is Crossfit ok for building a lot of muscle?

LuckyLloyd · 23-07-2014 5:24pm

dylbert wrote: »

This just shows the need for crossfit gyms to start offering their members more choice, the standard crossfit one program fits all only suits some people.

Cost. Write one program and teach a class where everyone is doing the same thing at the same time requires less time and resource.

TimeToShine · 23-07-2014 5:26pm

Didn't read the thread but if you can do ring muscle-ups you're more advanced than 99% of people here and should just keep doing whatever you're doing

Cuddlesworth · 23-07-2014 5:33pm

dylbert wrote: »

This just shows the need for crossfit gyms to start offering their members more choice, the standard crossfit one program fits all only suits some people.

I have no idea of the OP's past, but he seems to be doing pretty well on the strenght front.

Since I've started down the fitness route I'm beginning to see two very distinct fronts in regards weights with some grey areas in between.

People who do weights to get big and as a result of that get stronger.

People who do weights to get strong and as a result of that get bigger.

The thing is, it doesn't seem to work out completely evenly. You can be very strong but not overly huge. And you can be absolutely huge but not particularly the strongest in comparison.

Whats the reason for this?

TGJD · 23-07-2014 5:45pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I have no idea of the OP's past, but he seems to be doing pretty well on the strenght front.

Since I've started down the fitness route I'm beginning to see two very distinct fronts in regards weights with some grey areas in between.

People who do weights to get big and as a result of that get stronger.

People who do weights to get strong and as a result of that get bigger.

The thing is, it doesn't seem to work out completely evenly. You can be very strong but not overly huge. And you can be absolutely huge but not particularly the strongest in comparison.

Whats the reason for this?

Short answer would be central nervous system adaption. Muscle fiber type would also make a difference as well as time under tension.

Inspector Coptoor · 23-07-2014 5:59pm

Aswell as the amount of myostatin a person would have in their muscles which is genetically pre-determined & controls how big muscles can be.

Then it comes down to muscle fibre type etc

TimeToShine · 23-07-2014 10:45pm

Shortest answer: genetics.

Transform · 25-07-2014 8:19am

dylbert wrote: »

This just shows the need for crossfit gyms to start offering their members more choice, the standard crossfit one program fits all only suits some people.

thats already happened in many crossfit boxes

Transform · 25-07-2014 8:23am

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Yep, i was prescribed the "drink lots of milk and eat sweet potato" diet. I started to get fat.

Current body weight is 63 kg.

High Bar Back Squat - PB of 130kg 2 months ago. dialled it back to allow hamstring injury to heal. back up to 110kg x 3 as of yesterday.

Clean & Clean & Jerk: 80kg pb. Generally max out at 72.5kg in a non pb training session.

Snatch: 60kg PB, Generally max out at 52.5 in a non PB training session.

Deadlift: 120kg. Have not deadlifted in quite a while as i had major issues with hamstring and hip flexors. I generally avoid deadlifting as i dont like missing 2-3 days of training after.

Bench: Not done in a crossfit style gym. I have asked but the request was not given any attention.

height?

Transform · 25-07-2014 8:28am

TimeToShine wrote: »

Didn't read the thread but if you can do ring muscle-ups you're more advanced than 99% of people here and should just keep doing whatever you're doing

being able to do ring muscle ups at 63kg is NOT advanced especially if he wants to get better at crossfit.

Soon as a wod with 90kg cleans comes up then hes ****ed

i might add that a 130kg back squat yet only a 60kg snatch and 80kg clean dont add up - me things the o lifts need more work

fret_wimp2 · 25-07-2014 9:16am

Transform wrote: »

i might add that a 130kg back squat yet only a 60kg snatch and 80kg clean dont add up - me things the o lifts need more work

Not sure what you mean by things not adding up. This is how I see it (Im aware your pretty knowledgeable in this field Dominic, im only speaking for myself and my body).

Squat is quite a simple movement, you can set up for it and its a down and up, with good form, as long as hips are not too tight mobility is not to much of an issue. Also arms are not in the equation, only to hold the bar on the shoulders so arm strength doesnt really come into it. Easier movement, so pile the weight on until form deteriorates or your legs wont lift you and the weight back up from the squat. Even with relatively poor technique you can squat quite a bit more than you would ever do in one of the other movements.

A clean/jerk/snatch is a compound movement requiring excellent mobility from shoulders, back, hips and legs, good co-ordination, perfect technique and confidence. Basically a shed load more going on so its pretty easy to see how someone can have a 130kg squat, yet only be at 80 on the clean and jerk. Any flaw in technique will keep the kgs you can get overhead lower than you think you should be able to lift.

