

6-7-7-7-7 / 9-9-9-9-9

Trying to keep the spirit and movements of the WOD to best of my ability.  RDLs were tough!


Comment URL copied!
Kris Sienkiewicz
March 24th, 2020 at 10:29 am
Commented on: 200322

Rx M/43 /78kg


Dl 46 push-up 92

SC 20 pull-up 59

HS 47 situp 72

Total 336

Comment URL copied!
Matt Ericksen
March 23rd, 2020 at 10:10 pm
Commented on: 200322

6’2” 210#

215# dl/pushup: 100 reps

125# sc/pullups: 47 reps

75# hs/situps: 72 reps

Comment URL copied!
Christian Simpson
March 23rd, 2020 at 8:58 pm
Commented on: 200322

Rx...had to break 1min to cut weights down in-between DL, sq cl & an

6/5/4/4/4 & 20/15/15/13/13

3/2/2/3/2 & 6/6/5/4/5

4/5/5/6/6 & 10/9/9/9/10

Total reps: 210

Comment URL copied!
Mike Andridge
March 23rd, 2020 at 8:07 pm
Commented on: 200322

dl @ 135# /push ups






sqt cln @ 85#/strict pull ups






absolute garbage.

hang pwr snatch @ 65#/sit ups







Comment URL copied!
Hendrik Bünzen
March 23rd, 2020 at 6:50 pm
Commented on: 200322




= 280 rx’d

Comment URL copied!
Matt Ericksen
March 23rd, 2020 at 10:19 pm


Comment URL copied!
John Donjoian
March 23rd, 2020 at 6:06 pm
Commented on: 200322

Performed Rx in our home gym, with the only exception being a bit of time to change the weights out on the barbells for my spouse and I.

Held a pace of ~10 reps (DL & PU)

~4/8 reps (SC & Pullup)

~9/11 reps (HPS & Situp)

Great program, would've really been fun and hard if I had 3 barbells!!

Comment URL copied!
Jonathan Firmin
March 23rd, 2020 at 5:17 pm
Commented on: Zoë Harcombe on The Game Changers

Amazed that CrossFit is still peddling this stuff. Absolutely behind GG in his pursuit of the sugar/soft drinks industry but why oh why aren't they now accepting that in order to create a better more sustainable, more compassionate world for us all to live in we need to adopt a whole food plant based diet. Animal agriculture is a massive contributor to climate change and with a growing global population, if we don't change our ways there will be no planet left. That's of course unless because of our meddling with animals a virus doesn't wipe us all out first!!

Comment URL copied!
Brian Louchis
March 23rd, 2020 at 5:16 pm
Commented on: 200322

Scaled to 50 lb dumbbell deadlifts, 35 lb dumbbell squat cleans, 50 lb dumbbell hang snatch

DL: 12 average per round, Push-ups on DBs: 11

SC: 5, Pull-ups: 9

HPS: 6, Sit-up: 10

Comment URL copied!
Mja 204
March 23rd, 2020 at 5:05 pm
Commented on: 200322

M / 172cm / 80kg / 36

Mix and match session today due to limited equipment at home max is 80kg BB

Deadlift 80kg: 12, 12, 12, 12, 12

Press-up : 24, 17, 16, 15, 13

Power clean 60kg: 4, 3, 3, 3, 3

Pendlay row 60kg: 8, 7, 6, 6, 6

Hang snatch 40kg: 5,5,5,5,5

Sit-ups: 10,9,9,9,9

Comment URL copied!
Adrienne Kahrs
March 23rd, 2020 at 4:21 pm
Commented on: 200322

53# KB deadlift = 12 across

Push-up = 12-10-9-9-8

DB squat clean (12#? they're the only ones in the house, and they're not marked) = 6-6-6-5-6

DB bent over row = 12 across

DB hang-to-overhead = 10-11-11-11-13

Ab mat sit-up = 9-10-10-11-11

Total = 304 reps

This will be our GRIT adaptive workout today. We are running some limited classes for residents only - most of our athletes will be doing this from home.

5 x

:20 deadlift

:10 rest

:20 push-up / band chest press OR weighted punch

:10 rest


5 x

:20 clean

:10 rest

:20 pull-up / bent over row

:10 rest


5 x

:20 hang power snatch / DB hang to overhead

:10 rest

:20 sit-up / back extension OR russian twist

:10 rest

Depending on abilities, there may be extra transition time between couplets, or people may choose to do all 5 sets of an exercise in a row. I'll advise them to select movements that allow for quick transitions whenever possible.

We may be adding a bonus class for some of our assisted living residents this week - I've met them in other settings, but it will be my first time training them. If that starts today, I will definitely be simplifying even further! :) Toe touches, sit-to-stands, jumping jacks, etc. Many of them are used to enjoying quite a bit more freedom than they have under current circumstances, so hopefully it will be a good outlet and help keep their spirits up!

Comment URL copied!
Brandon Myers
March 23rd, 2020 at 1:57 pm
Commented on: 200322

DL (135LBS) - 42





SIT UPS - 40


Comment URL copied!
Brooke Salaz
March 23rd, 2020 at 3:54 am
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

UW Bio Professor Carl T. Bergstrom has an excellent twitter thread thoroughly debunking this shoddily thrown together article. It is an irresponsible piece of garbage. Crossfit should be more thorough in looking deeply at where it chooses to implicitly offer endorsement. Just because something is taken down from a web site does not mean there is censorship. There is no entitlement to write something and have others publish it. Perhaps those involved thought better of the damage wide dissemination of misinformation can cause, particularly in a health crisis.

