Anyone Believe in Cross-Training?

Nominal_Prospect · July 10, 2008, 9:47am

[quote]Invictica wrote:
In an effort to get this discussion back on track…

Tough question OP. While cross training is pretty much ridculous for Strength Athletes, it may be a different for other atheletes and regular joe blow doing curls in the squat rack.

Let`s start with joe blow. Chances are the guy wants big gunz and hawt abz and benches 50lbs under his claimed max. Crosstraining for this fellow is ridculous. Now if we correct his training, cross training would still be ridculous. A regular guy who wants to look good does not need balance ball work, or dynamic core work and fancy pants stuff. Just good old fashion weights and cardio when the need arises.

Now for extremely dynamic athletes who need to excel at all spectrums of fitness (hockey players, wrestlers, boxers, etc) I believe cross training is beneficial. These atheletes must excel at numerous dynamic movements that only certain types of cross training can train.

Finally, Strength Athletes. Cross training seems to make no sense to me here. Strength Athletes need to be good at their lifts. Thats it. So to get better, they do their lifts. Alot. Or at least some facet of it (Rack jerks, snatch grip DL, front squats, etc.) So crosstraining should only enter this realm for very very specific reasons and at extremely elite levels.

So, like with alot of things, this issue is different for everyone. Can`t really condemn one or the other[/quote]

I see now that this is leading into a semantic debate, having to dissect the meaning of cross training.

As far as I’m concerned, any type of training that’s directly applicable to a sport or activity is a form of specialized training.

If a sport has both strength AND endurance characteristics, then training both of those qualities still counts as “specialized” training for your sport. But that assumes you’re actually training for a sport and not just fucking around.

Cross training, like “functional” training, is somewhat of a meaningless term that is often misused.

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote.

When I think of cross training I think of people who have no special need for aerobic endurance but do aerobics anyways. It is largely a newbie phenomenon. The problem is that some of these people stay newbies for many years. They never learn anything, they never get good at anything. There are lots of them at my gym.

Feel free to post specific examples for analysis. With the Crossfit guys, I see non-Olympic athletes training in the Olympic Lifts. This is unnecessary.

My theory is that you can judge the worth of a training modality by looking at the claims made for it by its proponents.

A worthless training modality will always be marketed as a “one size fits all” solution. In other words, it will be claimed that you can get strong, fast, lean, flexible, and muscular all at the same time.

A legitimate training system will limits its claims of effectiveness to one or two major areas.

That’s how you separate the wheat from the chaff.

[quote]Defekt wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’m still pretty sure I know what the hell I’m talking about. Every person I speak to in the real world is impressed by my knowledge.

you’re cute [/quote]

Quiet, quiet already. Shoo and begone

Defekt · July 10, 2008, 5:57am

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Invictica wrote:
In an effort to get this discussion back on track…

Tough question OP. While cross training is pretty much ridculous for Strength Athletes, it may be a different for other atheletes and regular joe blow doing curls in the squat rack.

Let`s start with joe blow. Chances are the guy wants big gunz and hawt abz and benches 50lbs under his claimed max. Crosstraining for this fellow is ridculous. Now if we correct his training, cross training would still be ridculous. A regular guy who wants to look good does not need balance ball work, or dynamic core work and fancy pants stuff. Just good old fashion weights and cardio when the need arises.

Now for extremely dynamic athletes who need to excel at all spectrums of fitness (hockey players, wrestlers, boxers, etc) I believe cross training is beneficial. These atheletes must excel at numerous dynamic movements that only certain types of cross training can train.

Finally, Strength Athletes. Cross training seems to make no sense to me here. Strength Athletes need to be good at their lifts. Thats it. So to get better, they do their lifts. Alot. Or at least some facet of it (Rack jerks, snatch grip DL, front squats, etc.) So crosstraining should only enter this realm for very very specific reasons and at extremely elite levels.

So, like with alot of things, this issue is different for everyone. Can`t really condemn one or the other

I see now that this is leading into a semantic debate, having to dissect the meaning of cross training.

