CrossFit Journal - Issue 56.pdf - CrossFit Journal - Gozluk

ISSUE FIFTY-SIX

April 2007

Support Strength on the

Rings

Tyler Hass

page 1

Understanding CrossFit

Greg Glassman

page 4

What is Meaningful

Lon Kilgore, Ph.D.

page 5

The Crane Dip and

Other Pistol Variations

Steve Cotter

page 8

From the Snatch to the

Clean

Mike Burgener, with

Tony Budding

page 15

Body Shots

Becca Borawski

page 17

Rest and Recovery in

Interval-Based Exercise

Tony Leyland

page 19

Indoor Rowing: Damper

Settings and Workout Intensity

Peter Dreissigacker

page 23

Dumbbells From the

Plank: How to Energize your

Push-up Training, Part 1

Michael Rutherford

page 25

Support Strength on the Rings

Kettlebell Clean

Combinations

Jeff Martone

page 27

The Grinder

CrossFit FRAGO #9,

“GIROUARD”

Tyler Hass

This article is the first in a series that will cover the fundamentals of gymnastics

ring training in fine detail. We will begin with what is the foundation of ring work,

the support. Although it may seem a straightforward and simple move (especially

to those of you who have never had occasion to try rings yet), understanding the

theoretical and practical details of the support will give you a deeper understanding

of the potency of ring training in general.

page 30

continued page ... 2

CrossFit Journal • Issue Fifty-six • April 2007

Support Strength on the Rings

...continued

The simplest description of a support is to hold your body above the rings

with straight arms. Most people’s first experience with ring training is

entering the support position and shaking like a madman. This brings up a

common misconception about the rings: that they are unstable. However,

the rings have a fixed point of equilibrium. Push the rings and they will

always, eventually, come back to where they started. So, if the instability

you feel doesn’t come from the rings, where does it come from?Your brain

and central nervous system. Your brain is sending a signal to your arms

to hold the rings still. Noise within the signal, like static on the radio, is

what causes the shakes. As your signal to noise ratio improves, so does

the stability of your support. The performance benefit here is that you are

teaching your body to apply force more productively. Ring training is very

effective at inducing this noise because the rings move in frictionless plane.

The slightest change in muscular tension will cause movement in the rings

because there is no friction to hold them in place.

There are three main things to look for in a proper support. First, the

arms should be straight. There are no variations to this. A slight bend

is not straight. Second, the shoulders should be pushed down (“active

shoulders,” as described in “The Lifting Shoulder” in CFJ issue 37) and the

chest up. The shoulders should not be drifting up toward your ears. You

want to be actively pushing down on the rings at all times. Third, you want

to keep your arms off the straps. The size of the frictionless plane we talked

about earlier is defined by the distance between the attachment point on

the ceiling to the rings. If you are bracing your arms against the ring, you

are reducing the size of the plane dramatically. And by introducing friction

into the system, you are reducing the potency of the exercise. Keeping

friction out of the system is goal behind these next two finer points. First,

you want to keep your arm off of your body as well. If you lock your arms

against your sides, you are limiting the potential for movement, so you

want to minimize contact between your lats and your arms. Next, you

will also want to turn the rings out to about 30 to 45 degrees. Having the

rings parallel is technically correct, but a support with rings turned out is

more “mature.”

Everything wrong! Arms are bent, resting against

straps, and chest is down.

To train for the support, set the rings at a height where you can step into

rings and get into a support with your feet barely off the ground. Some

people have a tendency to shake pretty hard at first, so don’t be any higher

than you’re willing to fall from. If you are strong enough to hold a mature

support, go for it. There is no reason for baby steps if you can start here.

If not, you can start out with the rings tightly held to your sides. As your

comfort grows, let the rings drift out a bit from your body. If all of these

The rings have a fixed point of equilibrium. Push the

rings and they will always, eventually, come back to

where they started. So, if the instability you feel doesn’t

come from the rings, where does it come from?

Shoulders are elevated (passive).

