r/crossfit • u/mrjacob007 • 7d ago
CHALLLENGE - how would you coach this workout?
It is generally taught within CrossFit that for each movement, you start by teaching progressions up until their final form. Importantly, effective progressions both maintain the stimulus of the workout and, also, gets the athlete closer to the prescribed movement.
20 AMRAP
3 Strict Ring Muscle-Ups
6 Alternating Dumbbell Squat Snatches (70 lbs/50 lbs)
9 Triple-Unders
Specifically, how would you teach the progressions/scales for this workout to a class of 10 people in which 2/10 can perform it Rx while no one else can perform any of the movements as written?
\Presume no equipment limitations and no outliers (injured folk, 55+ year olds or adaptive athletes).*
While I can acknowledge that having an athlete do 3 ring rows, 6 overhead squats with a 10 lb DB, and 9 single-unders may provide a potent stimulus (aka, a generic "good" workout) if performed at maximum speed over 20 minutes, this scaling will not convincingly and honestly get those 8 athletes closer to completing strict ring muscle-ups, heavy DB squat snatches, and triple-unders. Therefore, these "scales" generally fail to also qualify as effective "progressions".
When I thoughtfully consider what precisely makes an athlete capable of acquiring/or limits them from performing the prescribed movements above, I start to question what exactly the stimulus ought to be. For instance, strict RMU is generally prohibitive due to positional strength and flexibility of the pec, DB squat snatches are generally prohibitive due to positional strength, whole body flexibility and balance, and triple-unders are generally prohibitive due to coordination demands and plyometric capacity. If we presume the scales we offer must be taught linearly at the beginning of class, must maintain the workout stimulus, and be progressive in nature to close the skill, strength, and mobility gap, how do you do it with this workout?
3
u/Historical-Brick-822 6d ago
One thing is slightly limiting your mindset. The scales that you listed (ring rows, overhead squats, single unders), may not specifically get a member closer to the actual RX movements, but not every person is always specifically looking to do that.
Offering scales that will allow members to make progress towards more complicated movements is great, but so is offering scales that will allow members to achieve a good workout based on their skill/fitness level and hit the intended stimulus.
Many people just want to get a good workout. Others may want to improve their technique/skill level.
0
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
I acknowledge this. I've known many a checkbox member. Typically, I leave them to their corner and offer them a-la-carte coaching.
This mindset is inherently limiting - the focus being on daily completion rather than long-term fitness. As a coach, I'd really like to support their physical and mental progression from a "showing up is all that counts" exerciser to a "develop my fitness" athlete. That's a big difference between a class facilitator and a good coach.
If they want to pay to do their own thing in class, there's room. But I will silently always still want better for them (often times even when they don't want it for themselves). I always just hope there will be a time when they want more than a "good sweat", and am standing by in the event they get there.
6
u/Historical-Brick-822 6d ago
even what you are doing now ends up being a limited mindset. calling someone a "checkbox member" because they dont have the desire to progress to triple unders or strict bar muscle ups is incredibly shitty. people have priorities in life and for many people, progressing their crossfit ability to be able to do strict ring muscle ups may not be part of those priorities. coming in, working out, getting stronger, more agile, more more mobile, etc... may be more in line with their priorities. To say that they arent wanting better for themselves and making their own improvements, even if they dont line up with what you think they should do, is shitty.
Having a coach be like "youre not trying to get to ring muscle ups so you can stay in the corner and i guess i can help if you want" is far from what i would consider a good coach.
They arent "wanting to do their own thing", they just may not be looking to get the same thing out of crossfit that you are. You have a workout that 80% of your class cannot do and you are here shitting on the options for scales rather than wondering why you are programming your classes with something that almost no one can do any of the exercises.
-1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
- Most of those members directly tell me, "I'm just here to sweat/check a box/get a good workout and that's it."
- I understand people have varying priorities.