As far as I’m concerned, any type of training that’s directly applicable to a sport or activity is a form of specialized training.

If a sport has both strength AND endurance characteristics, then training both of those qualities still counts as “specialized” training for your sport. But that assumes you’re actually training for a sport and not just fucking around.

Cross training, like “functional” training, is somewhat of a meaningless term that is often misused.

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote.

When I think of cross training I think of people who have no special need for aerobic endurance but do aerobics anyways. It is largely a newbie phenomenon. The problem is that some of these people stay newbies for many years. They never learn anything, they never get good at anything. There are lots of them at my gym.

Feel free to post specific examples for analysis. With the Crossfit guys, I see non-Olympic athletes training in the Olympic Lifts. This is unnecessary.

My theory is that you can judge the worth of a training modality by looking at the claims made for it by its proponents.

A worthless training modality will always be marketed as a “one size fits all” solution. In other words, it will be claimed that you can get strong, fast, lean, flexible, and muscular all at the same time.

A legitimate training system will limits its claims of effectiveness to one or two major areas.

That’s how you separate the wheat from the chaff.

Defekt wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’m still pretty sure I know what the hell I’m talking about. Every person I speak to in the real world is impressed by my knowledge.

you’re cute

Quiet, quiet already. Shoo and begone[/quote]

I dont understand why anyone would listen to you about anything when you A. are disputing everything that makes sense and B. have no results to show that your methods work

countless other people have made many more gains than you have doing things differently, have you ever considered that youre wrong, and should just shut up and lift for a while? instead of trying to convince everyone that youre right?

i’ve stopped reading your posts its paragraph after paragraph of blowhard stupidity

Zap_Branigan · July 10, 2008, 11:17am

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You need to get off the internet put some real weight on the bar and start to eat.

On a calorie-per-lb. basis, I eat as much or more than most 250 lb. athletes.

24kcals/lb. Do the math. You do not need to know how much I weigh.

You are an idiot.

You are a degenerate.[/quote]

Thanks.

Zap_Branigan · July 10, 2008, 11:23am

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…

I can tell you that real people don’t squat more than 250 or bench more than 225. …[/quote]

I am a battered 41 year old with a runners build, not at all genetically gifted for weight training. I move much more weight than that. So do lot sof other people. You need to STFU and train hard and learn and not think you have it all figured out.

You really are kidding yourself.

gi2eg · July 10, 2008, 12:17pm

this is one of many people who cross-train and are much more beast than you are ever going to be if you don’t change your attitude:

http://games.crossfit.com/athletes/athlete-profile-josh-everett.html#more

bretcharles · July 10, 2008, 4:01pm

The OP’s problem is that he assumes that all anyone does, or should, care about is looking good (which means something different to everyone). Then, he assumes that his methods are the only/best way to achieve this “good” look. Then he posts a picture of some scrawny dude in a speedo and claims this is the “good” look.

OK. Not everyone trains for looks. Talk to Coach Rippetoe about your theories. Physical strength and health is the most important thing in this life, and very well could be the difference between being able to wipe your own arse when you are 80 and living in a nursing home. Isolation and exhaustion will not teach your body how to move properly along multiple planes. It will simply make your body good at moving in a simple, controlled plane of motion that has no natural analog in the real world. And it will ruin your joints. But that is a long way off, especially for pretty boys who want to look like they lift weights (as long as their clothing is “form fitting”).

You obviously do not do anything physically demanding in your life, or else you’d understand the value of the squat, deadlift, press, etc. Try farming, firefighting, military, being a cop, working construction. Your “pump” really doesn’t matter in these fields, although your ability to put someone up on your shoulder and haul arse might save a life.

You really come off as obnoxious, effeminate, and shallow. You have some knowledge, just enough to be dangerous and insistent, but not nearly enough to realize that you are not necessarily correct (you would need a little wisdom and the ability to look at things from a different perspective). Read Thibs’ article from today…I bet you’d see monster gains in your own physique/performance if you shifted your training, which it sounds like you are stuck on, from isolation and exhaustion to real barbell training for a few months. There is no one program, one panacea, for aesthetics or performance. It requires constant hard work, dedication (to diet as well), and constant variation in programming, especially once someone is past the newbie stage.