Myself, my issues lie in shoulder mobility and more recently hip mobility. Ive come a long way but have a long way to go in this dept.

being able to do ring muscle ups at 63kg is NOT advanced especially if he wants to get better at crossfit.

I agree. It took me a while to get the MU, but once i got it i realized it was more technique than strength.

Soon as a wod with 90kg cleans comes up then hes ****ed

Poppycock. In a WOD wih 90kg, im not ****ed as you say, I scale back to within my abilities. you dont just pile on 90kg, which you know you cant clean and then spend 15mins failing lifts.

I dont go RX if its currently beyond my ability, but i work towards it.

dylbert · 25-07-2014 9:19am

Transform wrote: »

thats already happened in many crossfit boxes

I know, I'm a member of one

Zillah · 25-07-2014 12:14pm

Hanley wrote: »

Milk is crazy high in sugar. Most people don't digest it particularly well and end up fat as fook off it.

Sorry, this is from page 1 but I can't believe no one has called this out.

What on Earth are you talking about? Whole Milk is 5g of sugar per 100ml, and it's almost all lactose, which doesn't taste sweet and has a low insulin response. If 5g is "crazy high" I think we've run out of adjectives for anything that's actual sweet. Coke is 18g per 100ml - that's "crazy high".

dylbert · 25-07-2014 12:57pm

Zillah wrote: »

Sorry, this is from page 1 but I can't believe no one has called this out.

What on Earth are you talking about? Whole Milk is 5g of sugar per 100ml, and it's almost all lactose, which doesn't taste sweet and has a low insulin response. If 5g is "crazy high" I think we've run out of adjectives for anything that's actual sweet. Coke is 18g per 100ml - that's "crazy high".

Someone trying to build muscle will be drinking a lot more than 100ml per day, 1L would be 50g of sugar

generic2012 · 25-07-2014 1:04pm

dylbert wrote:

Someone trying to build muscle will be drinking a lot more than 100ml per day, 1L would be 50g of sugar

someone trying to build muscle will be very unhappy with their results if they're worried about 50g of sugar...

dylbert · 25-07-2014 1:15pm

generic2012 wrote: »

someone trying to build muscle will be very unhappy with their results if they're worried about 50g of sugar...

But we're talking about someone trying to build muscle but not put on fat, it difficult to do this by drinking loads of milk.

Zillah · 25-07-2014 1:45pm

So?

50g of lactose would be about 200 calories, which is less than a tenth of the average man's calories for the day, let alone the amount someone working out and trying to bulk would need. Muscles need calories to grow. Exercise needs calories. Lactose is a slow release carbohydrate (comparable to oats, for example). Why exactly do you think any of this would be a problem?

generic2012 · 25-07-2014 1:51pm

not at all. and you said one litre originally, not 'loads'.

dylbert · 25-07-2014 1:57pm

The OP wanted to build muscle, he was told to drink loads of milk, he put on belly fat,

Hanley pointed out that milk is high in sugar and a lot of people gain fat when they drink allot of it.

I was using 1L as a scale, as in milk is 5% sugar but if you start drinking litres of the stuff a day the sugar can add up to allot.

Zillah · 25-07-2014 2:23pm

dylbert wrote: »

The OP wanted to build muscle, he was told to drink loads of milk, he put on belly fat,

Hanley pointed out that milk is high in sugar and a lot of people gain fat when they drink allot of it.

I was using 1L as a scale, as in milk is 5% sugar but if you start drinking litres of the stuff a day the sugar can add up to allot.

You're just saying random irrelevant things here. You gain fat if you eat a calorie surplus, it is almost impossible to gain muscle without gaining some fat, that is why people do a cut as phase two. Whole fat milk is actually a recommended source of calories when people are bulking because it has plenty of fat, some low GI carbs and is easy to drink. There is no reason not to drink several litres of milk per day if you want as long as you stay within your calorie targets. Vague comments about "sugar" (aka a low GI sugar like lactose) don't mean anything.

So you know what GI means? Do you know what people mean when they say bulk or cut?

Mellor · 25-07-2014 2:35pm

Zillah wrote: »

Sorry, this is from page 1 but I can't believe no one has called this out.

What on Earth are you talking about? Whole Milk is 5g of sugar per 100ml, and it's almost all lactose, which doesn't taste sweet and has a low insulin response. If 5g is "crazy high" I think we've run out of adjectives for anything that's actual sweet. Coke is 18g per 100ml - that's "crazy high".

Coke gets universally slated due to the sugar content alone. Nobody thinks drinking coke regularly is a good idea.

Coke isn't 18g/100ml, it's about 10g.
...which means a bottle of coke has the same sugar as a litre of milk. Most people would be surprised at that.

