Forum Discussion

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 11:54AM

Good thread, and good to see people keep it civil.

Alot has been said about Colm's mesage re. Crossfit. I'll admit it wobbles my tits too, but behind it all he's giving very good basic advice, its just the way its delivered is a pi$$er and gets people's goat.

Squats, dips, DL's, chin's etc should be the bread and butter for anyone lifting weights but if I was a newbie coming here looking for advice I think I'd be left with the impression that if I'm not 'crossfit' I'm wasting my time.

But no one is giving an alternative. Whether its marketing hype or a genuine interest in helping other's (and I think its a little of both) its just a little annoying how the message is put accross. However none of it is bad/dangerous advice, and its so easy for someone to give bad/dangerous advice.

I'd consider myself a very advanced lifter, I know my goals and I believe in getting there I have to keep everything simple. From my diet to training and eating, I don't make a science of lifting weights/getting bigger & stronger.

From the old days (yea I'm probably older than most here as Dragan like's to info

) two saying's were thrown around the gym's re. the basics and I was glad to see Colm throw one out here a few times 'Strenght, Speed, Stamina' - this is what nature intended us to have and what most of us lack in our daily lives work on those three S's and T.R.E. - Train, Rest, Eat to grow.

Guys thats a simple message and one that only a few people here put accross, ie Colm, Hanley, Dragan and probably one of two other's whose name's escape me right now

Colm I don't think anyone is directing anything at you personally or your knowledge, but at your arrogance. Your an exceptionally arrogant young man & it appear's as though you find it hard to hide it, or should you hide it even?.

Its obvious you have a lot of confidence in both yourself and your Crossfit system. Personally I think the basics of it are sound and hard to knock, the message however comes accross like something from a famous gentleman in Eccles St.

So there ya go. Anyone mentioned or not mentioned shouldn't take offence either way. Its a good thread and clear's the air and lets us all know where we stand.

Mods, this is a good forum. I rarely post but its giving me the appetite to get my ass back to the gym after a major personal up set 18 months ago (I've spoken to Hanley about it).

Apart from tipping away at Judo, in the last 18 months I've basically walked away from the gym while my head & emotions were elsewhere. You've all, each and every one of you went some way in the last while to motivating myself again.

wasabi · 23-01-2008 11:57AM

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

You should ask him about his weight cutting and muffins, now there's a skill I've yet to master!

I should, it would be a lot better than doing feckin circuits on low carbs like I've been doing!

Roper · 23-01-2008 12:09PM

You ain't seen nothing until you've seen the walnut brownie diet. Lost weight on that too.

justsomebloke · 23-01-2008 12:34PM

ok I have be skipping this forum for the last while but hey I might as well drop in and give my 2c on the topic.

Ok this is a public forum. There is nobody here being paid to give advise so the level of advise is dependent on the posters who actually take the time out of their lives to post. Also if you check the majority of the posts the vast majority of them follow the exact same trend "Hi, can you help me lose some weight and get toned." The problem with this is that there is very little substance left on the board where experienced trainers can actually debate themselves thus giving them less reason to stay here and actually offer advise, as generally they will tend to move to other forums, which specialise in their field, where they can actually debate the smaller points of programmes that would be of little use to the majority of posters here.

So after that we are left with only a small hand full of posters answering the vast majority of question, and they will generally offer advise from their perspective and what encourages them to keep fit. So generally the advise that they offer is skewed towards their spiecalised field. Hence when Colm posts he posts about crossfit and the benefits of crossfit as that is what he knows, why would he want to post about anything else? Do I think he has a slightly alternative motive in doing this to try and steer people towards crossfit and his gym? Well the answer is Yes I do, however do I hold it against him no, not at all. Why? you may ask, well he takes a serious amount of time of his day to help people on here and post slightly individual responses to each of them and does he look for anything out of it. Not really. Or no more then Jon would pimp his store or the rest of us pimp Mickk's empire.

If people don't like the that crossfit seems to dominate in the fitness forum then answers the threads and give alternative advice or would you just prefer for questions to go unanswered?

Anyway I might as well give my opinion on things here. Do I feel crossfit is the be all and end all of things? God no
Do I think that weight training in general is the answer to alot of people's questions? well for the most yes as that what's interests me at the mo but I suppose a little cardio never killed anyone
However Do I think weight training plays to big a part in the answers on this forum? yes by a lot.

For me it is not a question of whether the crossfit answer is the be all and end all it's more that weights training full stop seems to be the answer for everyone in some shape and form and this is what I have always found to be a problem with this forum, but is there anything that we can do about that no not really as it harks back to my original point. The advise given is skewed by the people giving it and for the most part it is people who have an interest in weights that seem to give advise on this forum. We simply don't have the people who are interested in other forms of exercise replying to balance things out

WHIP IT! · 23-01-2008 12:41PM

For what it's worth, something I kind of admire about the fitness forum compared to others on boards, is the patience of the regular posters (incl Colm 'Crossfit' O'Reilly, g'em, Hanley and several others) considering they're forced to answer the same or similar questions on a weekly, almost daily, basis.