Comment URL copied!
John Miller
March 23rd, 2020 at 11:22 am

Carl T. Bergstrom is a progressive liberal. The article CrossFit posted was well written and factual. In the end, we the people will see President Trump for the true leader he is.

Comment URL copied!
Jay McCormick
March 23rd, 2020 at 12:14 pm

100% with you Brooke. Unfortunately, a debunked article from Medium has received is prominenently

Comment URL copied!
Greg Glassman
March 23rd, 2020 at 9:55 pm

I once worked at a Gold’s Gym where I had to hide teaching seniors to squat. It was widely considered irresponsible and reckless. I thought that was hysteria and ignorance.

I made meal-plans for my clients and needed to remove any personally identifying information on them and deliver them in sealed envelopes with instructions to “only open at home” because they were 50% CHO, 30% Pro, and 20% Fat, and that formulation was widely “known” at that time to be deadly, reckless, and irresponsible. I thought the nation was in the grips of a mass delusion and anti-fat hysteria that seemed designed to hide the damage being done by refined carbohydrate.

I was fired from that gym and denied unemployment insurance, the gym citing my irresponsible and deadly diet as justification for my removal.

I fought for the unemployment insurance in a hearing, prevailed, and then went right back to training. That was in 1992. That Gold’s Gym is now a CrossFit Gym.

Generally, I don’t think you can innovate, express well-reasoned opinions, point out failures of method or outcomes of the orthodoxy absent a chorus of folks objecting to what they see as “dangerous”, “reckless”, or “deadly”. Everyone managing important innovation deals with this.

Here we find charges of “recklessness” and “dangerous” leveled for open discussion of the need, costs, advantages, and disadvantages of various approaches to combating the SARS – CoV 2 virus and COVID 19 illness.

Much of that discussion has been applauded by John Ioannidis, Peter Goetzche, and Tim Noakes, and others. Credentials don’t matter to me but compare theirs to your UW Prof whose Tweets, no less, dealt with this entire matter in a way that you deem to have “thoroughly debunked this shoddily thrown together article”. We will post later a look at Aaron Ginns piece in a manner that might be called “thorough” and it won’t be in Twitter because you, quite simply, cannot deal with this subject effectively on that platform.

Brooke, the piece wasn’t taken down because of “misinformation” it was taken down because Medium doesn’t have the courage or journalistic integrity to stand up to the panic driven hysteria created by the likes of you who think that discussion that veers from the party line isn't safe for public consumption.

And for the record and for those who have reacted absent reading what has been posted, I have not argued for ignoring public health orders on anything related to the COVID-19 illness and neither has anyone else.

Read this; it’s an easy read that well explains the downside of the panicked hysteria driving censorship you applaud, recommend, and then deny.

Comment URL copied!
Huey Kwik
March 24th, 2020 at 2:59 pm

Greg, your bit about not caring about credentials and then invoking credentials to make an argument is silly. We can easily find extremely credentialed folks on the side of “this is way bigger than the flu.”

The main thing missing from your post was any discussion of the arguments themselves.

Comment URL copied!
Jay McCormick
March 24th, 2020 at 5:59 pm

I agree with Huey. The issue is not the platform (Twitter is effective for point-by-point analysis in a Twitter thread), nor the credentials of either the author or the scientist who debunked the article. (As an aside, though, do credentials not matter – "credentials don't matter to me" – or do they matter – "but compare [other scientists' credentials] to [Bergstrom's]"?)

The issue is the article's arguments themselves. For example, in the space of 2 paragraphs, Ginn writes that around 1% of cases of COVID-19 will be deadly, and that 2.x% (x > 1) will die. What? How could the "serious" cases be a subset of the fatal cases?

Flaws abound; he cites Farr's Law, which predicts a general pattern of rise, peak, decline for epidemics. The problem is that Farr's Law as a model of HIV predicts that cases would peak at around 200,000 cases in the late 1980s and then decline – of course we know that is false.

He cites a single article positing that cases will subside in warm weather; later, more rigorous studies have found that warm weather will have little or no impact.

I could go on, but the larger problem is that no single article (whether wholly discredited like this one or supported by other articles) should define what the true state of a system is or should be. Yet posting the article here, without a rebutting article, presents this article's position as the true one. Ironically, this sort of hysterical, immediate-convergence, "We have the answer, everyone get in line!" positioning is exactly what you're decrying, Greg. Wrapping your argument in the language of objectivity and dialectics doesn't change that.

Science should change; the result is that people who disagreed with the original science might feel vindicated when further researcher supports their (seemingly) heterodox view. That's inherent to the discipline. Absolute answers that don't change over time are not what science provides.

Comment URL copied!
Clarke Read
March 24th, 2020 at 8:34 pm


On one hand, you are correct to note that significant criticisms have been leveled against Ginn's article. Going through Bergstrom's posts, though, it would seem to be a stretch to argue the post has been "completely discredited." Individual points, such as some of the specific projections he made around Italy? I'll give you that. And he definitely got sloppy in a couple places. But much of Bergstrom's criticism relates to the tone of the piece at least as much as its content.

Much of the discourse and action surrounding COVID-19 has been characterized by two major factors: (1) an at-all-costs mentality, the importance of which I can sympathize with in a state of vast uncertainty and potentially catastrophic costs of inaction and (2) reliance on a handful of data points and geographic case studies to characterize the current and potential future risk of the condition. That discourse has led to our current state. In retrospect, we will of course know the degree to which it was warranted, either literally or in deference to prudence. In either case, it is clear that compliance with these measures, so long as they remain, is essential...if we're going to be locked down for at least a couple weeks, we might as well ensure the benefit of that lockdown - i.e., the degree to which the spread of the disease is impaired - is as great as possible.