I wonder if you'd justify a bottle if coke everyday because it's only 50g sugar and 200cals?

When people drink milk to try and bulk, they'll often be drinking more than 1 litre. Multiple litres of milks ads up to a lot of sugar.
Sure bulking needs excess cals, and some sugar is no harm. But when Im bulking, I'd rather be a bit smarter about it than just piling sugar on top.

Alf Veedersane · 25-07-2014 2:40pm

I don't want to play for Accrington Stanley!

generic2012 · 25-07-2014 2:42pm

multiples of anything will add up to more. coke is empty calories. milk has massive amounts of essential nutrients as well as good fats and of course protein. its not analgous to coke.

Zillah · 25-07-2014 3:10pm

Mellor wrote: »

Coke gets universally slated due to the sugar content alone. Nobody thinks drinking coke regularly is a good idea.

Coke isn't 18g/100ml, it's about 10g.
...which means a bottle of coke has the same sugar as a litre of milk. Most people would be surprised at that.

I wonder if you'd justify a bottle if coke everyday because it's only 50g sugar and 200cals?

When people drink milk to try and bulk, they'll often be drinking more than 1 litre. Multiple litres of milks ads up to a lot of sugar.
Sure bulking needs excess cals, and some sugar is no harm. But when Im bulking, I'd rather be a bit smarter about it than just piling sugar on top.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating it. Lactose is low on the glycemic index. It is about 45-50, which means that it doesn't cause an insulin spike, instead it provides fairly slow release energy, which is exactly what you want. Not all calories are equal.

And honestly, if you drink a bottle of coke each day immediately before doing intense cardio or heavy weight lifting it would probably be absolutely fine, because you'll be burning the sugars as you ingest them. Still better to have low GI stuff/fat/protein earlier in the day, though.

Transform · 25-07-2014 9:03pm

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by things not adding up. This is how I see it (Im aware your pretty knowledgeable in this field Dominic, im only speaking for myself and my body).

Squat is quite a simple movement, you can set up for it and its a down and up, with good form, as long as hips are not too tight mobility is not to much of an issue. Also arms are not in the equation, only to hold the bar on the shoulders so arm strength doesnt really come into it. Easier movement, so pile the weight on until form deteriorates or your legs wont lift you and the weight back up from the squat. Even with relatively poor technique you can squat quite a bit more than you would ever do in one of the other movements.

A clean/jerk/snatch is a compound movement requiring excellent mobility from shoulders, back, hips and legs, good co-ordination, perfect technique and confidence. Basically a shed load more going on so its pretty easy to see how someone can have a 130kg squat, yet only be at 80 on the clean and jerk. Any flaw in technique will keep the kgs you can get overhead lower than you think you should be able to lift.

Myself, my issues lie in shoulder mobility and more recently hip mobility. Ive come a long way but have a long way to go in this dept.

I agree. It took me a while to get the MU, but once i got it i realized it was more technique than strength.

Poppycock. In a WOD wih 90kg, im not ****ed as you say, I scale back to within my abilities. you dont just pile on 90kg, which you know you cant clean and then spend 15mins failing lifts.

I dont go RX if its currently beyond my ability, but i work towards it.

Cool keep doing what work for you there chief

traco · 25-07-2014 9:59pm

Here's an article from t-nation about a bodybuilder moving to Crossfit. Few comments about diet, calories and carbs. From my quick read of it I would take away that if you are doing intense met cons you need the carbs and calories to support it and a sufficient amount to continue muscle / strength gain

http://www.t-nation.com/training/bodybuilder-goes-crossfit

Mellor · 26-07-2014 2:22am

generic2012 wrote: »

multiples of anything will add up to more. coke is empty calories. milk has massive amounts of essential nutrients as well as good fats and of course protein. its not analgous to coke.

Nobody said they equal. I was highlight that it is high in sugar, low GI or otherwise.

Multiples of anything of course add up. That's the entire point, the OP was obviously overdoing it as he wasn't controlling intake.

"I can't put I muscle, I tried GOMAD and I just got fat"

CM24 · 26-07-2014 11:33pm

traco wrote: »

Here's an article from t-nation about a bodybuilder moving to Crossfit. Few comments about diet, calories and carbs. From my quick read of it I would take away that if you are doing intense met cons you need the carbs and calories to support it and a sufficient amount to continue muscle / strength gain

http://www.t-nation.com/training/bodybuilder-goes-crossfit

I was going to post that article as well, but the thing is, the average person isn't going to have the same results as Thibaudeau since they're not supplementing with steroids!

is Crossfit ok for building a lot of muscle?

Comments