I think this is why RacingFlat, for example, may get the impression that "the answer is the same for everybody." One thing that must be tedious for the regular advisors is the apparent inability of a lot of people to think a little for themselves... It's simple, work hard at the right things and you should get results. Instead there is sometimes alot of "What exactly to I need to do to get X result?"

Reminds me of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7GnOyd_z1w

Dragan · 23-01-2008 12:52PM

The answer will be the same as long as the question remains the same.

What we get here is a lot of replication and slight alteration of a theme. People don't want to do a sub 3:30 Fran. The don't want a 3x bodyweight deadlift. They don't want 20 inch arms.

They just want to feel a little better, maybe cut out some **** from their diet and be a little leaner.

The simple fact is that there is a very small group of consistantly active posters and because this is the way the Multiverse works they will normally be the ones who are deepest into their own version of "the life".

Colm digs on Crossfit. Good for him. People see him promoting it a lot, but they tend to forget about his investment in it as well.

Do you think Crossfit paid for Colm's affiliation fee? Do you think they paid for his L1 Cert and Seminar, or his flights to get there, or his hotels rooms and accomadation while he was over there? Nope.

Colm has invested time, effort, money, energy and thought into what it is that he wants to do.

Sounds like pretty much everone else on this forum, and the majority of the people in the world.

I see this division between training styles as being very similar to the division between religions.....i see them argued with the same faith and fervour.

What people tend to forget about both is that at best we are working off shakey facts, at worst we are working off blind faith.

Jimmy Bottlehead · 23-01-2008 01:06PM

Dragan wrote: »

The answer will be the same as long as the question remains the same.

What we get here is a lot of replication and slight alteration of a theme. People don't want to do a sub 3:30 Fran. The don't want a 3x bodyweight deadlift. They don't want 20 inch arms.

They just want to feel a little better, maybe cut out some **** from their diet and be a little leaner.

The simple fact is that there is a very small group of consistantly active posters and because this is the way the Multiverse works they will normally be the ones who are deepest into their own version of "the life".

Colm digs on Crossfit. Good for him. People see him promoting it a lot, but they tend to forget about his investment in it as well.

Do you think Crossfit paid for Colm's affiliation fee? Do you think they paid for his L1 Cert and Seminar, or his flights to get there, or his hotels rooms and accomadation while he was over there? Nope.

Colm has invested time, effort, money, energy and thought into what it is that he wants to do.

Sounds like pretty much everone else on this forum, and the majority of the people in the world.

I see this division between training styles as being very similar to the division between religions.....i see them argued with the same faith and fervour.

What people tend to forget about both is that at best we are working off shakey facts, at worst we are working off blind faith.

Amen!

I'll keep this short - this forum is and has been FANTASTIC for me. I've learned so much, even if some of the advice is not to learn TOO much

The main peeps on here (looking at you G'em, Hanley, Dragan, Celestial, Transform, Colm and others) have given me great advice, and even encouragement. I've just met a goal I genuinely thought I never would, and I wish to thank you all for it. Dragan said it best, whether Colm is promoting CrossFit, or Hanley heavy lifting, or even rubadub with his rings (not that one!), it's all working for someone and is worth mentioning.

Colm
- Love the unneccessary comment, I do.

mickoo · 23-01-2008 01:07PM

Just to clarify my stance on crossfit, i never knocked the system, i just wanted people to be aware that it is just 1 of many systems and just because someone who makes there living from it says to everyone its for them that its not, tony quinn would lead you to believe that his supplements are the best! why? money, as i said before-use variety and eat well to suit your goal and remember that no 1 system is for everyone for numerous reasons including fitness, goals, injury's, and if its sustainable plus more..

Anyway, Colm sorry for been personal, that was unproffesional, my point is that just because you like crossfit that its not for everyone and its not the BEST thing there is for the majority of people.

Hanley · 23-01-2008 01:11PM

Dragan wrote: »

Colm digs on Crossfit. Good for him. People see him promoting it a lot, but they tend to forget about his investment in it as well.

Do you think Crossfit paid for Colm's affiliation fee? Do you think they paid for his L1 Cert and Seminar, or his flights to get there, or his hotels rooms and accomadation while he was over there? Nope.

Colm has invested time, effort, money, energy and thought into what it is that he wants to do.

Ummmm so are you saying Colm should be allowed to promote crossfit because he has spent so much on it? Because it's a business (even tho it's a fitness business) he should be allowed promote it?

I don't know Colm, but I imagine he's looking for a return on his investment and isn't just throwing his money down the can. He gets that return by creating interest in the system and picking up members. No doubt one of the ways he does that is by posting here.

EDIT: While we're on the topic of paying money and having to jump thru hoops to be certified, I may as well ruffle some feathers.
The funniest thing about Crossfit is how it's really similiar to some of the Tony Quinn scenarios (but ssssh, don't tell anyone!!). Like think about it, it has a central leader figure, Greg Glassman, who's word is to be taken as gospel, they post workouts on their site that you have to follow (from what I can see being a good "instructor" is printing it off and shouting at your trainees to get em thru it) AND you have to fly half was around the world and pay money to become "certified". Hmmm.... Nobody else think that's kinda funny??