CrossFit Journal • Issue Fifty-six • April 2007

Support Strength on the Rings

...continued

options are too difficult, you can begin your support training in a push-up

position on rings lowered to just a couple inches above the floor, on your

knees if necessary. The same rules apply in the push-up support: arms

straight, active shoulders and the rings turned out.

Another incremental move you can work on to develop your support

ability is the jump to support. It’s also just plain fun and, done fast for reps,

much more challenging and metabolically stimulating that it might sound,

even for more advanced athletes who already have good support ability. It

is an excellent substitute for ring dips. If you are not ready for those yet,

you can sub these into any workout that calls for dips. You will want to

set the rings a little bit higher for this. Begin standing inside of the rings. I

like to keep my arms straight the whole time, pulling them in toward the

body as I jump; this means they will be out my sides a ways in the starting

position. Now, jump and press down on the rings, which will bring them in

toward the body and propel you up into a support. Hold briefly and then

lower yourself under control back to the ground. I don’t mind bent arms

on the lowering portion (essentially the negative portion of a ring dip). The

higher you set the rings, the more you will need to jump and press. Start

conservatively and raise the rings inch by inch to find an appropriately

challenging height. When you’ve raised then enough that your arms are

parallel to the ground at the start, you will notice that this is a good way to

begin training for an iron cross.

When you have developed the ability to perform a mature support, try

holding it for a minute with perfect form. Once you have done this, you are

well on your way to becoming a ringman. Once you have learned a proper

support, you will have a foundation to delve into a wide variety of skills,

from simple dips and muscle-ups to more advanced gymnastics moves such

as the cross, planche, and handstand.

Technically correct, but “immature.” Shoulders are

active, but the rings are braced against his sides.

The support is the foundation of all the major skills on the rings. If you have

never given any thought to your support position, spend some time over

the next month developing a strong support position. Try to build up to a

one-minute hold, or even two full minutes. Each month we will introduce a

few new skills, but the foundation you build in the form of a fundamentally

virtuous support will be crucial in the more advanced stages.

Tyler Hass is the founder of ringtraining.com and designer and

producer of the Elite Rings. His company is dedicated to spreading

gymnastics into the broader fitness world. He can be reached at

info@ringtraining.com .

This is a technically correct, mature support position.

Understanding CrossFit

CrossFit Journal • Issue Fifty-six • April 2007

Greg Glassman

The aims, prescription, methodology, implementation, and

adaptations of CrossFit are collectively and individually unique,

deining of CrossFit, and instrumental in our program’s successes in

diverse applications.

Implementation

In implementation, CrossFit is, quite simply, a sport—the “sport

of itness.” We’ve learned that harnessing the natural camaraderie,

competition, and fun of sport or game yields an intensity that cannot

be matched by other means. The late Col. Jeff Cooper observed

that “the fear of sporting failure is worse than the fear of death.” It is

our observation that men will die for points. Using whiteboards as

scoreboards, keeping accurate scores and records, running a clock,

and precisely deining the rules and standards for performance, we

not only motivate unprecedented output but derive both relative

and absolute metrics at every workout; this data has important value

well beyond motivation.

Aims

From the beginning, the aim of CrossFit has been to forge a broad,

general, and inclusive itness. We sought to build a program that

would best prepare trainees for any physical contingency—prepare

them not only for the unknown but for the unknowable. Looking

at all sport and physical tasks collectively, we asked what physical

skills and adaptations would most universally lend themselves to

performance advantage. Capacity culled from the intersection of

all sports demands would quite logically lend itself well to all sport.

In sum, our specialty is not specializing. The second issue (“ What is

Fitness? ”) of the CrossFit Journal details this perspective.

Adaptations

Our commitment to evidence-based itness, publicly posting

performance data, co-developing our program in collaboration with

other coaches, and our open-source charter in general has well

positioned us to garner important lessons from our program—to

learn precisely and accurately, that is, about the adaptations elicited

by CrossFit programming. What we’ve discovered is that CrossFit

increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains.

