Intensity/ Power to be calculated across a SET v/s the ENTIRE WOD

[youfixallimnot]

Hello

Hoping to get responses from the senior coaches here. Also, geeks in exercise science please chime in. (I'm in the latter camp. In CF, I just have a Level 1 certificate)

I understand CrossFit's correlation of Intensity to Power output. That was smart and very objective. However the problem I am having is:

1. When we take the entire WOD time to do the calculations, it does not take into account that we are not single energy system engines but rather organic beings going through various energy systems. (For the sake of this discussion shall we settle on these 3 terms: Ready available ATP, CP vs Anaerobic glycolytic vs Aerobic ?)
2. So after the 1st few full speed reps in the ready made ATP + phosphocreatine zone, I go into the glycolytic zone which PHYSIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING reduces my power output. In college we typically teach about the 1st block of 10-12 seconds vs what happens post that to another 2-3 minutes. The Sprint vs the run.
3. Assuming maximal power output is my focus: Do a set, rest for 3-5 mins, next set. I could then use only the time per set for my calculations. I could even average my Power for a lift for that workout. Wouldn't taking the duration of a single set be a better indicator of my Power?
4. The problem I'm currently having with using the entire WOD timing is, it detracts from maximal power output and hence reduces muscle recruitment. This unfortunately limits the amount of muscle mass I can stimulate and grow.
5. While from the viewpoint of broader fitness and thinking of the body as a single unit and all the components rolled into one, maybe CrossFit's plan makes sense? Did I just end up answering my own Q? In the CF1 textbook, it does say "blur the distinction between strength and cardio for the simple reason that nature does not make that distinction.” Paraphrasing, not quoting. Is this the reason why the Power output is calculated across broad WOD time?
6. Assuming, point 6 is on spot: what if I also have a Strength Training/ Body building bias? In that case makes sense for me to calculate the strength part of the workout as I mentioned vs using entire WOD duration to calculate Power of metcons?

 

[abr1234]

@youfixallimnot You could hook someone up to a machine that measures electromyography.

Or

Have someone wear a mask to measure VO2 then do something to measure incurrence of VT 1 and 2.

I don’t know, man. Most wods and strength are gonna be CP and glycolysis with a “sprinkle” of beta oxidation (RER). Power output might not be the best indicator of adaptation in the CF sense compared to VT 1/2.

CrossFit will def handle glycolysis. It’s not a perfect system; one will need dedicated training to CP and lipolysis systems. JUST measuring power in the sense of fiber recruitment (electromyography) seems too difficult for a CF WOD compared to a single lift, jump, throw, or sprint.

 

[nonamend]

@youfixallimnot Drawing lines against something that is fluid is tough to do. Its where the art in the programming comes into play.

That's why broad generalization of time domains AND lifting vs non-lifting days are both included.

 

[sismissy]

@youfixallimnot Part of the issue here is that your 2nd point is based on a fundamentally flawed view of bioenergetics. All energy systems are working together at all times to generate the required ATP. The way that they’re taught at the undergraduate level (10-12sec for CP / etc) is an oversimplification of energy system physiology designed to make it easy to understand. The contribution of each energy system changes based on the power demand / rate of oxygen utilization in the tissue, the oxygen available to the local tissues, and the delivery of blood / oxygen to the tissues.

Point-3: If maximal power output is your focus, then turning CF workouts into intervals will give you a higher avg power per round. The additional rest will absolutely allow for greater total power output across 5 rounds vs 5 sets with 1:1 work to rest. The thing to consider here is are you looking to improve your ability to SUSTAIN high power outputs (required for CF performance) or build your maximal power output… the method you select for those 2x goals would be different.

Point-4 - I don’t understand this point. Why would you use CF metocns as a tool for hypertrophy? There are many methods that are vastly superior than for-time CrossFit…

Point-5 - yes generally CF takes a holistic performance view of fitness rather than a “systems” physiology view. This tends to be a good system for working with the masses as it is accessible and measurable (performance that is).

 

[youfixallimnot]

@sismissy

Part of the issue here is that your 2nd point is based on a fundamentally flawed view of bioenergetics. All energy systems are working together at all times to generate the required ATP. The way that they’re taught at the undergraduate level (10-12sec for CP / etc) is an oversimplification of energy system

Yep! My mistake.