Dragan · 23-01-2008 01:23PM

Hanley wrote: »

Ummmm so are you saying Colm should be allowed to promote crossfit because he has spent so much on it? Because it's a business (even tho it's a fitness business) he should be allowed promote it?

I don't know Colm, but I imagine he's looking for a return on his investment and isn't just throwing his money down the can. He gets that return by creating interest in the system and picking up members. No doubt one of the ways he does that is by posting here.

EDIT: While we're on the topic of paying money and having to jump thru hoops to be certified, I may as well ruffle some feathers.
The funniest thing about Crossfit is how it's really similiar to some of the Tony Quinn scenarios (but ssssh, don't tell anyone!!). Like think about it, it has a central leader figure, Greg Glassman, who's word is to be taken as gospel, they post workouts on their site that you have to follow (from what I can see being a good "instructor" is printing it off and shouting at your trainees to get em thru it) AND you have to fly half was around the world and pay money to become "certified". Hmmm.... Nobody else think that's kinda funny??

*sighs* No, my implication was that maybe, just maybe Colm believes enough in the system he is promoting to put a lot of money into what is effectively a shakey venture.

The implication was that Colm's own faith in the system is maybe the main reason why he touts it?

And i don't find paying Crossfit to do their Certs to be any stanger than me paying the NTC to do theirs. Chances are, if you go back far enough you'll find at some point everyone paid someone to teach them somethings.

Who knew.

Often times it just has to be done as well. You can't train clients in Ireland without insurance, you can't get the insurance without a recognised cert.

Lets look at yourself Hanley, lots of strength, determination, good to train with, plenty of under the bar and comp experience...... but if you want to actually legally teach anyone what you know then you'll have to do the same thing.

celestial · 23-01-2008 01:26PM

Dragan wrote: »

The answer will be the same as long as the question remains the same.

What we get here is a lot of replication and slight alteration of a theme. People don't want to do a sub 3:30 Fran. The don't want a 3x bodyweight deadlift. They don't want 20 inch arms.

They just want to feel a little better, maybe cut out some **** from their diet and be a little leaner.

The simple fact is that there is a very small group of consistantly active posters and because this is the way the Multiverse works they will normally be the ones who are deepest into their own version of "the life".

Colm digs on Crossfit. Good for him. People see him promoting it a lot, but they tend to forget about his investment in it as well.

Do you think Crossfit paid for Colm's affiliation fee? Do you think they paid for his L1 Cert and Seminar, or his flights to get there, or his hotels rooms and accomadation while he was over there? Nope.

Colm has invested time, effort, money, energy and thought into what it is that he wants to do.

Sounds like pretty much everone else on this forum, and the majority of the people in the world.

I see this division between training styles as being very similar to the division between religions.....i see them argued with the same faith and fervour.

What people tend to forget about both is that at best we are working off shakey facts, at worst we are working off blind faith.

Interesting discussion, and Dragan has echoed something that gave me pause for thought last night.

The problem of late does seem that we are giving advice to new posters based on absolutes. Someone will come on and say 'I used to go out running three or four times a week for an hour each time and lost a load of fat, that was two years ago and I've piled it on since. I was thinking of going back to that routine and seeing if I can lose the flab again. What do you guys think?'. And then someone, inevitably, will come on and say 'you don't want to do that, steady state cardio for that length of time will have a catabolic effect on the body, breaking down muscle tissue and slowing your metabolism, making it harder for you to lose fat. You may lose weight, but most of it will be muscle, giving you a 'skinny-fat' look'.

Now. Any Joe or Josephine Soap could come to the conclusion that running is not a good way to burn fat, and that they could suddenly, overnight, turn into some sort of long-distance shrinking skeleton. Which is really just BS. OK, let's say they do a LOT of running over quite some time, they will probably lean towards looking like that. But maybe they don't mind! Maybe they are female, and don't have much muscle to lose. Maybe they are just not too bothered about muscle and just want to lose the gut. But, the point is that we really are just complicating the issue - making it sound like running steady state is detrimental and not going to burn fat - which is just plain madness.

And Dragan is right - we are just going on flimsy theories. To take an example, sure, studies have shown that HIIT can be more beneficial than steady-state at fat burning - but these are just studies! You're using the results of some study with about a million different variables as the basis of your approach. For instance, over the weekend I read a very comprehensive and impressive study carried out by some exercise science student on steady state cardio vs HIIT. He had two groups of overweight people and had one doing HIIT for 6 weeks, the other on steady state for 6 weeks. The concluding results were that HIIT resulted in more fat loss. But, wait for it - he didn't put them on any sort of eating plan whatsoever! He had no insight into their food and drink habits over the same period!

They really are just theories.