That said, there is additional data emerging, which is exactly what we expected and hoped for. New information that could inform a more accurate model of the growth of the epidemic, within or across borders; information that could adjust our understanding of the R0 in different contexts; information that improves our understanding of the relative impact of different interventions to slow the spread of this condition and moderate its impact. We are currently, while these restrictions remain in place at a state and federal level, in as good a place as we have been to assess our plans going forward. If we find the worst predictions are right, then we can be more confident in their enforcement; if we find out they're not, we can contain the disease while minimizing the collateral damage. I know much of the population right now, particularly those in healthcare, don't have the opportunity to perform this assessment right now, but others can.

I expect more on this condition will be posted on the site. What we're (i.e., those of us fortunate enough to have the capacity, background and luxury to attempt to develop an informed understanding of what is going on) seeking is neither a categorical dismissal of the prevailing dialogue nor categorical acceptance, and similarly neither categorical dismissal nor acceptance that an at-all-costs attitude is required. We want to understand what a strategic, proportionate response would look like, one directly tied to the most informed possible understanding of the gravity and nature of the challenge we face. We might end up at the same place. But we also might not. And if we don't, we have the potential to minimize the collateral damage to millions without exacerbating the disease.

It's fair to debate whether Ginn was the right messenger, or whether he delivered the right message. But given there have been at least 500 papers published on COVID-19 so far (see link below), with more seemingly by the hour, I am hopeful that some of the uncertainty that shaped early actions is beginning to clear.

Comment URL copied!
Brooke Salaz
March 24th, 2020 at 10:57 pm

I really appreciate reading everyone's thoughts and it has forced me to want to clarify me somewhat knee jerk negativity that was quite lacking in substance. I have a just a few points where I'll try to encapsulate what I object to in what I'll call the "virus minimization, everyone be happy" camp:

1) Many in the fitness world are approaching this in a bit of a victim blaming mode imho. "Well if you didn't have that underlying condition that surely better diet and more exercise could have corrected or have all those birthdays under your belt you'd have nothing to fear";

2) Ginn, contrary to what the scientists I have been following, blithely states children are no part of this equation either as patients themselves or as potential carriers. This is to me extremely irresponsible. The evidence I have seen does not support this and saying schools should remain open truly feels like the edge of anti-vaxx lunacy;

3) Which brings me to what I often feel when hearing from the "business" community, even you Coach Glassman on topics of public health. As you did with your comment it comes back to themselves and sorry to say, whether or not it's explicitly stated, their personal bottom line. It is hard not to feel a bit of suspicion when people with a highly visible platform want us to shop, perhaps go to crossfit gyms though you didn't say that but that is what carrying Ginn's argument to it's logical conclusion would appear to advocate. You've been great at seeing the self interest at work in calling out soda companies who then tell us not exercising is the bigger problem. I wish you were as quick to note Mr. Ginn's motivation for wanting us to just get on with things and keep the economy rolling. I respect what you have done in the field of nutrition which as you rightly state cannot even truly be considered a science at this point with its dismal track record, but epidemiology is a legitimate field and the "all opinions are valid and should be given equal weight" stance is really, yes I'll say it, dangerous.

4) Last point, Ginn notices zero impact of all the draconian measures taken in China, South Korea in slowing the progress of the virus. He acts as though this was just the normal course that would have happened regardless. Why would we take any extremely inconvenient measures when it's all the same? I can only call that ignorant.

Comment URL copied!
Jay McCormick
March 25th, 2020 at 10:43 am

Brooke, great points. Keep 'em coming.

Comment URL copied!
Brooke Salaz
March 23rd, 2020 at 3:44 am
Commented on: 200322

Comment URL copied!
Dale Saran
March 23rd, 2020 at 1:55 am
Commented on: 200322

50 yom/5'6/FNOOS

Not as rx'd.

  • A minute rest to change plates after rounds 1 and 2.
  • All weights done 10 lb lighter than Rx'd. (205/115/65)


6-6-6-5-6/15-10-10-8-7 = 79


4-3-3-3-3/8-8-6-5-6 = 49


7-6-6-5-6/7-6-5-5-6 = 59

Total = 187

Comment URL copied!
Jade Teasdale
March 23rd, 2020 at 12:15 am
Commented on: 200322


DL & PU: 6X5-14X5 (100)

Sq. CLN & Strict PU: 3X5 5X5 (40)

HPS & SU: 6X5 11/12X5 (85-90)

(225-230 reps)

Comment URL copied!
Shaun Stapleton
March 22nd, 2020 at 9:55 pm
Commented on: 200322


deadlift 8/8/10/10/9

push ups 15/15/15/15/15

squat cleans 4/4/4/4/4

pull ups 6/6/6/6/6

hang snatches 5/5/5/5/10

sit ups 6/6/6/8/12

total: 246

Comment URL copied!
Nathanael Akin
March 22nd, 2020 at 9:55 pm
Commented on: 200322

deadlifts (40)




hang power snatches(27)


Comment URL copied!
Coastie Nick
March 22nd, 2020 at 8:38 pm
Commented on: 200322


DL: 14,10,9,9,8= 50

Pushup: 32,26,22,19,16= 115

Squat Cleans: 3, 3, 3, 3, 3= 15

Pullups: 13, 10, 8, 9, 8= 48

Hang Power Snatch= 4, 5, 5, 6, 6 = 26

Situps: 10, 11, 11, 10, 11= 53

Total reps: 307

Comment URL copied!
Coastie Nick
March 22nd, 2020 at 8:41 pm

PS: I appreciate the weight setup for quick switching on a single bar!