This is a discovery of great import and has come to motivate our

programming and refocus our efforts. This far-reaching increase in

work capacity supports our initially stated aims of building a broad,

general, and inclusive itness program. It also explains the wide

variety of sport demands met by CrossFit as evidenced by our deep

penetration among diverse sports and endeavors. We’ve come

to see increased work capacity as the holy grail of performance

improvement and all other common metrics like VO 2 max, lactate

threshold, body composition, and even strength and lexibility as

being correlates—derivatives, even. We’d not trade improvements

in any other itness metric for a decrease in work capacity.

Prescription

The CrossFit prescription is “constantly varied, high-intensity,

functional movement.” Functional movements are universal motor

recruitment patterns; they are performed in a wave of contraction

from core to extremity; and they are compound movements—i.e., they

are multi-joint. They are natural, effective, and eficient locomotors

of body and external objects. But no aspect of functional movements

is more important than their capacity to move large loads over long

distances, and to do so quickly. Collectively, these three attributes

(load, distance, and speed) uniquely qualify functional movements for

the production of high power. Intensity is deined exactly as power,

and intensity is the independent variable most commonly associated

with maximizing favorable adaptation to exercise. Recognizing that

the breadth and depth of a program’s stimulus will determine the

breadth and depth of the adaptation it elicits, our prescription of

functionality and intensity is constantly varied. We believe that

preparation for random physical challenges—i.e., unknown and

unknowable events—is at odds with ixed, predictable, and routine

regimens.

Conclusions

The modest start of publicly posting our daily workouts on the

Internet beginning six years ago has evolved into a community

where human performance is measured and publicly recorded

against multiple, diverse, and ixed workloads. CrossFit is an open-

source engine where inputs from any quarter can be publicly given

to demonstrate itness and itness programming, and where coaches,

trainers, and athletes can collectively advance the art and science of

optimizing human performance.

Methodology

The methodology that drives CrossFit is entirely empirical . We

believe that meaningful statements about safety, eficacy, and

eficiency, the three most important and interdependent facets of

any itness program, can be supported only by measurable, observable,

repeatable facts, i.e., data. We call this approach “evidence-based

itness”. The CrossFit methodology depends on full disclosure of

methods, results, and criticisms, and we’ve employed the Internet

(and various intranets) to support these values. Our charter is

open source, making co-developers out of participating coaches,

athletes, and trainers through a spontaneous and collaborative

online community. CrossFit is empirically driven, clinically tested,

and community developed.

Greg Glassman (with Lauren Glassman ) is

the founder of CrossFit , Inc., and the publisher of the

CrossFit Journal.

What is Meaningful

CrossFit Journal • Issue Fifty-six • April 2007

Lon Kilgore, Ph.D.

To the objective observer, it should be fairly obvious that CrossFit

methods of itness training are proving themselves in the ield.

Out in the real world, the average Joe who sees results like those

typically seen by their CrossFitting friends are swayed by success.

This is why the CrossFit community is growing and thriving. But

there is always a cadre of exercise scientists and physicians who

don’t necessarily believe results from the ield (after all, “there

were no controls”). There is an adage in the sciences that “you

can prove anything with a single case example,” so anecdotal

reports of success from the ield are frequently assigned a merit

and validity best suited for File 13 or Area 51. If the testing didn’t

happen in a controlled laboratory environment, the thinking goes,

the results cannot be the product of an evidence-based system

and therefore must be the worst kind of popular and faddish trash

or iction.

researchers think that three sets of ten will produce the same

results as ten sets of three— and they will use the same weight

for both organizations, a weight described as “low to moderate

intensity.” But as is obvious to anyone who actually trains “in the

ield,” very little stress causes very little adaptation, regardless of

the set and repetition scheme. So training methods used in the

lab are generally substandard, and conclusions based on those

methods really do not have much relevance to making people

more it. It seems as though most exercise researchers misapply

the basic tenets of human adaptation.

