Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proper exercise looks almost exactly the opposite of CrossFit !

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proper exercise looks almost exactly the opposite of CrossFit !

    Drew Baye posted this on FB today, I think it should be posted up in every gym because I cringe seeing what most people call training !

    "...proper exercise looks almost exactly the opposite of CrossFit - there is no jumping, swinging, bouncing, yanking, jerking, or spastically flopping around. Instead, every movement is slow and deliberate and done with the intent of maintaining relatively consistent tension on the target muscles and minimizing the stress on the joints. Proper exercise looks like Tai Chi with weights, not an epileptic seizure."

  • #2
    See, I don't agree with this. Although I'm not a fan of cross fit and I don't think what they do is helpful/safe, there is room for explosive, speed training. It all has it's place.

    In the real world, nothing is "slow and deliberate" not really....
    IF your training for strength (which is what a lot of people do here) that deliberate time under tension stuff would kill you. When it comes to barbell training, I believe there is a certain degree of explosiveness and bounce, especially if it means getting the weight up. This, of course is provided you have proper form. Which a lot of people don't.

    Comment


    • #3
      ^ Great deal of debate on this topic. It's mainly theoretical of course. Personally I can understand training explosiveness for thesake of explosiveness and strength for the sake of strength. TUT in terms that Drew is talking is about a 2 second concentric and 4 second eccentric....this is close to what anyone lifting a challenging weight ends up at anyhow (maybe not exactly for eccentric) The real difference is the turnarounds, where those of this ilk prefer to stop before lockout and take a couple seconds keeping tension on the muscle rather than performing a rest pause. I don't think this hinders strength gains in the least, but if you are in a sport (powerlifting, football, ect..) that you are training for explosiveness/power then of course you have to train for it. So I would pick the lifts that are conducive to training for power and explosiveness and program for their inclusion...such as some oly work and of course deadlifts where the whole lift is actually designed to move at a skilled and explosive movement from a stationary position. Exploding off of your chest with a bounce and fast eccentric motion on the barbell bench repetitively for 5-10 reps isn't helping anyone improve anything though IMO and only likely to increase injuries. And if your training for explosiveness and power with a skilled lift, doing so for reps to fatigue is also a bad idea.
      Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-07-2013, 10:19 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with Drew Baye for me personally. However, I'm tired of all the "this way is right, and this way is wrong". We should be encouraging people to do any exercise that is safe and they enjoy. The real enemy is a sedentary life not fellow exercise enthusiasts. Just my opinion.

        Comment


        • #5
          It all boils down to what you're after. There is no more "proper exercise" than there is "proper diet".
          Crohn's, doing SCD

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by edennperez1 View Post
            I agree with Drew Baye for me personally. However, I'm tired of all the "this way is right, and this way is wrong". We should be encouraging people to do any exercise that is safe and they enjoy. The real enemy is a sedentary life not fellow exercise enthusiasts. Just my opinion.
            Thank you. For all people shit on CrossFit, most people that attend regularly end up with very fit bodies. It's pretty effective at making the average Joe stronger, faster and giving him more endurance. It will also when combined with a good diet, burn fat off if needed.

            I don't see the need to constantly piss on a company who's product is a place that encourages people to be a part of community that regularly exercises and eats right. No, it probably is not the best way to get super strong, super fast or have super endurance. Yes, some people get hurt either due to accident or bad coaching; it happens with ANY activity.

            It would be nice if the naysayers would just go and take a class and see what CrossFit is actually like. Most boxes offer a free intro class. Go, see how a class is conducted and what participants are like.

            Frankly, I tried TaiChi once. It bored the hell out of me. But hey, if someone enjoys that, AWESOME. But I'd probably do it 3 times and then never again.

            http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
            Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah, I dont get the whole "my way is right and everything else is wrong" thing. Crossfit has change people's lives in a very positive way. People I know personally. It gets knocked for not being a linear progression but that seems to come from barbell guys and not everyone is that concerned with how much they can bench. At the same time an untrained person straight off the couch would be an injury waiting to happen. I have just gone to more of an HIT workout ala Drew Baye and find that for us it is a great choice for now. We havent been incredibly active for quite some time and the more controlled nature of the movement feels safer. We started out with the barbell stuff but I felt our, especially my wife's form was too far off for right now and it is something we could come back to. Barbell training is fun and is effective as well but when average Joe starts calling it explosive training it can really be problematic. The above referenced chest bounce is an example. And everybody has their own reasons for working out. The barbell guys cant understand why anyone would "train" without have a goal of eternally putting more weight on the bar. Talk about not transferring to the real world.

              They are all valid ways to improve one's physical and mental condition and there are many others. I'm not sure why it has to be so cult like. The "leaders" in each seem to have no tolerance for anything else which is a red flag for me anyway. It makes it sound very commercial. I like Drew's program and am finding value but his argumentative, my way is the only way approach is off putting. Rip has some great points and does a great job of teaching form but the idea that everything else is wrong is just silly really. As mentioned above, the message should be get your ass off the couch and make yourself stronger in whatever way makes you excited about doing it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jacksson View Post
                As mentioned above, the message should be get your ass off the couch and make yourself stronger in whatever way makes you excited about doing it.
                +Many