Comment URL copied!
Paolo Lucia
March 22nd, 2020 at 8:23 pm
Commented on: 200322

Does everyone have equipment at home? Because I only have dumbbells and my gym is closed due to coronavirus

Comment URL copied!
Jeremy Galbraith
March 22nd, 2020 at 11:03 pm

I have equipment, yes.

Comment URL copied!
Troy Bruun
March 22nd, 2020 at 7:52 pm
Commented on: 200322

DL(145): 50

Pushup: 80

CL(80): 21 lost reps changing weight

Pullup: 30

HPSN(55): 31

Situp: 57

Total Reps: 269

Comment URL copied!
Charlie Pokorny
March 22nd, 2020 at 7:52 pm
Commented on: 200322

254 reps Rx

Lost some time taking off weights & had to be careful of calf strain on squat cleans

DL: 40, Pushup: 75; SC: 13, PU: 38; HPS: 34, SU: 54


Comment URL copied!
Charlie Pokorny
March 23rd, 2020 at 12:08 am

I also want to add that this is a killer WOD!

Comment URL copied!
David Cowan
March 23rd, 2020 at 5:57 pm


Comment URL copied!
Charlie Pokorny
March 23rd, 2020 at 11:53 pm


Comment URL copied!
Tripp Starling
March 22nd, 2020 at 6:36 pm
Commented on: 200322

Scaled weight to:

135# deadlift (too light)

85# squat clean (just right)

55# hang power snatch


75# deadlift

50# front squats

35# hang power snatch

Comment URL copied!
John Clarke
March 22nd, 2020 at 6:13 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlifts (115) - 40

Pushups - 101

Power Clean (115) -22

Pullups - 35

DB Push Press (30s) - 56

Hollow Rock - 56

Comment URL copied!
Dave DeCoste
March 22nd, 2020 at 6:08 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlifts: 8/8/7/6/6

push-ups: 20/20/19/17/15

squat cleans: 1/3/3/4/4

strict pull-ups: 7/6/5/4/5

hang power snatch: 3/3/5/5/6

sit-ups: 11/11/11/11/12

total reps: 246 Rx

transitions (changing weights) definitely cost a few reps on this one.

Comment URL copied!
Clarke Read
March 22nd, 2020 at 5:52 pm
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

I’m going to combine the arguments presented here by Mr. Ginn with those from another take that’s gotten a lot of traction and which provides additional, actionable context, and more importantly indicates how Ginn’s claims would be expected to affect the course of the epidemic:

First off, Mr. Ginn (and Mr. Pueyo) deserves credit for providing a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the coronavirus. We have not been well-served by the repeated use of a handful of data points when additional data and context exists.

Ginn’s argument can be summarized in a single sentence, which he uses to describe the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 tracking map:

What started as a data transparency effort has now molded into an unintentional tool for hysteria and panic.

The key term here is unintentional. Both authors, in different ways, indicate the public response to COVID-19, and in particular the degree to which this response has allowed uncertainty to cloud efforts toward long-term planning, has incited a level of anxiety unsupported by a more informed understanding.

As a note, I’m taking Ginn’s numbers here at face value. I know they’ve been contested. Obviously if he has misstated raw data, that undermines his argument.

Ginn’s argument, in a nutshell, is that the broadly perceived mortality rates and R0 values no longer reflect our best understanding of the disease, for specific reasons. For example:

  • Public statements have widely emphasized the high transmissibility of the virus - i.e., that it easily spreads on surfaces, through aerosols, etc. - are based on “basic” (in the “basic science” use of the term) research; direct evidence of disease transmission suggests virus transmission does not reliably lead to infection, and in particular that short-term exposure in open spaces has a low risk of infection;
  • Public statements have emphasized mortality rates as high as 4%, but increased testing has (predictably) lowered these rates. More importantly, testing has continually reinforced the narrative that a single mortality figure does not accurately represent any individual’s risk, and that there is a specific, mostly-understood vulnerable population (i.e., those with advanced age and/or comorbidities);
  • Current response has focused on aggressive isolation efforts for an indeterminate duration, but close analysis of the response from other countries suggests other, feasible measures may be equally effective and far less costly.

Ginn’s framing of the evidence bears some similarity to the story has frequently reviewed in nutrition research - a broad public narrative that fails to account for the context from which the data was derived, and so reaches conclusions that differ meaningfully from the best assessment of that data.

Which brings me to Mr. Pueyo’s excellent piece. Pueyo makes two compelling arguments:

  1. Long-term containment of the virus (prior to widespread vaccine availability) is primarily dependent on our ability to get R0 below 1.0
  2. A strategic analysis of the roster of available options suggests multiple matrices of solutions which can meet this objective without exceptionally costly and punitive measures like shelter-in-place

I’m highly sympathetic to Pueyo’s argument that, given the current level of information and current response, (1) the majority of evidence suggests an R0 significantly above 1.0; (2) many of these alternative measures cannot be immediately put in place (but can be put in place in a matter of weeks, not months); and so (3) temporary induction of these costly measures may be warranted. But it is a clear implication of his argument that (1) given the array of established alternatives and their relative costs, these severe measures should be very temporary (3-7 weeks at most); (2) to rely on these exceptionally costly and damaging measures without simultaneously making substantial investments to develop and implement these alternatives as quickly as possible is a dereliction of duty. What Ginn’s argument adds to this is evidence that the R0 and mortality rates associated with this virus may be lower than the “worst case” scenarios, in which case we may be able to transition to these alternatives rapidly.