But missing the point of how the body adapts to a stressor is not the

only place where exercise scientists go wrong. In a recent article

in a well-known exercise physiology publication, a faculty member

from a school of physical therapy made an astonishing conclusion

about training and competition. He proposed that a single set of

ive to eight repetitions with a moderate weight is appropriate as a

warm-up prior to a training session or a weightlifting/powerlifting

competition. Any weightlifter or powerlifter, from rank novice to

world-class elite, will tell you that a traditional multi-set and low

repetition warm-up is needed to prepare the body to neurally and

eficiently handle maximal efforts.

But does it really matter what exercise scientists say?The disregard

some academics have for practitioners is a two-way street. Most

exercise scientists know that the research reports or theoretical

papers they publish are completely ignored by actual practitioners.

In a very recent conference keynote speech, Dr. William Kraemer,

putatively one of the most recognizable and respected igures in

exercise research, said “Coaches don’t listen to sports scientists.”

If such a lofty scientist expects his research to be ignored, what

hope is there for the rest of us researchers? Not much, I’m afraid.

It is a frequent reality that people in the ield ind results from

the ield more meaningful than any results from any exercise

science laboratory, and often rightfully so. That’s a pretty damning

statement coming from a sports scientist, but let’s use a quick

example from one of my primary areas of scholarly interest,

muscle hypertrophy, to make the point as to why this is the case.

Observe. Experiment. Adapt.

It’s not just the scientists on the strength side that seem to have a

problem re-creating the real world in their laboratories and actually

generating useful information. If we consider the concept of VO 2

max, the soul of aerobic exercise physiology interests and dogma,

we ind that a large number of exercise scientists believe that VO 2

max, is only minimally trainable. They propose maybe only a 5 to

10 percent improvement with training as the limit of possibility.

That would mean that someone like me, with a 48 ml/kg/min VO 2

max, would never be able to compete at any event requiring more

than 53 ml/kg/min and have a hope of being competitive. But again,

let’s look at the real world of high-level competitive athletics and

a familiar igure, Lance Armstrong. In Armstrong’s early days of

high-level competition (as a triathlete), his VO 2 max was in the

low 60s. During his astounding run as Tour de France champion

in the past seven years, his VO 2 max was reportedly in the upper

80s. This is a bit more than the 5 to 10 percent considered to be

the top end of the improvement spectrum. OK, there is always

the possibility that some special assistance of exogenous origin

was involved in this example, but the point is that this magnitude

of improvement is not uncommon in aerobic athletes who train

progressively and appropriately under the astute eyes of expert

coaches. So, here we have another example of laboratory models

of training resulting in very small single-digit percent gains—far

less than the gains of up to 33 percent generated by current ield

training methods. There apparently is a dark and deep chasm

The average competitive bodybuilder has a muscle mass about 75

percent greater than the average Joe. Yes, some of the competitors

are benefactors of chemical enhancement, but there are those who

have dedicated their lives to getting big and have done so clean.

So, in the ield, a halfway decent coach who got half of the average

results seen in competitive bodybuilders might see around a 35

to 37 percent increase in muscle mass in an athlete who trains

religiously without exogenous hormonal enhancement. That’s not

a stellar result, but compared to no training or really bad training,

it is a large improvement. Now let’s compare the results that

are normally seen in the best exercise science laboratory studies

to the results seen in the ield. A long-term laboratory study

that has a large signiicant result will demonstrate at most a 20

to 25 percent increase in mass (most produce low single-digit

results). This is pretty slim compared to the gains seen in real-

world competitors, or for that matter compared to the results of

our hypothetical halfway decent coach. How does this happen?

These studies use the most responsive group of trainees possible,

beginners, so big changes should happen very fast. But, alas, there

is a large contingent of exercise scientists and physicians who

believe that one work set of an exercise is enough to achieve

maximal results. If they do decide to use multiple sets, many

CrossFit Journal - Issue 56.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: