Bench Press max question

BossArky

At 70kg bodyweight I can just about bench 4 sets of 75kg at 3 reps each.

I'm looking to get to about 67kg bodyweight. What is the max realistically I can expect to bench at 67kg without supplements?

Is 100kg too much to ask? Just wondering if anyone here knows of people that weight who bench weights like that at that bodyweight. Thanks.

Vegeta

BossArky wrote:

At 70kg bodyweight I can just about bench 4 sets of 75kg at 3 reps each.

I'm looking to get to about 67kg bodyweight. What is the max realistically I can expect to bench at 67kg without supplements?

Is 100kg too much to ask? Just wondering if anyone here knows of people that weight who bench weights like that at that bodyweight. Thanks.

firstly benching above your body weight so well done. Just a question though. what do you mean without a supplement??

You sound like me but carrying way less bodyfat. I can bench about the same but weigh 85kg my goal is to bench that weight (85) squat 120 and deadlift 160.

Also are you trying to get slimmer for some form of competition. 70 to 67 kg

tribulus

Short answer: as much as you want depending on the effort you put in, why limit yourself?

100kg x 1 at 67kg is 1.5x bodyweight. It's a nice benchmark (heheh) you could deservedly call yourself a decent bencher then.

Doing it for reps and sets would be even more impressive.

BossArky

Vegeta wrote:

what do you mean without a supplement??

Also are you trying to get slimmer for some form of competition. 70 to 67 kg

I mean without protein shakes, whey, etc. No reason, just my preference.

I want to drop from 70 to 67kg so overall lower my bodyfat to single digits, and run faster i.e. less weight to carry around. I'm specifically looking at 5km racing, aiming for 21 or 22 mins for next years sprint triathlon season.

I'm wondering if the loss of 3kg bodyweight will mean it will be exponentially harder to lift more weight due to the loss of muscle too.

Ok Trib, I'll aim for 100 and see what happens :eek:

Colm_OReilly

Here's a pdf of strength standards: http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf

At 67Kgs you're currently just shy of "intermediate" by these standards, and 100Kg is attainable.

I'm wondering if the loss of 3kg bodyweight will mean it will be exponentially harder to lift more weight due to the loss of muscle too.

I wouldn't imagine so. If you want to run faster I'd advise you to focus on improving your running technique and times and not worry too much about your weight. If your diet is sound and you're exercising a lot you'll probably lose weight to some degree. BF measures are inaccurate anyway.

Vegeta

BossArky wrote:

I mean without protein shakes, whey, etc. No reason, just my preference.

I want to drop from 70 to 67kg so overall lower my bodyfat to single digits, and run faster i.e. less weight to carry around. I'm specifically looking at 5km racing, aiming for 21 or 22 mins for next years sprint triathlon season.

I'm wondering if the loss of 3kg bodyweight will mean it will be exponentially harder to lift more weight due to the loss of muscle too.

Ok Trib, I'll aim for 100 and see what happens :eek:

There's no prob with not taking supplements as long as your diet good. They are supplements after all. On the other hand if you know your diet is lacking something and you can take a supplement to sort it out then its a bit silly not to

don't lose 3 kg of body weight lose 3 kg of fat and you should see no strength loss if you keep protein intake right and keep lifting.

I have no clue about distance running but while they are all usually very thin, to look at them they don't seem to have overly low bf%. So the question for you is, is a single digits bf% wise (sustainable) for distance runners. I certainly don't know

Colm_OReilly

Vegeta just reminded me of something.

Distance runners/athletes - or the very least serious ones - have a susceptibility to colds/flus that most norms don't.

I wouldn't classify a 5 or 10K athlete as a distance athlete, but the OP did mention triathlons, so he's in a sport that's lasting 2+ hours.

I've a few friends who are triathletes, and while not being ripped, they are slim enough. Just in case you'd a concern over body image and were competing as a means of staying slim.

Veg's dead right about losing fat, not just weight. A healthy diet will help with that.

BossArky

Cheers Colm - handy reference there. I know that running faster isn't all about losing weight, but being lighter may help a tad. I'm hoping to spend more time in the gym over the winter and come out stronger and lighter at the beginning of the year when I'll start back into proper running again.

I've lost 5 or 6 kgs since beginning of this year and added about 20kg to my bench since Jan (as well as squat and deadlift 80kg from basically nothing), so hope to continue this progression towards Christmas, hence the reason for this thread.