As with any of us, I’m biased toward optimism right now. But I am also immensely frustrated to see punitive measures put in place with little direct consideration or discussion of the transition toward alternative measures, given such measures exist and have established effectiveness. Ginn and Pueyo, in different ways, cut through the hysteria, panic and helplessness and provide an actionable path for an effective response, taking into account both the worst-case-scenario (which public health responses must ALWAYS take seriously) and more moderate data. It would be both helpful and invigorating for this sort of thinking - for those serving on the front lines, those most impacted by measures such as shelter-in-place, and for those who feel lost in the face of this panic.

Comment URL copied!
Nicole Deaver
March 22nd, 2020 at 5:50 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlifts(135#): 7/9/6/7/6=35

Pushups: 17/15/15/15/13=75

Squat Cleans (85#): 3/5/4/4/4=20

Pull-ups: 7/5/5/5/5=27

Hang power Snatches(55#): 7/7/6/5/6=31

Sit-ups: 11/12/12/12/12=59

Total = 247 Reps Rx

Comment URL copied!
John Rossetti
March 22nd, 2020 at 5:38 pm
Commented on: 200322

55 YOM 5’6” 209.8


On a 15-minute running clock, for max reps:

5 rounds of:

20 seconds of deadlifts, rest 10 seconds. X 150

20 seconds of push-ups, rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of squat cleans and pull-ups X 115

Then, 5 rounds of of hang power snatches X 65

and sit-ups

Dead Lift/Pushups

  1. 10/13
  2. 10/10
  3. 10/8
  4. 10/8
  5. 8/6

Squat Cleans/Pull-ups

  1. 4/6
  2. 3/4
  3. 2/5
  4. 2/4
  5. 2/4

Hang Power Snatch/sit ups

  1. 5/8
  2. 4/8
  3. 5/8
  4. 5/9
  5. 5/9

196 reps

Comment URL copied!
Jacob Cram
March 22nd, 2020 at 5:11 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlift 135lb 60

Push up 80

Squat clean 95lb 23

Pull up 30

Hang power snatch 75lb 40

Sit up 40

Comment URL copied!
Antonio Albano
March 22nd, 2020 at 4:31 pm
Commented on: 200322

Dead lift 35 kg

Squat clean 15 kg

Hang snatch 20 kg

101 reps

50 reps

71 reps

Comment URL copied!
John Brosnan
March 22nd, 2020 at 4:24 pm
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

I saw this article on Twitter yesterday and read it, but now it's gone. Would be nice if put something a little more informative than "this is article is under investigation", which is immediately going to create conspiracy theories. And I'd agree with the other comments that sharing an archived version of an article that is factually inaccurate is reckless of Crossfit.

Comment URL copied!
Billy Howard
March 22nd, 2020 at 6:32 pm

How is it factually inaccurate?

Comment URL copied!
Jason Rhodes
March 22nd, 2020 at 9:40 pm

It's not factually incorrect, so good on for keeping this info out there

Comment URL copied!
Randy Crooker
March 22nd, 2020 at 4:16 pm
Commented on: 200322




275 total reps

scaled to the following:

165lb deadlifts, 105lb squat cleans, 60lb hang power snatches. Pull-ups alternated between strict and toe nail assist. Mostly toe nail assist.

Only have one barbell so I had to stop to change weights. Did three 5 minute rounds in 17:20.

Comment URL copied!
Steve Day
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:55 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlift @ 205lbs - 39 reps


Push ups - 56 reps


Squat Cleans @ 107lbs - 20 reps


Strict Pull ups - 27 reps


Hang power snatch @ 63lbs - 43 reps


Ab mat sit ups - 46 reps


Comment URL copied!
Michael Arko
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:48 pm
Commented on: 200322

Girl weight:

41 deadlifts

69 push-ups

21 squat cleans

31 pull-ups

36 hang power snatches

48 sit-ups

Total = 246 reps

Comment URL copied!
Shane Azizi
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:09 pm
Commented on: 200322

Deadlifts: 20

pushups: 59

squat cleans: 5

pullups: 12

hang power snatch: 19

situps: 42


Comment URL copied!
Eric O'Connor
March 22nd, 2020 at 2:26 pm
Commented on: 200322

I really like the movement combinations of each 5 minute section as these combinations should allow for a fair amount of intensity throughout the workout. Here are some scaling thoughts:

Deadlifts: I consider the load to be moderate. Most, if not all, 20-second efforts should be able to be completed without needing to put the bar down. Scale the load to achieve this goal. 

Push-ups: I will have athletes use variation that allows for continuous movement for the first 2-3 intervals. I will use variations that allow for quick transitions with the main modifications will being an incline push-up or a push-up from the knees. 

Squat Clean: I consider this to be a moderate load where athletes may able complete some of the 20-seconds intervals without dropping the bar. I will scale athletes to achieve this goal. If this movement is too technically demanding, for the athlete to performing safely, I can modify to a hang clean variation or even a complex the consists of performing a deadlift into a hang power clean before performing a front squat.