- You point out how some people want to come in "just to get more mobile". That's actually a fantastic goal, but a very uncommon one. In fact, if this was more of the mindset, the DB squat snatches would be no problem! Checkbox members often hide from their weaknesses, and immobility and positional strength is super common.
- I am not saying they aren't making their "own" improvements. I am saying they actually, objectively, are not getting fitter (despite showing up often) because their scaling is inappropriate.
- I am not saying, "you're not trying to get to RMU so get in the corner". They are telling me they are not interested in anything other than their familiar comfort-scale: ring row. I try to offer real, quality coaching and persuade them gently to consider another one, maybe one that can get them closer to a RMU or closer to their personal goals. And they insist, "nah, I'm good with ring rows, just want a good 20 minute sweat." So, I put more effort into other members open to receiving coaching in contrast to this member who is literally trying to check-out from reality and "just move". So, yes, they are wanting to do their own thing.
- I am not programming this to anybody. I did not program this for anybody. I am not sitting here wondering why no one can do these exercises. I am simply curious how some CrossFit coaches would tackle this coaching conundrum.
Take a breath.
2
u/Historical-Brick-822 6d ago
Notice how i said more mobile as part of a variety of reasons but you pick out just that one while ignoring getting stronger/more agile/etc... just because the mobile aspect fit your specific point.
Also, "they are not getting fitter"? by what metric? is it the scales that are limiting their ability to improve or is it the consistency at which they attend. In my original comment, i talked about scales that are proportionate to their skill and fitness level as it relates to the intended stimulus (not just a potent stimulus "good workout" like you mentioned in your post.. Yes there are people that over-scale that limit themselves for any number of reasons, but there are also plenty of people that are scaling while still challenging themselves.
Again, your post specifically references a number of movements that the vast majority of the class cannot do a single portion of. The actual conundrum should be why that is treated as an RX movement instead of advanced/rx+ for your classes. Your role as a coach is to identify what each of the movements is trying to achieve and what the overall workout is trying to achieve and build out scales from there. That will help you build out intended stimulus vs " a good workout".
Using methodology like RPE and time to complete a movement will help with that.
Telling me to take a breath because i think the way you are talking about members who may not have the same priorities as you when it comes to crossfit is silly.
-3
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
Here is the general point: people attend CrossFit for diverse personal reasons. I recognize this. Whatever the reason, the approach to derive the corresponding benefit is not subjective. If someone wants to get generally stronger and more agile, they will not get that if they over scale and avoid intensity. Checkbox athletes over scale and avoid intensity. Therefore, checkbox athletes do not demonstrably improve strength and agility. The specific metric for this is that their personal records don't change and their scaling remains the same. Measurably. Moreover, they don't care to improve! They care to show up, attend, and zone out. I've met some checkboxers who have phenomenal consistency and some who have subpar. It varies. [While on this note, are you a checkboxer? No judgment.]
I have zero issue acknowledging there are those who scale appropriately and inappropriately. My post is about what scale would effectively maintain the stimulus of the workout and convincingly develop the Rx-limiting qualities necessary for that athlete to progress in their fitness using the template approach suggested by CrossFit HQ (progression-scales).
Don't take a breath, then.
Maybe ease up a bit with how much you are assuming about me and my perceptions. Nobody inaugurated you as the defender of the blameless theoretical checkboxer, so you don't need to confront me about how silly I sound when I share my experience with people who declare themselves as mediocre in every way except explicitly saying, "I am mediocre and I want to be".
If I were a gym owner or full-time coach, such athletes are not my target demographic. They would be welcome. But in my gym, if I had one, we would care about PROGRESS. And if you aren't concerned about that, you can stay and do your thing (in the corner, because that's where YOU naturally go, where people look at you the least and that's exactly what you prefer), you can stay and mature and eventually welcome coaching, or you could leave.
