On vacation...did a lightweight DB Linda-ish. 35# DB 10! deadlift/fly/clean...14:40

THIS!!!!  This is what I love about CrossFit!  Way to show up and put in the work!!  

Wasnt ready for a rest, so redid 200715. 30 clean and press, 135 lbs at bw 165 for time: 9:55.

Way to go Bro! Very inspiring. 

Macro view template analysis

Workout Structure: 

First day was cleverly used two templates of “For Time” and “AMRAP” together. This exercise was a triplet modality that is combined of a moderate weight movement from weightlifting, high height box jumps from gymnastic and max cal row from metcan modality. This WOD was focused on minimum time to perform the first part (for time) and max cal for second part (AMRAP). In this WOD, athletes learn to how control the fatigue and continue the reps for break the records despite being tired. The training purpose was to improving the cardiorespiratory endurance, stamina and
strength. Moreover, the lactic acid was dominant energy pathway in this program.

Second day followed “as heavy as possible” template. This exercise was a single modality that includes 2 high skill and heavy weightlifting movements. The purpose of the exercise was to perform the snatch and c&j with heaviest resistance and increase their records. The amount of resistance should be progressively increased to reach their record. Strength played the major role in this WOD. Moreover, the phosphagen system was the dominant energy pathway in this program.

Third day was followed “AMRAP” template. This exercise was a single modality that was includes 3 movements from gymnastics modality. The training purpose was to improving the muscular endurance. Muscular endurance and cardiorespiratory played the major role in this WOD. Moreover, the aerobic system was a dominant energy pathway in this program.

Conclusion
In this cycle:
The combinations of WGM; W and G have been used, respectively.
Two single modality days were used in this cycle.
No couplet modality can be seen in this cycle.

Overall, all 3 energy pathways (phosphagen, lactic acid and aerobic) were challenged in this cycle. Moreover, the cardiorespiratory, stamina, strength were involved in this circle of programming. 
As a final note, “For Time”, “AMRAP”, “AHAP” templates were used for programming in this cycle.

You can see other analysis in my instagram page.
Enjoy your rest day and recover your physical and mental dimensions

One of the probable issues with peer review is that most papers are neither important, nor urgent. One fifth of all research is never cited. A few reviewers will take a look and then push it out into an indifferent world.

The difference with covid research is that it is both urgent and important. Papers that are only tangentially related to COVID-19 now seem to slip in a mention to generate headlines. As an example: Extracellular superoxide dismutase, a molecular transducer of health benefits of exercise. Here is the only mention of COVID in the paper:

Considering the current outbreak of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus infection (COVID-19), which is an infectious disease that leads to progressive ALI/ARDS in many patients [6,103,107,113], it is conceivable that regular exercise might be effective in preventing while EcSOD gene/protein therapy might be effective in treating ALI/ARDS under the condition of COVID-19 infection.

I’m not picking on that paper, because I actually found it interesting. But the research had most likely been underway months or years before the pandemic hit. The line I cited was probably inserted near the end of the process. And it worked. The paper got picked up by many outlets with headlines like:

Regular Exercise Might Protect People from Developing Severe Cases of COVID-19, Research Suggests
Exercise may help reduce risk of deadly COVID-19 complication: ARDS
Study finds exercise may reduce risk of COVID-19 complications

Who knows how much attention the paper would have gotten without that single line about COVID. I think COVID-stuffing could be the new citation stuffing (where scientists cite their own work to boost their stature).

COVID is unique in that it is both urgent (an exponential threat) and important (killing thousands of people and crushing economies). Even heart disease and diabetes (which kill more people and will be around long after COVID-19) do not generate as much attention. If those chronic diseases are rising, it’s at a slow pace measured in years or decades. As important as they are, they lack the urgency of COVID-19.

For example, I was surprised to find in Tim Noakes’ article about the history of cholesterol and heart disease that the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) was published in 1989, fourteen years after the study had concluded. The MCE did not produce the results hoped for by the researchers. In fact, a re-analysis of the data published in 2016 found it disputed their hypothesis. What I find striking is the lack of urgency from the people who spent millions funding this study.

Peer review is surely flawed, but it can’t do anything about research that is not important enough to deserve careful analysis.