Lets say, by the prevailing wisdom of this board, HIIT is more effective at burning fat than steady state. If I did 6 hours of steady-state running every week over the next 4 weeks, would I lose more fat than if I did 3 hours of HIIT every week over the next 4 weeks?

Can anyone give me a yes or no answer? Any of the HIIT advocates/general cardio-rubbishers around? Nobody can give me a yes or no answer because the only way to find out would be for me to do the experiment myself, and even then the results could be somewhat skewed by different factors. So, to come on and say HIIT is better than steady state for fat loss, and to beware the slow cardio, as if it is an absolute truth, is to perhaps lose sight of the big picture altogether.

Hanley · 23-01-2008 01:34PM

celestial wrote: »

Interesting discussion, and Dragan has echoed something that gave me pause for thought last night.

The problem of late does seem that we are giving advice to new posters based on absolutes. Someone will come on and say 'I used to go out running three or four times a week for an hour each time and lost a load of fat, that was two years ago and I've piled it on since. I was thinking of going back to that routine and seeing if I can lose the flab again. What do you guys think?'. And then someone, inevitably, will come on and say 'you don't want to do that, steady state cardio for that length of time will have a catabolic effect on the body, breaking down muscle tissue and slowing your metabolism, making it harder for you to lose fat. You may lose weight, but most of it will be muscle, giving you a 'skinny-fat' look'.

Now. Any Joe or Josephine Soap could come to the conclusion that running is not a good way to burn fat, and that they could suddenly, overnight, turn into some sort of long-distance shrinking skeleton. Which is really just BS. OK, let's say they do a LOT of running over quite some time, they will probably lean towards looking like that. But maybe they don't mind! Maybe they are female, and don't have much muscle to lose. Maybe they are just not too bothered about muscle and just want to lose the gut. But, the point is that we really are just complicating the issue - making it sound like running steady state is detrimental and not going to burn fat - which is just plain madness.

And Dragan is right - we are just going on flimsy theories. To take an example, sure, studies have shown that HIIT can be more beneficial than steady-state at fat burning - but these are just studies! You're using the results of some study with about a million different variables as the basis of your approach. For instance, over the weekend I read a very comprehensive and impressive study carried out by some exercise science student on steady state cardio vs HIIT. He had two groups of overweight people and had one doing HIIT for 6 weeks, the other on steady state for 6 weeks. The concluding results were that HIIT resulted in more fat loss. But, wait for it - he didn't put them on any sort of eating plan whatsoever! He had no insight into their food and drink habits over the same period!

They really are just theories.

Lets say, by the prevailing wisdom of this board, HIIT is more effective at burning fat than steady state. If I did 6 hours of steady-state running every week over the next 4 weeks, would I lose more fat than if I did 3 hours of HIIT every week over the next 4 weeks?

Can anyone give me a yes or no answer? Any of the HIIT advocates/general cardio-rubbishers around? Nobody can give me a yes or no answer because the only way to find out would be for me to do the experiment myself, and even then the results could be somewhat skewed by different factors. So, to come on and say HIIT is better than steady state for fat loss, and to beware the slow cardio, as if it is an absolute truth, is to perhaps lose sight of the big picture altogether.

I fully completley agree with the bolded bit. In addition, one of the things that REALLY rags me off is people talking absolutes about things like HIIT being the definitive answer when it clearly is not. Especially when they take issue with something said by someoone else and attempt to rubbish it by quoting studies.

James
-more to come later, but right now I've got bigger fish to fry.

Dragan · 23-01-2008 01:37PM

Hanley wrote: »

I fully completley agree with the bolded bit. In addition, one of the things that REALLY rags me off is people talking absolutes about things like HIIT being the definitive answer when it clearly is not. Especially when they take issue with something said by someoone else and attempt to rubbish it by quoting studies.

Hanley,

at the risk of sounding like a dick there was a time when i seem to recall you believing that Westside Principles were the way to go? I even remember you saying it was a dream to go and train with them?

I might be wrong but i believe for a time you showed a similar faith in something which you later moved on from?

Opinions and ascertations change with knowledge. The simple fact is that whatever we all have faith in now will change in a few years, and again a few years after that.

Hanley · 23-01-2008 01:50PM

Dragan wrote: »

Hanley,

at the risk of sounding like a dick there was a time when i seem to recall you believing that Westside Principles were the way to go? I even remember you saying it was a dream to go and train with them?

I might be wrong but i believe for a time you showed a similar faith in something which you later moved on from?

Opinions and ascertations change with knowledge. The simple fact is that whatever we all have faith in now will change in a few years, and again a few years after that.

It still is a dream to train there. And I don't know if you follow my journal but it's very similar to the westside system. My "max effort" work just isn't in the 90% range all the time but I am rotating the main lifts, at least on bench days.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with westside but at it's heart westside is no more than a heavy day where you strain and a light day where you move medium weight fast. VERY basically. It's a template. That's all it is. The idea of the conjugate system is to develop various different strength attributes simutaneously (that is maxiumu strength, rate of force development and hypertrophy) which is exactly what my training is geared for. So to that end, my training is still reminiscent of a "westside" system. In truth it's a hell of a lot closer than "westside for skinny bast@rds".

My problem with WSFSB and people trying to use the traditional WSBB template is that they generally don't have a clue what they're doing. Hell you've beginners pressing < bodyweight attempting to do "speed" work when they don't even have good form. On the deadlift side I've seen people writing down that they're doing "speed" work with sets of 8 reps. That alone is enoguh to convince me they have absolutely no idea what they're doing.

The Westside system is something that takes ALOT of learning and trial and error to make work for any individual. But there in lies the beauty. It can be made work for nearly everyone. If they actually think for themselves and try to apply the basic principals to suit their own goals. Which is exactly what I've done.

Dragan · 23-01-2008 01:57PM

So basically what your saying is very similar to what Colm says about Crossfit.....what with the whole "it can work for nearly everyone, regardless of goals" thing?

Once again not putting words in your mouth, and sorry for leading the conversation the way i did i just wanted to see what correlations would arise when someone else got passionate about another system.

BossArky · 23-01-2008 01:57PM

You have to remember that this fitness forum is just one of many many fora on boards.ie. Many posters stumble in from After Hours or the likes and are not informed enough to avoid the ritual flamings for asking innocent questions.

Is this forum a truely balanced fitness forum? Not really. There is an obvious emphasis on weight training, not that this is a bad thing for many of the queries raised. The forum could potentially benefit from a name change, or at least change the tagline to "You must have a combined 3 lift total of 3 tonnes before entering this forum". Forums such as Marathon/Triathlon, Running, and Cycling would have more information on getting aerobically fit, which is what most people think of when the term "fitness" pops up.

Many a poster starts their thread with "I want to get fit, but I don't want to turn into Arnie...". Why? Well, the lurker could be forgiven for taking this as a predominatly weight lifting forum, hence the caveat. These anti Arnie (tm) newbie posts bring on the ridicule from experienced lifters and frighten away further anti Arnie (tm) newbs who just want a bit of direction. It may be hard to believe, but some people don't care about shifting massive amounts of weight. They may well have other areas of expertise which don't revolve around fitness or weights. If you went to them asking for their guidance on their specialist topic and they were as ignorant or arrogant in dispensing advice as some posters are here, then you would more than likely avoid them in future. So, is this forum welcoming to newbies? Not really.

If this forum existed as a standalone such as teamtest it would attract a niche audience. Howver, it doesn't which means that the posting quality will always be diluted by riff raff (for want of a better word) drifting in from other forums. Is this a bad thing? No.

This forum makes boards.ie in total better, providing a wide and varied forum list. However, for the same reason boards.ie brings this fitness forum down by giving non fitness gurus from neighbouring boards quick and easy visibility and access to this hallowed turf.

justsomebloke · 23-01-2008 02:00PM

Hanley wrote: »

I don't know Colm, but I imagine he's looking for a return on his investment and isn't just throwing his money down the can. He gets that return by creating interest in the system and picking up members. No doubt one of the ways he does that is by posting here.

But in all honesty quite a few of the regular posters here are in it for the money. Jon of course is probably the stand out one as he has probably been the most blantant one on the board. But you also have Paul from the fitness dock, Boru. and Mickk just to name a few so it is not like Colm is the first to exploit the link between giving advise and trying to build up the custom for his own business game and truthfully he won't be the last either.

Hanley · 23-01-2008 02:01PM

Dragan wrote: »

So basically what your saying is very similar to what Colm says about Crossfit.....what with the whole "it can work for nearly everyone, regardless of goals" thing?

Once again not putting words in your mouth, and sorry for leading the conversation the way i did i just wanted to see what correlations would arise when someone else got passionate about another system.

You do realise there's absolutely no similarities between the two systems right? And there's no point in comparing them since they're so different?

Edit: Another differrence is I give advice across a broad range of spectrums. The majority of which is from a traditional western periodisation stand point, since it's more suitable for beginners. I'm not trying to promote vested interests just because I believe in them, even tho they might be no good for the person asking the question.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 02:11PM

I still don't know what antropometry is?.. (Tracker mortage voice)

-Martin
Confused. Dragan makes me feel old.

justsomebloke · 23-01-2008 02:14PM

BossArky wrote: »

So, is this forum welcoming to newbies? Not really.

should it have to be though? There are many forums on boards that are similar to this that as such wouldn't be welcoming to Noobs (I actually didn't think this forum was that bad to be truthful though).

All forums are created on boards due to the demand of a group of like minded individuals with similar interests who want to discuss the topic. So do you think the forum was created due to a group of people who wanted to just lose a few pounds or people who had a common interest in training and wanted to further their knowledge? So why now should it be changed to cater for the first market who will just piss of after a couple of posts?

Dragan · 23-01-2008 02:15PM

Hanley wrote: »

You do realise there's absolutely no similarities between the two systems right? And there's no point in comparing them since they're so different?

I had managed to work that one out somewhere along the line alright.