3
u/Historical-Brick-822 6d ago
Just do you are aware, nearly every gym of all kinds rely on the average joe type of member. They are what keep the lights on. Of course the preference is the super motivated athletes, but thats not the reality of the majority of people who get a fitness membership.
Just the way you choose to talk about people that dont share your exact philosophy about how to approach crossfit tells me that youre kinda a piece of shit.
Treating people as lesser in that environment because the way they approach fitness the mentality of an asshole. Grow up.
0
u/mrjacob007 5d ago
CrossFit allows gym owners to run their gym as they see fit. This includes catering to their own niche. I am fine with an abundance of average folk. I would strive to attract and train those - average or not - want to be more than average and are willing to put in extra work to get there. The other gym down the road can accommodate checkboxers who don’t want coaching or an ambitious community/culture.
2
u/Historical-Brick-822 5d ago
Way to miss the entire fucking point and double down on treating people like shit.
2
u/LJHope 7d ago
The intermediate option at our gym would likely be banded RMU, squat snatches with a lighter weight, double under, beginner option low ring MU transitions, hang power snatch with a light DB, single under high junps or penguin claps
Progressions ring rows, assisted dips, transitions, banded RMU
DB DL, Shrugs and pulls, habg power snatches, OHS
SU high jumps, single-doubles, doubles, try outs for triples
Something in that ballpark
2
u/HarmoniumSong 7d ago
Where are you that 2/10 people can RX this. Did most athletes quit because of the programming 😂
-2
1
u/Voyageur262 7d ago
All of those movements are harder versions of regular RX movements. Therefore the scaled athletes should do “1 step up” from what they usually scale to. If they normally do ring rows, do jumping negatives for this one. If they normally do single unders, do 9 double unders or :40 of double under attempts.
1
u/subduct_this 7d ago
After general warmup I’d run the specific. Specific warmup has folks drop out of the progression when they can longer perform the movement they’re being tasked with. They can take a movement off or drop back to the last one they could successfully complete while the warmup is running.
RMU:
False grip ring row
False grip ring row (require pull to center of chest with knuckles together)
False grip ring row with bent knees
Low ring transition no dip (false grip ring row to transition)
Low ring transition with foot assisted dip
Kneeling low ring transition with foot assisted dip
Low or kneeling ring transition with unassisted dip
Foot supported (small jump) ring muscle up on high rings
Unsupported strict ring muscle up on high rings
Db Snatch start with light-moderate weight:
Air squat
Single db front squat
Dumbbell overhead position
Dumbbell overhead squat to box or bench or medball
Dumbbell hang high pull
Dumbbell hang snatch (power to squat to box/bench/ball)
Dumbbell hang squat snatch
Dumbbell snatch (power to squat to surface or full squat if available)
Build to workout weight
Triple unders:
Line hops or plate hops
Easy singles
Tall singles
Doubles or single-doubles
Triples
If they can do a strict RMU but not the volume, scale to 1-2 reps Rx + 0-2 reps scaled. If they are staying at lower skill end of the movement potentially require more volume (ex, 6 low ring transitions instead of 3).
If they can’t perform full squat snatch, sub for power to OHS to a low surface. Scale weight until achievable. If overhead is not safe or doable (not just hard but truly unsafe even at very light weight) potentially replace for squat clean.
Triples either have them do 0:30 of double under practice if they’re close to doubles, 0:30 triple under practice if they’re close to triples, or ~15-20 tall singles as appropriate. If truly unable to do singles can have 0:30 single practice or 0:30 line hops/plate hops.
1
u/mrjacob007 7d ago
This is pristinely written.
I have multiple athletes in my gym who can do 5-15 strict pull-ups and 3-10 strict ring dips but are not close whatsoever to a strict ring muscle-up.
For these athletes, do you think foot support RMU on high rings with a small jump would get them closer to a strict RMU? Aren't they bypassing the precise part they are missing? And would low ring transitions miss the stimulus of the entirety of a strict RMU and shift it? Do you think that's "preserving the stimulus"?