Pull-ups: As with the push-ups, I will have athletes use a variation that allows for continuous movement for at least the firs 2-3 intervals. My main modification for today will be to perform a jumping pull-up or a toe-nail assisted pull-up. 

Hang Power Snatch: I consider the load to be light, where all rounds should be able to be completed without needing to stop. I will scales loads to have athletes achieve this goal. 

Sit-ups: There should be no need for a modification for this movement today. 

Equipment Limitations: It will be tough to replicate the actual loading of the weightlifting movements but with a little creativity you can still replicate the functions by using a backpack, heavy bag of dog food, etc. in place of a barbell or dumbbells. Here are some thoughts on substitutions:

Barbell exercises: The ideal equipment low-equipment scenario would be to perform the deadlifts and squat cleans with a pair of dumbbells while using a single dumbbell for hang power snatches. If you don’t have access to a pair of dumbbells, my first choice, for the deadlifts, will be to use two jugs that can be held outside the legs, similar to the at-home workout demo video that was posted yesterday. If you don’t have two containers to use, load up a backpack or a grab heavy bag to perform the movement sumo-style. For the squat cleans, the same backpack can be used and the movement can be done similar to the medicine ball squat clean that is coached at the Level 1 course. For the hang power snatches, take the bag/pack and perform hang muscle snatches with it. 

Gymnastics Movements: The push-ups and sit-ups will be the same as the normal workout. If you don’t have access to a pull-up bar then performing rows from the back of a truck bed or from the end of a table can be a nice option. 

Comment URL copied!
Evan Saber
March 22nd, 2020 at 2:17 pm
Commented on: 200322




252 reps RX

Comment URL copied!
QiHui Xing
March 22nd, 2020 at 1:03 pm
Commented on: 200322


deadlifts (11-10-10-10-8)




hang power snatches(5-5-5-5-7)


Comment URL copied!
Billy Howard
March 22nd, 2020 at 6:31 am
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

My friend shared this on facebook. Then 30min later they censored his post. Then he reshaped it and they took it down again and now the medium website erases it. You can find it here

This is why CrossFit got rid if their fb. They censor and control to fit their narrative. And right now it's fear and panic is what they want.

Comment URL copied!
Huey Kwik
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:25 pm

I think Medium took it down because it was spreading misinformation.

Comment URL copied!
Tyler Hass
March 22nd, 2020 at 6:21 am
Commented on: Zoë Harcombe on The Game Changers

I agree, Zoe is a terrific speaker. She packed a lot of content (and jokes) into this 20 minute presentation.

She’s spot on with regards to the nutrient content of the vegan diet. Getting the full spectrum of amino acids requires combining various plant sources (pea,rice,bean,etc), but the ratios are not optimal. She also mentions how the movie demonizes heme iron.

The Game Changers website cites this study to back its claim:

-It states that the highest consumers of heme iron had a 31% higher relative risk of heart disease than people with the lowest intake. The overall rate of CHD of all participants is under 2%, so the absolute risks are still very low. It skirts around this by only mentioning the relative risks, which make heme iron sound much worse.

-They dismissed a Japanese study because their heme iron came not from beef, but shellfish, which contain vitamin D and omega-3 fats that might be protective.

-Conversely, they don’t mention a possible healthy user bias in the Americans and Europeans. We’re so often told that red meat will kill us that many health-conscious people avoid it, along with sweets, alcohol, smoking… The people who eat the most red meat might be the ones most likely to disregard other health practices.

-Also, they don’t address overall mortality, only CHD. It could be that people who are iron deficient die earlier of other causes. I’m not saying they do, but the study doesn't consider the possibility.

-And lastly, the studies were based on food frequency questionnaires, which are notoriously unreliable.

That's pretty flimsy evidence to vilify something as delicious as red meat.

Comment URL copied!
Jason Fernandez
March 22nd, 2020 at 2:53 pm

She was a Vegan for 20+ years. She's pretty well informed

Comment URL copied!
Mark Edwards
March 22nd, 2020 at 4:46 am
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

Well, that didn't take long. Somebody who doesn't like open, reasoned conversations complained; the article has been removed from Medium.

Comment URL copied!
Brian Mulvaney
March 22nd, 2020 at 7:55 pm

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has weighed in on the censorship of Aaron Ginn in "Controlling the Virus Narrative". The editorial and the comments are not paywalled and are an important read.

Comment URL copied!
Steven Thunander
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:57 am
Commented on: 200322

Globo/home scale: use dumbbells, kettlebells, an odd object (such as tire flips for Deadlifts and sandbags for the cleans), or whatever else you have to do this. If you have multiple elements use heavy for deadlifts, and lighter for the squat cleans and snatches. If you have only a pullup bar, do alternating tabatas with bodyweight elements. (Supermans with pushups, burpees with pullups, high jumps with situps). No pullup bar sub lunges or bodyweight/dumbbell rows.

Comment URL copied!
Chris Sinagoga
March 22nd, 2020 at 2:53 am
Commented on: Zoë Harcombe on The Game Changers

Dude... Zoe Harcombe swears! This is fantastic!

For real, though. Great work as usual Zoe. Can't say I've ever watched Game Changers, but quite a few people have told me to. Needless to say I won't be caving into their requests.

Comment URL copied!
John Gorman
March 22nd, 2020 at 4:41 pm

It has surely not gone unnoticed that this terrible virus originated in an animal market in China.

Comment URL copied!
Michael Nissen
March 22nd, 2020 at 2:34 am
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

Apologies for the double post in reference to "What are the numbers?" on 200318 but I was drafting my comments when today's WOD and this article was posted and thought is still relevant.

Crude mortality data is always confounded by other diseases. It is better expressed as a case fatality rate and infection fatality rate to try and take out those influencers and is well understood in influenza epidemiology.

Unfortunately this question of confirmation or ascertainment bias of PCR testing may only be answered by blood testing (serology) to check for SARS-CoV 2 antibodies and I know of no commercial assay available at moment though it maybe available in major public health reference laboratories...checking blood donor specimens over the past several months since epidemic started may provide insights to this inside and outside Wuhan/China.

Questions that I have been asking are:

  1. PCR test itself is thought to be only 75% sensitive, so 1 in 4 cases maybe potentially missed. It is highly specific though so a positive is true case. This may be due to only taking mouth swabs and/or nose swabs...seems deep or lower respiratory tract (lung) specimens are best. Also PCR positivity in mild cases may only last 3-5 days so the window of testing maybe important and also implies that they are low shredders of virus.
  2. Do asymptomatic cases truly exist in the sense individuals are perfectly well, and if so whether they transmit the virus. Biologically to spread the virus you have to have cell death and that in itself causes inflammation that should be picked up with at least a fever. There is a world wide debate around transmission and opinion is divided. It appears children are not major transmitters as in influenza though can be infected. Asymptomatic children have been reported to have virus in stools as seen with SARS-CoV 1 and this may explain so called asymptomatic wash your hands. I am uncertain whether this is the reason for school closures in many countries since there is no evidence from countries that a have not closed schools that this is a source of community viral spread at the moment. The virus does seem to hang around longer on surfaces, plastics and paper so again wash your hands.
  3. SARS-CoV 2 is not influenza in it's risk of transmission and mortality based on current epidemiology so modelling based on influenza maybe misleading including the economics of it's impact. Public health and health care capacities have embedded in their policies, action plans and budgets the yearly provisions for influenza since it is a known known...excuse and no political pun intended. There is also already a provision of partial immunity to influenza in the community through herd immunity, past exposure and vaccination. SARS CoV 2 is a new virus in a globally naive non immune population so the impact will be different to influenza in reality and in modelling. Bureaucrats at this point don't have all the information that is needed and as such have made the call that action is better than inaction for the population as mentioned by others. I share Gary Taube's sentiments in not being the one that has to make these calls.
  4. I have been thinking of what would have happened globally if SARS-CoV 1 was not contained in 2003, a virus with similar (? less) transmissibility but higher mortality. As mentioned this was at immense cost to affected countries and was used as justification for the current drastic and early social policies and restriction on public movement in those countries . It would be interesting and possible now to model economically what would have happened to the rest of the world without those actions, but then again it's a different virus and local, national and global economies are even more intertwined now 17 years later.
  5. The moral issue of this pandemic and effect on older adults, disabled, immunosuppressed and disadvantaged and any policies that impact on those individuals, their families and the broader population. The individual needs and potential inability to not offer care to those most in need personally troubles me. Plagues and pestilence have been always been nature's great levellers of human society and endeavour, but as a result forever stimulate human thought, ingenuity and communities that have shaped the current societies and world that we live in. Finding the humane balance for the good of all is the struggle, but individual thought, responsibility and community debate is a good starting point to assist those who crunch and interpret the "data", policy makers and those who we vote for that ultimately make the decisions.
Comment URL copied!
Greg Glassman
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:40 pm

Michael, thank you for the thoughtful responses.

Here's announcement from "20/20 BioResponse" of a soon to be shipped COVID-19 Rapid Antibody Test Kit.

Comment URL copied!
Michael Nissen
March 23rd, 2020 at 1:29 am

Thanks Greg,

That is good news. Appreciate this update

Comment URL copied!
Brooke Salaz
March 23rd, 2020 at 5:05 am

RE this test Kit, standard error is ±10%, which is quite significant.

Comment URL copied!
Ricardo Miguel
March 25th, 2020 at 9:44 am

@Brooke, it's actually 90%ish accurate, can't you see the glass half full or do you keep pouring water when you take a sip?

Comment URL copied!
John Smith
March 22nd, 2020 at 1:51 am
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19

I just want to recommend that folks up their flavonoids. There are a number of articles indicating flavonoids attach to the S-protein spikes on the coronavirus shell to block them from attaching to a potential host cell. These articles came out during SARS and MERS. The latest article I've seen is a small molecule analysis by Summit, IBM's supercomputer in Oak Ridge lab, that uses AI to score and rank the likelihood that molecules may attach to the S-proteins (link below). Two flavonoids in particular--luteolin and quercetin, and their glycosides, routinely score higher than the -avir drugs. I think the healthcare/pharma industry doesn't want to tell you about flavonoids because they want to make it a prescription drug, but everybody today can eat more good sources of flavonoids. Quercetin is widespread among the colorful leafy vegetables--cilantro, radicchio, and green peppers are good sources. Dried oregano is superconcentrated with luteolin, so maybe add some oregano to every meal, or just take a 1/4 tsp supplement style with a drink twice a day. Here is article:

Comment URL copied!
Huey Kwik
March 22nd, 2020 at 12:56 am
Commented on: Evidence Over Hysteria — COVID-19
Comment URL copied!
Susanne Walford
March 22nd, 2020 at 2:04 am

Thanks for this!

Comment URL copied!
Jason Fernandez
March 22nd, 2020 at 1:58 pm

thanks for posting this. I'm curious why he all the sudden jumped off a cliff at the very end with the 1000 deaths/day???? there is nobody who has even been close to that and this has been going on for months. China never even got close to that. strange conclusion to an otherwise decent rebuttal.