The reason Crossfitters train Olympic lifts is because they want to improve their explosiveness, their vertical leap, their conditioning, their ability to take something from the floor to overhead lockout. Makes perfect sense to me. Not to mention the insane trap development that occurs, for those who care about that kind of thing.

Nominal_Prospect · July 10, 2008, 7:12pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
…

I can tell you that real people don’t squat more than 250 or bench more than 225. …

I am a battered 41 year old with a runners build, not at all genetically gifted for weight training. I move much more weight than that. So do lot sof other people. You need to STFU and train hard and learn and not think you have it all figured out.

You really are kidding yourself.[/quote]

You act as if I said it was impossible for anyone who doesn’t look like Mike Miller to squat more than 300. I never said that. I’ve seen the Youtube videos of average looking guys lifting heavy.

All I’m saying is that the majority of people at real gyms don’t train that way. A 250 squat IS considered pretty heavy in the real world. You are the one who is kidding yourself.

Everyone knows that E-lifting stats are a joke. Every time a strength coach gets interviewed, they all say the same thing: Nobody lifts as heavy in real life as they claim to online. The net is the place for talking trash.

I absolutely guarantee you that Alwyn Cosgrove and Mike Boyle are working with 200 lbs. or less far more often than 300+ lbs. in training.

[quote]gi2eg wrote:
this is one of many people who cross-train and are much more beast than you are ever going to be if you don’t change your attitude:

http://games.crossfit.com/athletes/athlete-profile-josh-everett.html#more
[/quote]

Wow, another short guy? You could have at least posted one of the 6’2, 240 lb. football guys that train with them. Then you might actually have a point.

The guy in those pics is muscular but he doesn’t look like a bodybuilder. However, I’m quite sure the difference is lost on you. I train for a certain look. Everybody works with what they have. Naturally lean guys like me go for the athletic look, while naturally short guys go for the stocky, muscular look.

Nominal_Prospect · July 10, 2008, 7:21pm

[quote]bretcharles wrote:
The OP’s problem is that he assumes that all anyone does, or should, care about is looking good (which means something different to everyone).[/quote]

No, not everyone. Just the majority of people in corporate gyms who have no clearly defined goals and no real training system.

[quote]bretcharles wrote:
Then, he assumes that his methods are the only/best way to achieve this “good” look. Then he posts a picture of some scrawny dude in a speedo and claims this is the “good” look.[/quote]

Bodybuilding methods are the best way for ANYONE to attain hypertrophy, as powerlifting methods are the best way for ANYONE to move more weight in the big three. If you disagree with such basic facts, you are completely hopeless and not worth my time.

[quote]bretcharles wrote:
OK. Not everyone trains for looks. Talk to Coach Rippetoe about your theories. Physical strength and health is the most important thing in this life, and very well could be the difference between being able to wipe your own arse when you are 80 and living in a nursing home.[/quote]

There is absolutely NO reason why a basic level of proficiency in the areas of strength, endurance, and flexibility cannot be obtained on a bodybuilding style routine.

On average, bodybuilders ARE more flexible and athletic than powerlifters. Mr. Olympia can do a split. Ed Coan can’t.

[quote]bretcharles wrote:
Isolation and exhaustion will not teach your body how to move properly along multiple planes. It will simply make your body good at moving in a simple, controlled plane of motion that has no natural analog in the real world. And it will ruin your joints.[/quote]

Isolation training develops unparalleled neuromuscular control. It is extremely functional, but that’s another argument. My joints have never felt better since ditching free weights and switching to machines with restricted ROM. My joints and tendons used to hurt all the time.

[quote]bretcharles wrote:
You obviously do not do anything physically demanding in your life, or else you’d understand the value of the squat, deadlift, press, etc. Try farming, firefighting, military, being a cop, working construction. Your “pump” really doesn’t matter in these fields, although your ability to put someone up on your shoulder and haul arse might save a life.[/quote]

You think I don’t get it but actually, you don’t get it.

