Facebook Comments

9 thoughts on “Sat, Mar 28th”

1. Hey Deirdre I just saw your post from yesterday and I wanted to give you a big congratulations! I know you’ve been working toward that for quite some time.

2. Ok, and I also just watched the video from CF Cincinnatti and had to post something. Most of you know I don’t like CF elitists but that was shocking. Absolutely shocking. (and Bobby if you gave up at two minutes you missed the squatting—in my opinion the crown jewel of the video). Even if the coach didn’t enforce CF standards, there were a lot of participants there. How have none, not one of them, ever watched a video on the mainsite or read a CFJ? Except for the O’Reilly kick off the wall during pull-ups, which of course is totally legit.

   On the flip side, how does AgainFaster reconcile “Athletes often set up a false dichotomy between perfect form and intensity, assuming that as one increases the other must necessarily fall” with the marksman analogy so often touted by CFHQ, most recently in Dave Castro’s video? Why can’t everyone just agree on an answer and give it to me so I can stop this annoying and time consuming ‘critical analysis’ and ‘thinking for myself’?

3. You kinda rambled off there towards the end T-Money, waddupwitdat?

   We have an acceptable level of form breakdown given the intensity of the athlete and workout. This might include the bar not going perfectly overhead in a push press, or a slight lean forward on the dip-drive portion. But lack of range of motion is always a missed rep. End of story.

   What’s more, that video yesterday has got me humming Meatloaf all day.

4. Well done Deidre, you are an inspiration to us girlies. Roll on your aul knees getting better.

   I’m in shock after watching the so called training from the link yesterday. It was absolutley appaling.

5. Ames – 17:37 (5Kg)
   Sarah – 15:00 approx. (5Kg)
   Paul – 16:30 (15Kg)
   Darragh – 13:10 (10kg)
   Tom – 16:58 (15Kg)

   Jason – 12:29 (21-15-9 10Kg)

6. deadlift/burpee workout yesterday as rx’d
   Time:3.10
   Gonna do yesterdays workout today, looking forward to it!!

7. Louise – 14:45 (? weight)
   Sue – 16:05 (5Kg) – (13:05 to beat next time, adjusted for break)
   Pixie – 16:45 (15Kg)
   Big Shane – 18:00 (15Kg)

   Row times
   Tony (Team Old Man) – 7:23.5
   Bobby (Team Wippersnapper) – 7:42.3

8. Colm—you’ve hit right on my question. My read of AgainFaster’s post is that no form degradation is allowed at all, ever (not just partial reps). It’s always perfect form and high intensity as well since the two are not mutually exclusive. But CFI and CFHQ allow some form degradation in exchange for higher intensity because they contend that the two ARE mutually exclusive. So is AgainFaster wrong or did I misunderstand what they were saying?

   And if AgainFaster is wrong, or CFHQ is wrong then that means I have to actually apply some level of thought to things I read rather just accept it all uncritically. And you know how I try to avoid any independent thought.

9. I’m not sure that the againfaster article is implying that no form breakdown is ever allowed, Kyle. Seems to mostly be saying that there’s nothing about bad form that will increase your performance. It’s a by-product of pushing yourself as hard as you can, not something that enables you to push yourself as hard as you can.

   Say you’re doign a rake of pullups, you’ve done 35 perfect ones, you’re not quite sure you’ll be able to get a thirty-sixth, but you give it everything you’ve got anyway and crank out 3 more slightly messy reps where just your chin gets over the bar rather than your whole head. Would you have got 40 if you’d maintained more efficient form? Probably, but you can’t fecking breath, never mind think and co-ordinate complex body mechanics.

   If you (the general you, that is) were a better athelte, your form would be dialled enough that you could maintain higher efficiency for longer, but if you never push yourself to the point that your form starts to break down, how are you going to advance the boundary at which the breakdown occurs?

   Also, parts of that article annoy me. Statements like “An athlete with poor form and an ugly three-minute “Fran” will always have an ugly three-minute “Fran”” are a bit over-zealous. By the standards presented in the article, Greg Amundson’s Fran is “ugly”, so how the hell did the following progression happen:

   3:09 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWslrYQYdG8

   2:50 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0nwx7Q5j-k

   2:37 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVBgKB4Gnsw

   ?