Point-3: If maximal power output is your focus, .... The thing to consider here is are you looking to improve your ability to SUSTAIN high power outputs (required for CF performance) or build your maximal power output… the method you select for those 2x goals would be different.

Got it. I was confusing my former training with this new system. Over there it was to build maximal output. Now I need to learn to sustain it. One burst of Power vs Power endurance

Point-4 - I don’t understand this point. Why would you use CF metocns as a tool for hypertrophy? There are many methods that are vastly superior than for-time CrossFit…

Yes..yes..
As I'm reading and listening more, this point is becoming more evident. The way Bozeman says for eg- to respect the heavy days. For some reason I was thinking of CF as only metcons.

Point-5 - yes generally CF takes a holistic performance view of fitness rather than a “systems” physiology view. This tends to be a good system for working with the masses as it is accessible and measurable (performance that is).

The more I think of it, the more Glassman's intelligence comes through.

Thank you!

 

[mbahchidinma]

@youfixallimnot So, this sort of thing happens occasionally. Some nerd does CF and starts trying to analyze / quantify CF. They read the original CF explanations and definitions and maybe even get a L1.

Energetics, intensity, power, all the shit they learned in school and finally a real world example...

Before long they hit the wall and realize there is nothing there. Greg just made it all up. There are no 10 general physical principles, there is no sickness / wellness / fitness continuum, it's all bullshit to sell certs in which you learn verbal cueing, which is a great way to interrupt learning. All of it is bullshit. CF conveys no unique physiological benefits; its leaderboard placements are no more - or less - analytically insightful than splat points in Orange Theory.

CF is just fun, nothing more. And it's loads of fun! Classes are great.

Sounds like you're in that process now. See ya on the other side.

 

[neowatchman]

@mbahchidinma Glassman made the point CrossFit isn't about becoming better at any one sport but becoming healthier. If Glassman made up a lot of that information, then other sources have adopted them. Nothing Glassman has said wasn't already prior knowledge. Except for his definition of fitness, at least as far as I can tell, compared to what I learned when getting my degree.

What I think falls on deaf ears is that Glassman never set out for CrossFit to be a fitness regimen that will make you stronger, faster, or perform better than everyone else. He did claim it will make you fitter than others who don't do anything, or only lift weights or run or calisthenics. Although if you do all those things separately you can become just as fit, it just takes more time out of your day. He just combined different variations of fitness into one workout so you develop a better overall healthy lifestyle. Most people throughout their daily lives don't lift heavy objects, move their body weight around efficiently, or do sustained efforts of cardio.

 

[mbahchidinma]

@neowatchman if the definition of fitness is made up

everything which follows is made up

it's just exercise. a fun stye of exercise. every other claim to legitimacy or superiority is bogus.

 

[youfixallimnot]

@mbahchidinma

there is nothing there. Greg just made it all up. There are no 10 general physical principles,

There really are components of Fitness. Depending on your goal, who you are serving, what all facilities you have- you could take only 3 components (Endurance, Strength, Mobility for the lay person who is very limited in resources time) to 5...8..10..12 components. (Cue in the difference between Strength & Power. That's not made up. If you are into dealing with pathology- add in Vestibular fitness, Balance, Co-ordination etc).

there is no sickness / wellness / fitness continuum, it's

An older person who has a good lipid profile, good sugar levels (just random eg.) is Healthy. If he can't play with his grandkids, he's Healthy & Unfit.

An athlete on PEDs suffering from High BP is Unhealthy & Fit.

So yes, I do agree with CrossFit here. What's different between CrossFit and other organizations is that CF puts it as a continuum, others bifurcated it. Both approaches work.

CF conveys no unique physiological benefits;

As far as comparing CF to other types of Exercise is concerned, well again - combining diff modalities, from absolute strength from barbells to relative strength from Gymnastics..so many benefits.
It's not the only one,
It's not the first.
Sandow, the original bodybuilder was multi-talented!

But I don't think Glassman claimed to be the 1st (if he did, that's wrong of him). I do credit Glassman for bringing it to the masses in a very well packaged box!