Comment URL copied!
Huey Kwik
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:24 pm

Where do you see 1000 deaths a day in the article? I didn’t quite see that, but I may have missed something!

Comment URL copied!
Huey Kwik
March 22nd, 2020 at 3:29 pm

Oh, I see: “Italy is going to cross 1000 deaths a day soon.” They just crossed 600 yesterday, this doesn’t seem like that bold of a claim. Unfortunately, if we are really dealing with exponential growth, everything will seem like an overreaction until it is too late.

Comment URL copied!
Huey Kwik
March 24th, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Comment URL copied!
Bryan Rosen
March 22nd, 2020 at 12:46 am
Commented on: 200322


1 round of:

200-m jog

15 air squats

10 lateral lunges

20 PVC pass-throughs

15 Abmat sit-ups

10 push-ups


Deadlift + squat clean + hang power snatch

Perform 5 reps of each step with an empty barbell:

Overhead squat

Hang power snatch

Power snatch

Front squat

Hang clean


Perform 5 deadlifts, 3 cleans, and 3 hang power cleans

Build up

Complete 3 sets of deadlifts + 3 cleans + 3 hang power snatches, increasing in load each set.

*Perform 5-10 reps of pull-ups and push-ups after each set.

Comment URL copied!
John Gorman
March 22nd, 2020 at 4:26 pm

Excellent warm up protocol, thanks

Comment URL copied!
Juan Acevedo
March 22nd, 2020 at 12:18 am
Commented on: 200322

For those at home:


On a 15-minute running clock, for max reps:

5 rounds of:

20 seconds of backpack deadlift jumps, rest 10 seconds

20 seconds of push-ups, rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of backpack cleans and table rows

Then, 5 rounds of backpack hang to overhead and sit-ups


On a 15-minute running clock, for max reps:

5 rounds of:

20 seconds of dumbbell deadlift jumps, rest 10 seconds

20 seconds of push-ups, rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of dumbbell cleans and pull-ups

Then, 5 rounds of double dumbbell American swings and sit-ups

In collaboration with Bryan Rosen

Comment URL copied!
Juan Acevedo
March 22nd, 2020 at 12:17 am
Commented on: 200322



Beast workout! Do not let the weight confuse you. This is not a light workout. The idea here is to get as close as possible to ten full minutes of work at moderate loads.  We want to create a context in which you can maximize the moving time. Today our goal is volume, volume of excellent reps that is. The movements are paired so that they don't interfere with each other. There are evident stamina demands here, but they are secondary to the aerobic requirements. Choose loads that you can confidently cycle for 15+ reps when fresh. Decide first a load of your weakest movement and then adjust the other two proportionally. For the pull-ups and push-ups, choose modifications that allow you to perform 10+ reps per round. For athletes new to the squat clean or developing technique, hang squat cleans, or front squats are great modifications. If you did 200211, check your notes for that workout, they will inform your choices for today. This is a beast of a workout. It will be hard, but it will make you feel awesome. Find your grit!


On a 15-minute running clock, for max reps:

5 rounds of:

20 seconds of deadlifts, rest 10 seconds

20 seconds of push-ups, rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of squat cleans and pull-ups

Then, 5 rounds of of hang power snatches and sit-ups

♀ 110-lb. deadlift, 70-lb. clean, 45-lb. snatch

♂ 175-lb. deadlift, 105-lb. clean, 60-lb. snatch


On a 15-minute running clock, for max reps:

5 rounds of:

20 seconds of deadlifts, rest 10 seconds

20 seconds of push-ups (use bench as needed), rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of squat cleans (or hang) and pull-ups*

Then, 5 rounds of of hang power snatches and sit-ups

♀ 90-lb. deadlift, 60-lb. clean, 40-lb. snatch

♂ 145-lb. deadlift, 90-lb. clean, 50-lb. snatch

*If needed, alternate rounds between box kipping pull-ups and kipping pull-ups. This will allow you a higher volume of good reps. 


On a 15-minute running clock, for max reps:

5 rounds of:

20 seconds of deadlifts, rest 10 seconds

20 seconds of bench push-ups, rest 10 seconds

Then, 5 rounds of front squats and pull-ups*

Then, 5 rounds of of hang power snatches and sit-ups

♀ 75-lb. deadlift, 50-lb. clean, 35-lb. snatch

♂ 125-lb. deadlift, 75-lb. clean, 55-lb. snatch

WOD'S YOUTUBE PLAYLIST (Includes relevant videos for this workout)

Comment URL copied!
Chris Sinagoga
March 22nd, 2020 at 12:17 am
Commented on: 200322

Champions Club Scaling Notes


The decision I think you'll want to make here is simplicity with weights, especially with a group. So if you only have one bar available, then the easy choice would be to find your max weight tolerable/technique dependent for the power snatch, then just concede that you'll be doing more reps for the clean and the deadlift, which would actually make it suck quite a bit.


An evil mix of stamina and endurance with no traditional stamina or endurance exercise.


As is, just scale the weight so you can go straight through on the stuff. Or close to it.


As is


15 minutes practicing each movement couplet, no rush on anything. So 45 minutes of practice total.


As is, scale the weight so you only need 1 bar/no adjustments, stagger the clean/pull-up one so you have enough space.


Pick two of the movements listed and do an AMRAP in 15 of them, or some variant of them.



Hip extension


Jump rope


Box jump


Comment URL copied!