And once again, my point was not about system vs system, but about interpretation vs interpretation if you like.

You see the good points of what you do an inform other poeple, answer questions based on it, live your life by it.

So does Colm. So do lots of people.

What lots of people also do is strive to find the differences between systems, so we can all be "doing or own thing" or claiming to be "right" or "better" if you would.

They often fail to see that the main goal if some form of physical improvement and they often fail to realise that not everyone will seek that same manifestation.

This is kind of what happens on this forum a lot, someone needs help so we post the stuff we know...... fortunately we have lots of people who know lots of things....so folk get options to choose from.

This is not a bad thing.

t-ha · 23-01-2008 02:16PM

This is an interesting discussion bandwagon - I'm on!

I'll start with this: "in any organisation run by bean counters, the aim of the organisation ultimately becomes the counting of beans"

I think it's ^^^ meant to be a joke about accountants/sales people/etc. running businesses, but it applies here too. Honestly, wouldn't you find it funny if Hanley came on here and said 'keep a super-strict diet, do loads of reps at moderate weight and don't forget the tricep kickbacks! Make sure to include lots of kettle-bell work too or you won't be teh functional.' or if G'em said 'eat whatever the hell you want and just work it off', or Colm said 'A low fat, high carb diet with MINIMUM 200k run per week is what you need to achieve leaness'. Course you would - you'ld probably assume that they're taking the piss. The point is that people have their own backgrounds, things that have worked for them and training ethos and it's in the nature of a discussion forum that you get the full spectrum.

Mickoo, like you I'm not a fan of dogma and absolutes, actually they're pretty much the only thing I'll take exception to on this board. I.e. I have no problem with someone saying 'IMO chin-ups are better for developing your biceps because...' but I do have a problem with someone saying 'bicep curls do nothing and are a waste of time - and that's science!'. However, you picked an odd moment to chime in with a pretty low comment. Apart from anything else, I don't know what standard you judged Colm with but AFAIK getting massive isn't his top priority and he has competed and won in wrestling/MMA events that require high levels of fitness. I also applaud him on being totally open with his times/lifts etc. The last thing you want on a small fitness forum like this is everyone going around with internet numbers (usually a 3 wheel/side bench, 4 wheel/side squat and 5 wheel/side deadlift).

As for the whole 'importance of diet'/'benefit of supplements' thing - I actually thought most of those discussions on this were pointless and not of much benefit to anyone. Alwyn Cosgrove has talked before about how fitness pendulums swing back and forth - and they're doing ninety over here! Again it's mostly because people consider things only from their own stand-point. I train MMA right now, and don't take any supplements (unless you consider the odd cup of coffee a supplement?), but that's mostly because I don't need to now - it's not like I have 24/7 DOMS these days to worry about like if I was doing bodybuilding training - if I went back to that I would absolutely start taking supplements that I felt helped. My diet is loose enough - again it's because training MMA allows you that leeway. I found that out first-hand when I couldn't train over December and ballooned up in size! AFAIK, bodyfat levels aren't that big a deal in powerlifting as long as you're comfortably making weight come competition time - but if someone wants to get cut (say BF% of about 7 or 8%) then they're going to have a hard time if their diets aren't right.

Celestial, I was one of the first advocates of HIIT for fat loss around here - and it was entirely from personal experience & I was quick enough (if I remember right) to point out that it mightn't be for everyone. I still advocate it as a great way to burn fat if you're fairly fit and able. For getting completely cut it's not so good as (I found) your energy levels and recovery aren't so good as your body fat levels drop really low.

In summary, I think people would do well to be less dogmatic with their responses & offer them in some kind of context (if they are your opinion, experience or something you've read or heard) and to come out of their own training 'box' and consider questions from the perspective of the person asking them. I'd like to think that that is what I try to do when I post & it's pretty much the reason why, while fitness fashions have faded in and out, I'll stand over virtually every post I've made since I arrived on this board.

Edwardius · 23-01-2008 02:22PM

Hanley wrote: »

it has a central leader figure, Greg Glassman, who's word is to be taken as gospel, they post workouts on their site that you have to follow (from what I can see being a good "instructor" is printing it off and shouting at your trainees to get em thru it) AND you have to fly half was around the world and pay money to become "certified". Hmmm.... Nobody else think that's kinda funny??