One small tin of tuna has approx 37g of protein according to the packaging. What amount of protein should I be taking to ensure I have enough after a decent gym session? I'm not looking to get into world championships or anything... just maintain some progress in muscle gain. I have seen estimates stating that 2g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight should be consumed. Is this too much / too little in your opinion?

crotalus667

BossArky wrote:

I have seen estimates stating that 2g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight should be consumed. Is this too much / too little in your opinion?

Id say too little im on 2g per lb of lean bodymass, (very little carb's except pre and post workout)

tribulus

Whatever works really. Generally I'd say you'd need 2g/kg or 1g/lb (roughly the same). I don't think natural trainees would need as much as 2g/lb however if they're progressing without appreciable fat gain then fair enough.

crotalus667

tribulus wrote:

I don't think natural trainees would need as much as 2g/lb however if they're progressing without appreciable fat gain then fair enough.

I am natural (I.e. not juicing) the reason why im on 2g’s per pound of LEAN body mass is because im in the process of dropping weight (a lot of weight over a long period of time) I read in an article (on bb.com I think or it could have been flex) that 2g’s per lb of lean body mass was the right amount to continue making gains while in a calorie deficient state , I have to say that it is working , my strength is up and weight is down , although only by 1kg over the past 6 weeks:( (Id say it would have been a lot more only I fell off the diet wagon in a big way once or twice:rolleyes: ) saying that the decrease in my fat % reflects a bigger fat loss than 1kg . Im going to be changing my diet around a bit (to speed up the fat loss) so I think Ill start a training log .

I have to say Tribulus hit the nail on the head “Whatever works really” every one is different that’s why there are so many different opinions in all the different training manuals, find what works for your own body ,

BossArky

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Here's a pdf of strength standards: http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf

At 67Kgs you're currently just shy of "intermediate" by these standards, and 100Kg is attainable.

What exactly do those strength standards refer to? A one rep max or 3 sets of 8 reps? Something else?

Colm_OReilly

One Rep Max

TerrorFirmer

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

Colm_OReilly

HavoK wrote:

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

This represents the minimum level of strength required to maintain a
reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual.

Colm

Vegeta

HavoK wrote:

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

Yeah i'm with Havok on that one

rubadub

HavoK wrote:

According to that, someone of 80kg (my weight actually) should be able to bench 60kg without any prior training? Your first time ever lifting you do 60kg? That doesn't sound right to me.

Yeah, I was shocked until I read the bit in the right corner. I would like to know the real average of the guy on the street. I expect many people cannot do a single pushup, so benching 60kg straight away is not the norm. And as bodyweight goes up the average person could well be lifting less, since the average guy who is 250lb is not that way from muscle.

There was some other site before with average pushup ability and it seemed a bit more realistic.

Linoge

rubadub wrote:

There was some other site before with average pushup ability and it seemed a bit more realistic.

I've read that the average is 28. 34 is good.

With regards to the crossfit Basic Strentgh chart, if body weight is in lbs should the bench weight not be in lbs too?? This can't be right either though becasue that puts me in elite:eek:

rubadub

Linoge wrote:

With regards to the crossfit Basic Strentgh chart, if body weight is in lbs should the bench weight not be in lbs too?? This can't be right either though becasue that puts me in elite:eek:

It is in lb AFAIK

Are you looking at bench press, 3rd down, or the top one "press" (what is this press? standing military press?)

this was the pressups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushups_as_fitness_levels_in_the_US_military

But that is the military so not the average person off the street, and I am "outstanding", something wrong there!

Linoge

rubadub wrote:

It is in lb AFAIK

Are you looking at bench press, 3rd down, or the top one "press" (what is this press? standing military press?)

Thanks for that:o I'm back down to between novice and inter(phew, thought I was really strong there for a min!)

pwd

Colm_OReilly wrote:

This represents the minimum level of strength required to maintain a
reasonable quality of life in a sedentary individual.

They think you need a certain level of upper body strength to maintain a reasonable quality of life? What's their rationale behind that it seems like nonsense to me.
Well either nonsense or cynical lies in order to sell fitness programmes and supplements.

BossArky

If these are one rep max standards as Colm points out then that makes me feel a lot better! I was basing my new fitness log aims on trying to reach the intermediate levels on all 4 exercises at 3 sets of 8 reps, not just 1 rep max.

However, this may well be impossible We shall see.

BossArky

rubadub wrote:

It is in lb AFAIK

....or the top one "press" (what is this press? standing military press?)

Yeah, it is standing barbell military press (if the youtube cross fit press videos are anything to go by).

rubadub

BossArky wrote:

Yeah, it is standing barbell military press (if the youtube cross fit press videos are anything to go by).

Cheers. I was the same as you too, thinking of my 8reps since I never really do 1rep max work. Makes sense for them to use 1R figures.

Most "rep calculators" add on about 25% of your 8rep max, to equal your 1rep max. So multiply your 8rep kg weight by 2.75 to get a 1rep estimate in lb i.e. (2.2x1.25). I am between novice and intermediate which should be the case.

Colm_OReilly

pwd wrote:

They think you need a certain level of upper body strength to maintain a reasonable quality of life? What's their rationale behind that it seems like nonsense to me.
Well either nonsense or cynical lies in order to sell fitness programmes and supplements.

Mark Rippetoe is Crossfit's powerlifting expert, and is quite adamant about strength being important to your quality of life. Do a search for Starting Strength and you'll get extracts from his book about it's role in healthy living.

Yes, he does sell books and promote his gym - but you can download free instructional clips of Rip teaching from Crossfit.com, get free workouts daily for them or any affiliate sites, get free advice from Certified coaches on our message boards...

We're hardly all about the selling of programs!!!

Crossfit North/Seattle published their athletic skill standards here if people are interested. If anyone has that push up it'd be cool to see that as well.

Colm

Hanley

What's that guy in the picture doing?

Btw Level 4 Elite Squat/Bench/Dead... cool

rubadub

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Mark Rippetoe is Crossfit's powerlifting expert, and is quite adamant about strength being important to your quality of life.

Similarly you might have some mathematical expert adamant about calculus being important to your quality of life and how being unable to solve differential equations is "untrained", while most get by fine on leaving cert math

Hanley wrote:

What's that guy in the picture doing?

Woody Allen struggling with an upright row...

Hanley wrote:

Btw Level 4 Elite Squat/Bench/Dead... cool

I would be too, if I got a sex change and lost a few pounds:D

ali.c

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Crossfit North/Seattle published their athletic skill standards here if people are interested. If anyone has that push up it'd be cool to see that as well.

I like crossfit, i think the goals are great, but tbh not really impressed with

Description of level 1 wrote:

This level is the minimum standard for health. Lacking these basic levels of strength, flexibility and work capacity makes daily life unnecessarily limited

When they say that you should be able to do 3 dips and 3 full pull-ups. There isnt a different amount of excercise for men and women on these two which are *usually* a weak point for women. I havent been able to do dips*3 (i can do one) or a single pull up in a good while and i dont think it negatively impacted on my health.

Though i do have a level 2 deadlift, sweet!!

Colm_OReilly

Guys,

Apologies for the lag in replying.

Similarly you might have some mathematical expert adamant about calculus being important to your quality of life and how being unable to solve differential equations is "untrained", while most get by fine on leaving cert math

Nice analogy. I'd argue

A) that a Crossfit approach to life (i.e. become a generalist over a specialist) is a healthy approach to life. So knowing maths does help you get by - the more the better. The level of expertise required differs depending on the individual. I can't teach people how to repair a car, but knowing how to is a useful skill. We don't need to be at the level of mechanics but it helps to have experts.

Without physical health (which we measure on the same scale as Fitness) you can do very little. Strength being an aspect of physical health we've found to have a positive effect on the other areas, hence it's relative importance. So we'll put health/fitness at the base of a triangle of important life areas in terms of things people need. (Think Maslow's hierarchy). On the same line of thought, all the great exercise in the world would mean nothing if you'd a ****ty diet, so diet would be the foundation of a good life.

When they say that you should be able to do 3 dips and 3 full pull-ups. There isnt a different amount of excercise for men and women on these two which are *usually* a weak point for women. I havent been able to do dips*3 (i can do one) or a single pull up in a good while and i dont think it negatively impacted on my health.

I hope I've addressed this above but I can see your point - many people get by without basic physical components. The Levels are there because there was a demand for them, and the originators obvious felt that 3 dips/pull ups were worthwhile.

As i train more people across a wider range of abilities/lifestyles - I see/hear about the benefits getting fitter has had on other aspects of their lives. Sometimes it's just the extra energy they feel from being healthy, others it's the sense of accomplishment they get when they finally can do a Pull Up etc, i.e. they've succeeded in some goal and have more confidence in other areas, others it's just they're more useful round the house.

Humans are particulary obsessed with measurements so these levels help people see their accomplishments and set goals.

Hopefully I've helped explain here, sorry if I've been rambling (Actually, if you've read this far, you don't think I'm rambling or are very patient!)

Colm

rubadub

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Nice analogy. I'd argue

My analogy was a bit tounge in cheek, the mathematics comparing to his own "mathematical formula", he had to pick some figure I suppose, for simplicity. It is just it appears a bit black & white, 2 twins step up and one can bench 2kg more than the other so "qualifies" as having a reasonable quality of life, the other might feel branded as not being as happy or something- sort of similar to the BMI formula which is a rough guideline but can be flawed.

I accept the 2 points you made which do make perfect sense.

You also mention the 3 dips/pullups as being a figure they had to choose. I think ali.c is making more the point about women being naturally less muscular and hence less strong. This is reflected in the pdf http://www.crossfit.com/cf-journal/WLSTANDARDS.pdf where women of a given body weight have lower expected weight lifting ability than men. But dips & pullups are equivalent to lifting a given weight, so really I think ali.c is saying they should not be expected to do as many as men- which I agree with. I am around 165lb and see I should be lifting around 55% more than a woman of 165lb, so surely a woman should be only expected to do proportionately less body weight exercise repetitions.

ASIDE:- ali.c -have you tried negative pull/chinups and dips, you stand on a box or chair so you are in the uppermost position adn then slowly lower yourself down, very controlled. This downward negative phase is meant to work the muscles even more and leads to a lot of strength, it also works a lot of muscles used in the upward movement so is better than say doing bicep curls to improve you chinups. When I started I couldnt do a single pullup or chinup, after negative work I could bang them out easily. I still do them, after I am exhausted after normal chins I get on the box and do a last few negatives to really work the muscles.

ali.c

yup, i think my point was really more to do with the fact that the starting point is different for men and women so therefore to achieve the same level prior to achieving a begineer status is well a bit skaways esp as they seem to make the distinction for other excercises.

Hanley

I'd definately agree with Colm on this one.

I was actually just thinking today about how in the last year I've learned so much about myself, how to face challenges, how to prioritise, time management skills, coping in the face of adversity and finding new and innovative ways to deal with problems, while "under the bar".

There's nothing that will do more for my confidence than watching my lifts go up. I've stood toe to toe with the strongest people in Ireland and surpassed them, faced some of the strongest people in the world and am not too far away from joining them now. How the hell is "life" going to phase me after that?? Presentations, reports, study... all that is easy compared to what I put myself thru under the bar.

I've found no greater discipline builder than training to lift heavy weights. I'd love to see someone try and explain how that has not added to the quality of my life...

Colm_OReilly

Hanley,

Thanks for that. I didn't see the distinction ali.c was making - makes sense now. If I wasn't shattered I'd think of a response but in the words of yoda - meditate on this I shall.

Any gymnasts out there who might have standards of body weight exercises between male and female gymnasts?

Colm

ali.c

Colm_OReilly wrote:

I didn't see the distinction ali.c was making - makes sense now.

My bad for not being articulate, though i am interested to see your response on this one.

I do think that increased strength and fitness improves a persons quality of life, equally i am sure that people involved in all type of sports/activities get improve their quaility of life.

I am not sure i equate the number of pull-ups, dips and other strenght excercises a person can do to health per say is all.

pwd

Hanley wrote:

I'd definately agree with Colm on this one.

I was actually just thinking today about how in the last year I've learned so much about myself, how to face challenges, how to prioritise, time management skills, coping in the face of adversity and finding new and innovative ways to deal with problems, while "under the bar".

There's nothing that will do more for my confidence than watching my lifts go up. I've stood toe to toe with the strongest people in Ireland and surpassed them, faced some of the strongest people in the world and am not too far away from joining them now. How the hell is "life" going to phase me after that?? Presentations, reports, study... all that is easy compared to what I put myself thru under the bar.

I've found no greater discipline builder than training to lift heavy weights. I'd love to see someone try and explain how that has not added to the quality of my life...

It has undoubtedly added to your quality of life. Challenge is an important part of happiness, and I don't question for a second that weight training has added this and other positive things to your life.
But it's a personal thing. Like rubadub said, a mathematician might find similar satisfaction by solving hard maths problems. This person might have no interest in being physically strong, and be naturally rather weak for one reason or another. So rather than boost their confidence, weight training might damage it, since they could find themselves unable to improve at a satisfactory rate. It might just seem like pointless hassle to them.

They could be perfectly healthy, like ali.c said. In fact, studies have shown that all animals should have a longer lifespan if they live on a reduced calorie intake, while still getting enough nuitrition. Building strength almost always involves eating more.

As Colm O'Reilly said, humans are particularly obsessed with measurements. This is exactly what makes me take exception to the assertion that a certain level of strength is necessary to be ok. People seem to be increasingly viewing themselves as objects or products. People can easily become too concerned about conforming to a physical norm or ideal. The most of obvious and probably most severe example is anorexia. But it effects lots of people in a bad way. And men can often have reverse anorexia, where they are never satisfied with their musculature in an unhealthy way; and never feel ok about themselves as a result.

Weight training can greatly improve someone's quality of life, but it is certainly not necessary for a reassonable quality of life.
"Don't measure my wheat with your bushel"

Tigger

pwd wrote:

They could be perfectly healthy, like ali.c said. In fact, studies have shown that all animals should have a longer lifespan if they live on a reduced calorie intake, while still getting enough nuitrition. Building strength almost always involves eating more.

all animals or some small animals
links pleaes

Tigger

The issue divides researchers. Calorie restriction, or cutting energy intake below energy expenditure, can slow ageing, reduce mortality, and extend maximum lifespan in rats, mice, fish, flies, worms and yeast. But to date, the only evidence that it works in humans is anecdotal. A 1978 study of inhabitants of Okinawa1 showed that energy intake among adults was roughly 80% of the Japanese average. Some researchers have held this up as evidence that restricting diet reduces age-related diseases and extends longevity. But gerontologist Sataro Goto of Toho University in Chiba, Japan, points out that Japanese people have a daily energy intake nearly 20% less than the average of developed countries, and that the mean life-expectancy of Japanese women is 85 years — not significantly more than that of women in all developed countries.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7095/full/441807a.html

rubadub

pwd wrote:

Like rubadub said, a mathematician might find similar satisfaction by solving hard maths problems. This person might have no interest in being physically strong,

Yes, I imagine the guy who set the standards is a strong athlete himself and believes it has enhanced his life greatly, he is probably very strong and deals with others who are above average, therefore his own estimate of what is "average" or is the "minimum requirment" is skewed compared to other peoples ideas of the same. Same goes for any "expert" or "overachiever".

This can even be seen on threads here, people post pics of guys that I think are fairly big, at least above average, many much bigger than I hope/want to get- yet some posters just brand them "skinny".

Bill Gates probably cant lift much and probably thinks he has a decent quality of life- being stronger might make his life easier though. I think people just get a bit offended if they feel branded or categorized in a somewhat negative way.

pwd

I'm not offended and I'm not categorised in a negative way. I just disagree with the standards, and the idea that you need a level of strength to have a reasonable quality of life.

BossArky

I like to think the aim of my training is to gain strength and speed for functional reasons as opposed to asthetics.

Imagine yourself in the following scenarios:

1) You somehow survived the impact of a plane ditching at sea. You need to clamber through bits of wreckage, push dead bodies off yourself and squeeze through the tiny hole in the fuselage. Off course then you have to swim the few km to shore (luckily the pilot ditched near to land )

2) You're walking down the street and someone snatches your girlfriends handbag (or your man bag :eek: ). You managed to chase them down and get your stuff back. *Clobbering them is an optional extra*

3) You are coming back from holidays and don't want to put your back up lugging 20kgs of Taiwan's finest export material back home.

The above are slightly exaggerated scenario's but should highlight the fact that a bit of strength and training can improve your quality of life / prospects of survival, etc.

On the other hand opium addicts in Afghanistan probably live happily even though they are thin as rakes at 30kg and blissfully unaware than another world exists outside their daze.