                This should be on a T-Shirt. I don't want people preaching about exercise, I want them teaching me about it. The beauty of the existence of different training methods is you can change and adapt what you do to meet your goals, you can mix and match and you can do something that is genuinely your own.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by edennperez1 View Post
                  I agree with Drew Baye for me personally. However, I'm tired of all the "this way is right, and this way is wrong". We should be encouraging people to do any exercise that is safe and they enjoy. The real enemy is a sedentary life not fellow exercise enthusiasts. Just my opinion.
                  We should be encouraging people to do any exercise that is safe
                  That is the critical part, many forms of exercise work to varying degrees but surely the safest way to achieve the maximum results in the most efficient manner would be the best !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Explosiveness is depending on strength and must be trained spesific in the sport you are training for. Nobody will become more explosive in running by squatting or doing leg extensions explosively, but increased strength can give an indirect carryover when training spesific for whatever sport movement...
                    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                    - Schopenhauer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                      Explosiveness is depending on strength and must be trained spesific in the sport you are training for. Nobody will become more explosive in running by squatting or doing leg extensions explosively, but increased strength can give an indirect carryover when training spesific for whatever sport movement...
                      Exactly ! So build the size and strength using an optimal approach and then practice any other skills specific to your sport.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm sure we have gone over this debate a thousand times before. I'm all for people doing whatever exercise they enjoy but it would be remiss of me to support an endeavor without comment if I believe there to be a safer more efficient option.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am a Zumba Fitness instructor. I haven't read up fully on the "primal" way to exercise, but I understand that there is a specific rationale for the approach. What I find disconcerting, especially being new here, is the not the "rules" but the dogmatism surrounding them.
                          I don't know about CrossFit with regard to the reference to "spastic" movement. I do know that the advantages of coordinated, choreographed movement such as dance provides extend beyond physical conditioning. Dance is the only physical activity to have demonstrable impact on cognitive well being, even if started after the onset of cognitive problems. The mind-body connection one must engage in dance and dance fitness is a significant factor in this.
                          So why the dogma? Help me understand why some people here are so ready to declare a "best" way. I don't think our bodies have adapted to the types of foods we see on supermarket shelves, so perhaps a "primal" eating approach makes sense. But our ancient activity, from hunting/gathering to nomadic living, to not being chased by large beasts has changed dramatically, which means the type of training we require may not be the type which would prepare us for an encounter with a saber tooth tiger or some such. What am I missing?
                          Last edited by DebBAK; 12-08-2013, 05:07 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by DebBAK View Post
                            I am a Zumba Fitness instructor. I haven't read up fully on the "primal" way to exercise, but I understand that there is a specific rationale for the approach. What I find disconcerting, especially being new here, is the not the "rules" but the dogmatism surrounding them.
                            I don't know about CrossFit with regard to the reference to "spastic" movement. I do know that the advantages of coordinated, choreographed movement such as dance provides extend beyond physical conditioning. Dance is the only physical activity to have demonstrable impact on cognitive well being, even if started after the onset of cognitive problems. The mind-body connection one must engage in dance and dance fitness is a significant factor in this.
                            So why the dogma? Help me understand why some people here are so ready to declare a "best" way. I don't think our bodies have adapted to the types of foods we see on supermarket shelves, so perhaps a "primal" eating approach makes sense. But our ancient activity, from hunting/gathering to nomadic living, to not being chased by large beasts has changed dramatically, which means the type of training we require may not be the type which would prepare us for an encounter with a saber tooth tiger or some such. What am I missing?
                            Well first we are not talking about this in a Primal "tm" manner. Primal actually has a fitness guide which you are more than welcome to peruse. This is a discussion started by Oldschool about a specific sort of strength training and conditioning....and actually it would be from Drew Baye originally. So take this discussion in the context that it actually exists.

                            Two, I wouldn't be throwing the word dogma around so loosely. It may be one of my pet peeves these days. I dunno. But everyone and their brother calls the opposing argument "dogmatic" then goes on to support their own claims with even LESS empirical evidence than the original poster. Damn has it become annoying.

                            Threes, I sincerely doubt that dance is the ONLY form of movement that has shown to improve cognitive function. In fact I'm like 99.999999% sure that anyone jumping on google scholar could show several modes of movement improving cognitive function.

                            Fourhs, Zumba isn't strength training. It may be "exercise", but its not strength training or "training" at all by definition. That doesn't make it bad and this type of training good. It simply makes them different. Training includes measurable results and progressive load/improvement. If you read the PB then I would say Zumba falls either in the "move frequently...." category. Dancing, walking, jogging, hiking.....these are comparable activities. What Old school posted about is a different animal.

                            Hope that helps

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                              Well first we are not talking about this in a Primal "tm" manner. Primal actually has a fitness guide which you are more than welcome to peruse. This is a discussion started by Oldschool about a specific sort of strength training and conditioning....and actually it would be from Drew Baye originally. So take this discussion in the context that it actually exists.

                              Two, I wouldn't be throwing the word dogma around so loosely. It may be one of my pet peeves these days. I dunno. But everyone and their brother calls the opposing argument "dogmatic" then goes on to support their own claims with even LESS empirical evidence than the original poster. Damn has it become annoying.

                              Threes, I sincerely doubt that dance is the ONLY form of movement that has shown to improve cognitive function. In fact I'm like 99.999999% sure that anyone jumping on google scholar could show several modes of movement improving cognitive function.

                              Fourhs, Zumba isn't strength training. It may be "exercise", but its not strength training or "training" at all by definition. That doesn't make it bad and this type of training good. It simply makes them different. Training includes measurable results and progressive load/improvement. If you read the PB then I would say Zumba falls either in the "move frequently...." category. Dancing, walking, jogging, hiking.....these are comparable activities. What Old school posted about is a different animal.

                              Hope that helps
                              Good post, Necky.
                              The Champagne of Beards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X