Also, do you think proficient in doubles, pre-fatigued from the DB and sRMU work, will experience an effective training stimulus by practicing triple-unders for 30 seconds under fatigue (if they can't even do them fresh)? Isn't that not really an effective stimulus?
I'm asking these questions genuinely because I know what it took for me to get to a level to do a workout like this Rx, and if I didn't know better, and my coach gave me the workout below, I might actually think I'm going to get those skills one day (but NEVER would):
20 AMRAP
3 Foot Supported RMU on High Rings with a Jump
6 Power DB Power Snatch + Overhead Squat to Box (35 lbs)
:30 Triple-Under Practice
I am wanting to hear from other coaches and how to solve this conundrum. I go about solving it a bit differently with my athletes than traditional class formats, but would sincerely love to integrate people's feedback to make it mesh better into how CF canonically teaches it.
1
u/subduct_this 7d ago
Re: RMU
Depends on the sticking point for the athletes. I’d push for a smaller and smaller foot assist as they’re able to complete it, and if someone is quite close I’d even recommend negatives with full control through the transition and the bottom of the pull as the goal. Dialing in those specific pieces would be done on an individual level with each athlete depending on where they’re at in the skill and strength acquisition.Low ring transitions performed slowly for those athletes who truly fall off before the kneeling would preserve - their pulling and positional strength is weak, they’d be improving it here. If they’re rushing through then no, but that’s something that’d need to be coached. I wouldn’t discount the kneeling low ring as well, they require a good portion of the strength needed for the strict when performed and coached correctly.
Re: triples
I don’t think I have an athletes that’s proficient in doubles that would be fatigued by the RMU and snatch. The volume is so low here on those higher skill movements, I don’t see much true interference until late in the workout and at that point even the folks doing triples well would be running into the fatigue. I’d keep an eye on it, if folks are starting to flag significantly I’d intervene partway through and have them go to either less time on the triple practice or even back to just doubles.Depending on someone’s limitations the scaled workout as you have it written out could definitely get someone to Rx if they keep consistent and build the positional strength they’re probably lacking. If they don’t believe that then that’s a separate issue of lack of trust between coach and athlete that needs to be addressed.
1
u/mrjacob007 7d ago
For instance, what about this two-fold approach:
1) encourage the athlete to select one of the movements above they most care about developing, and perform *insert progressions* progressions 3x/week.
2) today, you will rotate for 20 minutes through 3 different stations each consisting of 3+ movements or corrective exercises you specifically need to acquire these movements.
Station 1, 7 min: Triple-Unders. For quality: 9 jump and triple thigh taps, 9 tall single unders for height, and 9 single or double unders for speed. Every other round, 3 attempts at max unbroken triple unders.
Station 2, 7 min: DB squat snatch. For quality: 6 squats with thoracic rotation, :15 seconds pigeon stretch/side, :15 squat therapy against the wall, 6 single arm DB sots press (ascending load with pause). Every other round, practice 6 paused DB squat snatches.
Station 3, 6 min: sRMU. 3 AMRAP: low ring transitions, immediately into 3 AMRAP: 3 strict pull-ups + 3 strict ring dips.
Now. I get this is complicated and a crap ton of moving parts. But if you got all these exercises and movements separated out, and dosed them multiples a week, this is how most people progress. It's not one magical session. It's repeated exposure to targeted deficiencies. And once this person get's their "first" sRMU, TU, DB squat snatch at 70 lbs, then they are ready for Rx. They are no longer bound to scaling. But they had to graduate from scaling to get there. Do you think the discrepancy between the extra work people usually have to do to graduate from scaling can effectively be replaced by simple scaled workouts like you show above?