Tigger

i think that for the type of [people that post in a fitness forum fitness is important
a level of strength to weight would be part of that

but obviously those with no intrest in themselves from a fitness poerspective wouldnt care

Colm_OReilly

ali.c,

My bad for not being articulate, though i am interested to see your response on this one.

I do think that increased strength and fitness improves a persons quality of life, equally i am sure that people involved in all type of sports/activities get improve their quaility of life.

I am not sure i equate the number of pull-ups, dips and other strenght excercises a person can do to health per say is all.

We equate fitness with health. From the Crossfit Journal (free issue)

We have observed that
nearly every measurable value of health can be placed on a continuum that ranges from sickness to wellness to fitness...For example, a blood pressure of 160/95 is pathological, 120/70 is normal or healthy, and 105/55 is consistent with an athlete’s blood pressure; a body fat of 40% is pathological, 20% is normal or healthy, and 10% is fit. We observe a similar ordering for bone density, triglycerides, muscle mass, flexibility, HDL or “good cholesterol”, resting heart rate, and dozens of other common measures of health.

Strength is a very important of component. From the CFJ Sept 2007:

Strength is the ability to produce force, and it is possibly the most
important component in athletics...Power depends on it, as does balance, coordination, speed, quickness, and endurance. training.

Hopefully that gives a better foundation of where I'm coming from.

For my own part, let's look at how increased strength can help children and the elderly.

A child needs to develop strength just to be able to stand, then to walk, then to run. He needs strength to hold himself upright, then hold basic articles, such as spoons, mugs, plates, toys. The greater strength he develops, the quicker he can start to learn and interact with the world.

The longer an elderly person has the strength to stand/walk around unassisted, the longer they can get up from a seat, carry around things, the more they can get out of each day.

Essentially the stronger you are the less strenuous every task you do is on your body - the result is more energy/the ability to do more. Which, personally I think would improve the quality of your life.

If I've failed to address anyone's points please let me know.

Thanks,
Colm

g'em

Colm_OReilly wrote:

We equate fitness with health. From the Crossfit Journal ...

what about mental health? What about a balanced lifestyle? What about the ability to deal with everyday challenges that no amount of bicep strength or hip flexibility or explosive power will solve?

Health cannot be measured by numbers and callipers and physical feats of strength. And impressive strength does not equal an improved quality of life. Hanley explained it well:

Hanley wrote:

I was actually just thinking today about how in the last year I've learned so much about myself, how to face challenges, how to prioritise, time management skills, coping in the face of adversity and finding new and innovative ways to deal with problems, while "under the bar".

Training can help to teach you about dealing with other aspects of life. But it doesn't solve those other problems, it just gives you a new perspective in how to deal with them. It's not the definitive way to cope with all those difficulties though. And as other people have said, hitting a double body weight DL might be the be-all-and-end-all for someone whose goals are physically oriented, but to others their lives and the quality they live them in will be improved through academia or through relationships or family or friends or any number of other factors.

Personally I am one of those people who rely on the physical aspects of my life to fulfil me and I get a lot of happiness and contentment from lifting heavy stuff, but I would never for a second try to impose those views on someone who didn't train. You can't assume that health = happiness = fitness = better quality of life.

Colm, this is not an attack at you, more that I've been aware of and exposed to Crossfit for a while now, and frankly I would be inclined to say that the 'teachings' encouraged under the Crossfit trademark are walking thinly along the obsessive borderline.

The Crossfit workouts are excellent, the results that reguilar CF style training can produce are impressive... but once you look past that and start to read the paraphenalia and propoganda of CF, it's quite scary virtual brainwashing. Nearly every post you write Colm references CF in some way, is CF really the answer to everyone's problems? Do you ever question the CF mentality or disagree with it's policies?

Like I said, I'm not attacking you, it's each to their own. I'm just often amazed at how the advocates of CF are practically aggressive in their encouragement of their lifestyle - "if you want to be happy you need to live by CF, eat a Paleo Diet and meet these strength requirements!!" I'm just not comfortable with all those political undercurrents and military style regimes.

Colm_OReilly

g'em,
Thanks for your reply.

Nearly every post you write Colm references CF in some way, is CF really the answer to everyone's problems?

No, Crossfit is not the answer to everyon'e problems. However, this is a fitness forum, and in my experience and opinion their is no better resource out there for improved fitness/health than that prescribed by Crossfit.