I don’t care how physical your job is - it doesn’t take the strength of a 600 lb. squat. It may take the strength of a 200 lb. squat repeated a dozen times - that’s perfectly conceivable.

Powerlifting isn’t applicable to real world strength. The weight is simply too heavy, far and above anything that you would ever encounter in a real situation.
Olympic Lifting isn’t applicable to real world strength. The technique used on the lifts is so highly specialized that it has no viable carryover to real life situations.

Compound lifts are applicable to real world strength, but only when performed for reps with light to moderate weight, or even bodyweight.

Bodyweight squats are a LOT more functional than a 650 lb. squat max.

A guy who can crank out 20 BW squats can move like lightning, while the guy with the 650 max is a fat guy who can barely walk.

I am RIGHT and you do not get it. I know how to train Army, Police, and Firefighters, and I have done so in the past.

You don’t have a guy doing squats with 350 or more. You have him do BW squats with a weighted vest, at the most. These guys cannot afford to specialize in one area. Specializing in strength would be no less detrimental to them than training like a bodybuilder.

There is no need for one athlete to EVER adopt a new training methodology. I think that mentality is garbage.

You do not plateau, your body does not become “used” to the program if you know what the hell you’re doing. I never do the same lift twice. There are dozens of tiny variables and each one of them can be altered.

I will never try powerlifting or Olympic lifting because I already have and it sucked horrendously for hypertrophy. There is absolutely no reason for me to go back to it, so long as hypertrophy remains my primary goal.

Airtruth · July 10, 2008, 7:35pm

You should post a video of yourself, your pictures, posing, how much you love yourself, training advice, nutritional advice and your philosphy of life.

Zap_Branigan · July 10, 2008, 7:50pm

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
…

I can tell you that real people don’t squat more than 250 or bench more than 225. …

I am a battered 41 year old with a runners build, not at all genetically gifted for weight training. I move much more weight than that. So do lot sof other people. You need to STFU and train hard and learn and not think you have it all figured out.

You really are kidding yourself.

You act as if I said it was impossible for anyone who doesn’t look like Mike Miller to squat more than 300. I never said that. I’ve seen the Youtube videos of average looking guys lifting heavy.

All I’m saying is that the majority of people at real gyms don’t train that way. A 250 squat IS considered pretty heavy in the real world. You are the one who is kidding yourself.
[/quote]

This is a group of people that are supposed to be serious about weight training. We are not average people even though we may not be genetically elite.

250 pounds is not much weight. If you think it is you are a rank beginner and should not be giving advice. If you struggle with that you need to master it.

Of course many people lie about their numbers but the fact you don’t know 225 or 250 is a light squat means you don’t know much about training.

Boyle likely doesn’t back squat at all. He is a proponent of front squats and split squats for athletes. Cosgrove is a cancer survivor and I have no idea what either of them squat but I have no doubt they could go north of 300 for work sets even though they are both skinny guys.

Why you you pick these guys as an example anyway? They are not bodybuilding coaches. They coach athletes and people that want to get in shape. They cross train

Nominal_Prospect · July 10, 2008, 7:51pm

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
You should post a video of yourself, your pictures, posing, how much you love yourself, training advice, nutritional advice and your philosphy of life.[/quote]

Why would I do that?

Just accept the fact that I’m right.

I’m not the king of the world, I’m not extremely muscular, but at least I’m right in a discussion on an internet forum. That must count for something.

Nominal_Prospect · July 10, 2008, 7:52pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Boyle likely doesn’t back squat at all. He is a proponent of front squats and split squats for athletes. Cosgrove is a cancer survivor and I have no idea what either of them squat but I have no doubt they could go north of 300 for work sets even though they are both skinny guys.

Why you you pick these guys as an example anyway? They are not bodybuilding coaches. They coach athletes and people that want to get in shape. They cross train [/quote]

I was talking about how much they use with their clients, not how heavy they are capable of lifting themselves. I’m aware that Boyle doesn’t use back squats.