If you look at any of the crossfit affiliate sites you'll see that the workout of the day differs from the main website most days. The WODs can be tailored and tinkered with by the various coaches and indeed by anyone else in keeping with the "constantly varied" high intensity and "functional" themes. Now I'm sure a lot of powerlifters sneer at the idea of "functional fitness" as being a mere buzzword, but knowing how to do a turkish getup can save your ass on a building site (as happened to a mate of mine). The main reason for choosing a particular program is that it reflects what you plan to do with it. Hanley wants to lift heavy stuff, others run marathons so they train to that end. If you commit something at 100% you'll need to specialise in one particular area and possibly complement with crossfit but from my experience, after a few months, crossfit serves as a great all-round program in terms of agility, balance, coordination, strength, conditioning, and general wellbeing, far more so than when I was running on treadmills and sitting on exercise bikes. It works wonders for the aesthetics also, but that's just a pleasant side effect. It runs deeper than glassman typing a few lines on the main site. The foundations are worth a read:

http://www.crossfit.com/journal/2006/11/foundations.html

Now I have no reason to promote crossfit, neither has the girlfriend or a lot of my crossfitting friends but it we do go on about it, annoyingly, to anyone who'll listen. I'm not associated in any way with Colm, so why would I endorse it? Because it's great fun, gets genuine results, encourages hard work and the community is populated with friendly people trying to help others reach their goals

Pj! · 23-01-2008 02:58PM

BossArky wrote: »

So, is this forum welcoming to newbies? Not really.

Im am a recent newbie to this forum and must say I found it quite helpful and welcoming. I looked for advice and read through the many posts and stickys and came to my own conclusion.
So I recently began the 'Starting Strenght' programme and am enjoying it. Being relatively simply and clear I think its easy to stick to it.

Also meant to be doing cardio but not getting enough of that in.:rolleyes:

Anyways, I rarely have much to add to the discussions on here but do enjoy a read of the new posts every day.

(most useless post ever :rolleyes:)

celestial · 23-01-2008 03:15PM

t-ha wrote: »

This is an interesting discussion bandwagon - I'm on!

I'll start with this: "in any organisation run by bean counters, the aim of the organisation ultimately becomes the counting of beans"

I think it's ^^^ meant to be a joke about accountants/sales people/etc. running businesses, but it applies here too. Honestly, wouldn't you find it funny if Hanley came on here and said 'keep a super-strict diet, do loads of reps at moderate weight and don't forget the tricep kickbacks! Make sure to include lots of kettle-bell work too or you won't be teh functional.' or if G'em said 'eat whatever the hell you want and just work it off', or Colm said 'A low fat, high carb diet with MINIMUM 200k run per week is what you need to achieve leaness'. Course you would - you'ld probably assume that they're taking the piss. The point is that people have their own backgrounds, things that have worked for them and training ethos and it's in the nature of a discussion forum that you get the full spectrum.

Mickoo, like you I'm not a fan of dogma and absolutes, actually they're pretty much the only thing I'll take exception to on this board. I.e. I have no problem with someone saying 'IMO chin-ups are better for developing your biceps because...' but I do have a problem with someone saying 'bicep curls do nothing and are a waste of time - and that's science!'. However, you picked an odd moment to chime in with a pretty low comment. Apart from anything else, I don't know what standard you judged Colm with but AFAIK getting massive isn't his top priority and he has competed and won in wrestling/MMA events that require high levels of fitness. I also applaud him on being totally open with his times/lifts etc. The last thing you want on a small fitness forum like this is everyone going around with internet numbers (usually a 3 wheel/side bench, 4 wheel/side squat and 5 wheel/side deadlift).

As for the whole 'importance of diet'/'benefit of supplements' thing - I actually thought most of those discussions on this were pointless and not of much benefit to anyone. Alwyn Cosgrove has talked before about how fitness pendulums swing back and forth - and they're doing ninety over here! Again it's mostly because people consider things only from their own stand-point. I train MMA right now, and don't take any supplements (unless you consider the odd cup of coffee a supplement?), but that's mostly because I don't need to now - it's not like I have 24/7 DOMS these days to worry about like if I was doing bodybuilding training - if I went back to that I would absolutely start taking supplements that I felt helped. My diet is loose enough - again it's because training MMA allows you that leeway. I found that out first-hand when I couldn't train over December and ballooned up in size! AFAIK, bodyfat levels aren't that big a deal in powerlifting as long as you're comfortably making weight come competition time - but if someone wants to get cut (say BF% of about 7 or 8%) then they're going to have a hard time if their diets aren't right.

Celestial, I was one of the first advocates of HIIT for fat loss around here - and it was entirely from personal experience & I was quick enough (if I remember right) to point out that it mightn't be for everyone. I still advocate it as a great way to burn fat if you're fairly fit and able. For getting completely cut it's not so good as (I found) your energy levels and recovery aren't so good as your body fat levels drop really low.

In summary, I think people would do well to be less dogmatic with their responses & offer them in some kind of context (if they are your opinion, experience or something you've read or heard) and to come out of their own training 'box' and consider questions from the perspective of the person asking them. I'd like to think that that is what I try to do when I post & it's pretty much the reason why, while fitness fashions have faded in and out, I'll stand over virtually every post I've made since I arrived on this board.

I think this is one of the most important points made so far (stickify it in some shape or form?:)

Also, I have to totally disagree that this is not a friendly or welcoming forum - ok we may be a tad more earnest than the frivolous After Hours...:D but you only have to look over the many many New Years' resolution posts over the past month or so to see that good well thought-out advice has been given to all the posters.

BossArky · 23-01-2008 04:40PM

Forky wrote: »

Im am a recent newbie to this forum and must say I found it quite helpful and welcoming.