On a personal note, obviously I'm deeply passionate about this - because it has improved my physical fitness no end. I was aware of CF for ages but didn't follow it because it looked too tough, or I didn't believe I could follow the workouts, or that it required more dedication than I thought. I don't want people to waste as much time as I did, so I try to get the word out there to people.

Do you ever question the CF mentality or disagree with it's policies?
...I'm just not comfortable with all those political undercurrents and military style regimes.

In my experience those who are affiliates are fanatical about CF, and because it's had such a great impact on their life, they want to tell everyone about it. I've seen the same with people who are passionate about MMA, or other activities. My friend loved windsurfing - personally I can't stand being cold and wet, but he loved it! He'd talk for hours to me about it, and while I didn't understand squat about it, I enjoyed his passion.

I admire passion and dedication in any individual, regardless of whether I agree with the method or process they're undertaking. CF, for me, had this process and was in alignment with what I wanted to do, so I applied for affiliation.

As regards their military/religious views - I disagree. I don't get involved with their rest day discussions. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by military regimes, but I believe we're on the same page about some of the Glassman's political views.

I have noted (and I believe it's similar to the Halo Effect) that when you're something important to say about one topic (Glassman in the case of fitness) people will eventually seek out your opinion, and hold it in the same high regard, on other topics. Even myself, people who I coach (particularly kids) will take cues from me in terms of attitudes and behaviours concerning things outside my remit.

Regarding health:

As you've asked, what about mental health? This is addressed briefly in the CF journal that I quoted above (actually it's the line I ommitted). The basic thrust is that mental health is harder to measure, but they believe exercise can have a positive effect on someone's mood.

Health cannot be measured by numbers and callipers and physical feats of strength.

I've quoted standardised measures of health and how being fitter relates to them. What definition of health would you like us to use?

For a balanced lifestyle: Yes I agree with you that one should have a balanced lifestyle. The initial debate was strength's role in fitness, and by extension, health. From there, the argument seems to have reached reductio ad absurdum, which can be dismissed because it is absurd.

Eating fruit is healhty, right? So the more fruit i eat the healthier I'll be? Up to a point. Eventually, you'll either get no additional benefit and finally reduced benefit. You'll hit a point of diminishing returns.

Strength and fitness are the same. To a point, the stronger you are will help improve your ability to manage the physical challenges you face in your life. Eventually, a point is reached in which the time is better spent investing in flexibility, balance, etc. Taking this argument outside the physical and into life balance - yes, the ability to deal with stress, forge great relationships, earn a secure/lucrative salary, etc are all important. Indeed if you're working your bench 1RM while your baby starves or your college finals are on you've ballsed up!

However, the fitness gained from working out up to 6 hours a week won't, imo, reach that point of diminishing returns whereby it's negatively impacting the rest of your development.

You can't assume that health = happiness = fitness = better quality of life

I didn't. I equated health with fitness, and gave examples based on the measures of health commonly used. I equated improved health with improved quality of life, your physical health being a component, not the total.

As regards happiness, personally I believe that comes from (or, at the very least is largely determined by) having a purpose. I'm a big fan of Steve Pavlina, and his articles on lightworkers/darkworkers. I've read a lot of personal development material, and for me Steve's work (while at times incredibly heavy) has appealed to me the most.

I think it's great you derive pleasure from working out as an end in itself. For me, it's the coaching of people and the results they get that gives me great pleasure. Doing what you love, and being dedicated, is what really contributes to life satisfaction, imo.

Thanks for asking the questions, and hopefully my response makes sense :rolleyes:

Colm

g'em

Colm_OReilly wrote:

g'em,
Thanks for asking the questions, and hopefully my response makes sense :rolleyes:

lol, they did and thank you for taking the time to answer them!! I'm completely pushed for time right now so I can't elaborate on your post, but I think we're fundamentally on the same page about a lot of things. My post was really more of a provocative set of questions with a curiosity to see where you stood on things more than an argument against you, in fact I wholeheartedly endorse much of what you said.

You're right, I do take issue with some of Glassman's views, and I guess that's why when I see someone as passionate as you are about CF, it troubles me a little. But as you explained, your passion is about CF as a training style, not as a political outlet, and with the drive and ambition you obviously display in your posts I have no doubt that CF.ie will take off with great speed and you'll be on a par with any of the more established CF groups in no time

Hopefully I'll get back to this when I have more than two minutes to spare...