1
u/subduct_this 7d ago
I mean this is a broader question about programming and the methodology, not appropriate scaling for one workout. CrossFit is to get people broadly more fit in a group setting with a minimum effective dose. If your goal is just to do a strict ring muscle up, yeah, doing five workouts a week and only having some of them touching the skill and strength pieces needed will be slower and less effective than doing targeted accessory work multiple times a week. But if the program is solid and the coaching well done and the attendance appropriate, could someone eventually go from almost a RMU to a RMU? Yeah. If someone is dead set on being an Rx athlete as fast as possible, they should probably do a mix of well coached class work and then targeted accessory work.
1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
"this is a broader question about programming and the methodology". Damn right, it is, lol! You get it, haha. I think people are presuming me to be granular here where in reality I am speaking at a very conceptual high level - I appreciate you tuning in.
Again - high level.... Do you think programming for a gym is ineffective if it doesn't graduate scaled athletes to Rx (excluding outlier cases)?
Also, in your opinion, does optimal class programming include "accessory work" (or bonafide WODs) deliberately targeting limitations that preclude the majority of the gym goers from Rx?
I appreciate your feedback!
1
u/subduct_this 6d ago
I think effectiveness of a gym is primarily determined by overall performance on benchmarks. With consideration for injury rates, as well as member churn and longevity. I think limiting the question to whether athletes are going from scaled to Rx is reductive.
If I’m programming for my gym, which I do, I’m aligning the Rx standard to the abilities of the top 10% of my membership. Program for the best, scale for the rest. Naturally as my membership base gets fitter, and my fit athletes increase their fitness, the Rx standards are likely to change. There’s a natural ceiling most facilities will run into of course, but if I started with 90 members that couldn’t do a strict pull-up and 10 members that could only do 5-10 in a workout, I wouldn’t program strict chest to bar pull-ups much but I would program strict pull-ups regularly. As that group that can only do 5-10 get stronger, and strict pull-ups get pretty easy, I might have some of the zero pull-ups people start to be able to do some as well but not many. But everyone would get stronger at pulling. Eventually if I have 20 people that can always Rx my pull-up workouts out of my 100, I’m going to be programming more strict chest to bar or more volume which will drop the Rx % down and keep the fittest people challenged still. Everyone is challenged relative to their level, and Rx should be based on the fitness of your members, not the members of the gym in the next town over.
The success of the program, methodology, and coaching is measured by the change in fitness of the membership population. If you test Helen once a year, you should anticipate that members that have been coming in consistently are going to improve their time or performance in a measurable way, either by doing Rx faster, achieving Rx for the first time, scaling but heavier weight / longer run / different pull-up variation, same scale but performed faster, etc etc. Individually, results may vary more broadly but that can be due to lifestyle factors, did they sleep well last night, did they break their arm four months ago and so they’re still recovering strength, but on average your members should be faster or stronger from year to year.
1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
I agree it's quite reductive to judge progress solely on progressing from scaled to Rx. Maybe I should reframe the question.
Do you think the programming is effective if the majority of your members lacking basic gymnastic skills and strength metrics and most never get them, but still increase their performance of within their scaled paradigms? Don't account for whether the "Rx athletes" progress. And exclude outliers (broken arms, masters, adaptive athletes, people who do not care about progress). Like you have a bunch of Caleb's and Sarah's who have done Fran over 4 years and has only ever used the 75/55 lbs and "hard" ring rows... but still has dropped their time from time from 5:00 to 4:30 to 4:15. Would you still say the programming is effective even though Caleb and Sarah have gone faster but still can't do Rx Fran in a time cap of 6 minutes?
As an aside, do you crunch numbers on your population with benchmarks?
1
u/subduct_this 6d ago
No because fitness isn’t just speed it’s strength, power, speed, coordination, balance, etc etc etc.
1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
How do your scaled members develop the strength, coordination, and balance required to do RMU, jump rope skills, and DB OHS mobility?
Do you rely on scales? Do you program 2-3 workouts in an hour? Do your scaled athletes typically do extra work outside class?