By the way, I have coached athletes and people who wanted to get in shape.

Zap_Branigan · July 10, 2008, 7:58pm

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Boyle likely doesn’t back squat at all. He is a proponent of front squats and split squats for athletes. Cosgrove is a cancer survivor and I have no idea what either of them squat but I have no doubt they could go north of 300 for work sets even though they are both skinny guys.

Why you you pick these guys as an example anyway? They are not bodybuilding coaches. They coach athletes and people that want to get in shape. They cross train

I was talking about how much they use with their clients, not how heavy they are capable of lifting themselves. I’m aware that Boyle doesn’t use back squats.

By the way, I have coached athletes and people who wanted to get in shape.[/quote]

Wait, these guys cross train their clients. They do not put their clients through machine based isolation workouts. Why do you point to them? They do not support your argument in the least.

They use barbell, dumbbell and bodyweight compound movements! The exact opposite of what you propose.

Mike Boyle says front squat, you say leg extension.

bretcharles · July 10, 2008, 8:17pm

Wow, you are confused. But I guess I am too. I am mostly a crossfitter…not a powerlifter, although I do more strength work than crossfit calls for. And we do oly-lifts for reps with light weight all the time (hooray, hypertrophy!).

And heavy squats. And bodyweight squats for reps. And everything in between that does not involve a machine. Because machines, despite your repeated statements, are not functional. There is no real life analog.

You are right about something, however…the functional vs. non-functional is a debate for another time. Although your statement that Oly-lifting has no carryover betrays your ignorance (either about Oly-lifting or real life).

As for isolation developing muscular control, maybe it does. On one plane of controlled motion. No real life analog, case closed. The body was built to move and work in unison on multiple planes.

I do disagree with the facts you assert as universal. Sorry, pal, people are different, and some respond differently to different kinds of work. If you do not understand that, you are really not worth my time.

I know people who increased their big three more by crossfitting than through powerlifting training. And I know people, like myself, who respond better to powerlifting training in terms of increasing strength.

Fitness involves far more than strength, endurance and flexibility, although those are all important. Crossfit will develop those aspects, as well as all others (including balance, power, etc.) far better than a bodybuilding program will, and with better physique results, given the same diet and basic genetic makeup.

The people on this forum are generally not the people you are talking about. We have a goal to go beyond the basic. We don’t want to look like scrawny weaklings, nor do we wish to be scrawny weaklings.

You look like a scrawny weakling, and I am guessing you lift like one. You can coach your trainees to mediocrity and non-function, but that is not something I want a part of. If thats all your trainees want, and you seem to believe that it is, go to town and steal their money.

No, you really don’t get it. A 600 lb squat will make the 20 x 200# squat easier. You think you understand metabloic pathways and neurology, but you don’t, because its clear you have never been strong. Also, if you are all about hypertrophy, why are you so scrawny? Seriously.

Really, though, looking forward to you becoming a contrinutor on T-Nation really soon. :-/ I’m sure that’s realistic, given the depth and breadth of your knowledge. Basically, you are saying that Thibs’ article today is wrong, but you know better. Drugs are bad, m’kay?

As for being in better shape than people on this forum, I’d love to put that to the test. How about a 1RM squat, deadlift, press, 400M dash, 500M row, 5k run, max pullup contest? We could videotape it.

Hell, I’ll even throw you a bone and include a cable crossover or preacher curl event, although those things are often merely indicative of how much wasted time one has spent in a gym.

RWElder0 · July 10, 2008, 8:25pm

[quote]bretcharles wrote:
Wow, you are confused. But I guess I am too. I am mostly a crossfitter…not a powerlifter, although I do more strength work than crossfit calls for.

And we do oly-lifts for reps with light weight all the time (hooray, hypertrophy!). And heavy squats. And bodyweight squats for reps. And everything in between that does not involve a machine.

Because machines, despite your repeated statements, are not functional. There is no real life analog. You are right about something, however…the functional vs. non-functional is a debate for another time. Although your statement that Oly-lifting has no carryover betrays your ignorance (either about Oly-lifting or real life).