Forky, sorry to break it to you but you are actually not welcome here. There was a meeting and it was decided to cut the deadwood. The door is over there by the sunglassed smiley >>> :cool:

Of course I jest. My newbie comments come from the vibe I have picked up when checking out this forum on and off from the past 9 years, before many of the current posters were around.

celestial · 23-01-2008 05:20PM

I've actually had a bit of a brainwave coming out of this thread. The topic under debate here could be summed up as 'what I believe to work vs what theory X says works', be it HIIT, XFit, weights, steady-state, etc etc.

How about creating a sub-section where folks can actually provide their own stories/descriptions on what actually worked for them. Simply just I did X for 5 or 6 weeks and I got X results to get my towards my goal of x y and z. For example

'My Fat-Loss programme - I did this for 6 weeks, combined it with this, that and the other to get these results. Discussion could then follow on the specifics.

That way we get to separate the theory of why something might work from what actually worked for different people based on their own individual experiences. We would be able to draw a better distinction between the two and have it as a standalone feature of sorts.

If you're wondering how this is different to Fitness Logs, it gives people the opportunity to say 'this is what I recommend for fat loss/weight gain/endurance/stamina etc etc, based on my personal experience with this approach'.

Just an idea anyway..

Roper · 23-01-2008 05:24PM

Just quickly, and as this has become more or less crossfit against the world.

I like Crossfit in moderation, but I operate in a world where steady state cardio doesn't cut the mustard, and where the pec deck and the bicep curl is of no use.

What I like about CF:
The bodybuilding ethos is fine, but more or less useless for the average person. BBers don't spend hours lifting 20kgs on the bench press machine, they lift savage heavy weights to get their size. But the BBing model has filtered down into a half baked commercial version and is now the one taught to fitness professionals. CF challenges that. That is good.
CF promotes education about the compound movements and lifts. Again, good.

What I don't like about CF:
The cult-like nature and its right wingedness.
The use of CF literature to support CF
The anti-specialisation ethos. Some people have to or want to specialise.
Its dismissal of goals other than CF style of fitness. (ie. size or steady state cardio)

Does that make it wrong or right? no of course not. Just a different way and the fact is that Colm is the first to respond to most newbies and so comes in for more flak when the backlash comes. If you want to disagree, I think the time to do it is in those newbie threads.

One last thing:

Dragan wrote:

Do you think Crossfit paid for Colm's affiliation fee? Do you think they paid for his L1 Cert and Seminar, or his flights to get there, or his hotels rooms and accomadation while he was over there? Nope.

I don't really see what that has to do with anything really. Do we owe Colm a living or is he entitled to promote things just because he spent money on it? I don't think he would argue that he is or that we are. He would probably say that CF stands alone and doesn't require support like that.

Dragan · 23-01-2008 05:28PM

Roper wrote: »

I don't really see what that has to do with anything really. Do we owe Colm a living or is he entitled to promote things just because he spent money on it? I don't think he would argue that he is or that we are. He would probably say that CF stands alone and doesn't require support like that.

*sighs again*

Thats twice in one day now folks.

As i already said to Hanley, my point was not about justifying Colm in what he does. At the end of the day, on this Forum, i don't need to justify what anyone does. I just decide if they can do it or not.

It was about softly implying that maybe Colm's consistantly talking about Crossfit comes from his faith in it, which in my mind he definitely has.

Leon11 · 23-01-2008 05:29PM

What's with all the f ing quotes!!!

At the end of the day most people on here come from different backgrounds and as such will have varying opinions as to what works best for a poster when they ask a question. Given the nature of this forum there will always be conflicting advice from the regular posters given that they have a way of doing things.

The one thing that annoys me slightly is when arguments develop in-thread and scientific terms are bandied about by posters when they have absolutely no relevance to the posters needs. I feel that it detracts from the advice given and can leave the poster confused as to what route to explore in order to achieve whatever goal/aim they have.

On the pro/anti supplements side I honestly believe that they are unneccessary for the majority of your average gym goer. A good proper diet should be adequate enough to meet a persons needs, as often is said here by some of the regulars "get your diet in order first, if your lacking in areas supplement"

The issue of certain posters "pimping" their own business I have no problem with as the majority contribute to the forum, albeit with a vested interest. The one thing that would cause me to disagree with the pimping of services would be that sometimes the poster will be skewed and will discount others contributions because they don't run a fitness business. However that's the trade off you take though for having those individuals give up their time and post advice.

In my case I have learned a lot through debates that occur on this forum and I would have a better general knowledge to various training techniques that I would not have known about had certain individuals brought them up.

As a suggestion would a few stickys with answers to peoples questions not work a treat here. Ie set up a few mock situtions and have posts from various backgrounds to offer advice on different approaches. Then if a newbie has a question about a specific aspect of the approach it can be answered by someone. Would work well I think however it'd probably stem the flow of new posts?

Just my thoughts.

Leon

edit: Celestial already beat me to it

Forum Discussion

Comments