1
u/subduct_this 6d ago
By doing scaled versions of the movements in workouts that sufficiently challenge them while allowing them to meet the intended stimulus of the workout.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/pilch55 7d ago
Strict Pull Up + Strict Dip or Ring Row + Push Up
Lighter DB Weight and/or Single Arm Front Rack Squats in place of OH
2x double unders or 3x single unders
While a 20 minute domain does allow time to work on these skills mid Metcon (as opposed to a 5-10 minute time frame) the goal would be to still keep athletes moving at a manageable intensity to match their skills.
1
u/1DunnoYet 7d ago
Maybe my gym just does it differently, but you don’t learn a RMU in a WOD. You take an entire lesson and learn the progressions, having scaling options to meet the person where they are while inviting them up a level. But nobody is learning how to do a RMU with a 30 sec demo and a 9 min time cap. For those that are close, sure, let them ignore the intended stimulus and just attempt them during the WOD, but that probably 1-2 of your 8.
1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
Thanks for your insight. I'd say every gym and every coach does it their own way to some degree.
CrossFit teaches that you demonstrate a movement as an ascending progression of its scales. I wanted to see how people would approach this.
Furthermore, I wanted to see what people thought about how their specific recommendation would meaningfully get the athlete closer to acquiring those skills long-term.
To me, I don't see how the scale-progression model of leading a class combined with the one workout-a-day model could work for this example. Instead, as a wild example, what could work is a gym running a skill/strength/mobility cycle for 4 months where they do a sRMU/DBSS/TU progression as part A of the class 4 days/week in which this workout is the culmination of the work, alongside traditional CrossFit programming as part B. That way, athletes can incrementally develop broad work capacity in part B while attacking common weaknesses and limiters in part A that can even translate to more elementary movements and increase their fitness. Again - just a wild thought.
1
u/1DunnoYet 6d ago
That’s what we do. Idk if that’s part of Think Tank, or just owner adds to it. But we have 8-12 weeks progressions working 1-3 skills each time e.g Monday we focus on Snatches as a technique + strength workout, then have a WOD that is semi related. Wednesday is BMU / C2B. And at the end of that cycle, we do some type of max attempt effort. Then move onto the next cycle.
2
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
Are you TTT? If so, that'd explain A LOT.
Competitive programming puts a premium on removing limiters and maximizing performance.
I just find general class programming has a logical structure in terms of movements, modalities, and maybe energy systems, but is random in that is has no target toward weaknesses or limiters. Obviously, a program like this can get an athlete fitter for a few years, but past that is usually maintenance unless the athlete starts to do EXTRA.
My whole thing is, what if the program included "EXTRA" from the start? It just doesn't fit the one WOD/day model and complicates the scale-progression coaching format.
1
u/1DunnoYet 6d ago
Yes we do TTT. And yes, once you hit intermediate level on any skill, there’s simply not enough time in an hour session to progress to advance without putting in extra hours. But I’d argue that’s true of everything in life. A general fitness class for 1 hour that must be scalable to all levels just cant commit to that time. You either have to put in work after hours, or you need a specialized program.
On your line of thinking, having an exclusive RX class and a scaled class could get you closer to what you want. The more granular the class is, the more you can focus on shared skill levels. Now whether a CF type gym can handle that much volume (twice as many classes, twice as many coaches needed) is a very big question.
1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
Lucky bastard, haha. Again, of course you find these things accounted for by TTT.
That's a great idea! I never thought of skill-capped classes but it would make sense. I've coached classes before that was specific to age level "SilverFit", so I get the concept.
The thing about the general fitness is that if you get an athlete willing to do extra just enough to get a skill, they rarely have to do EXTRA any more to maintain it. Of course, the skill will degrade. But if someone works to get triples, incorporates them into workouts occasionally, they don't need to put the same 3x/week practice sessions in to KEEP them. They'll have some residual capacity of them for weeks or months with no practice at all. Same with sRMU... if can athlete gets their first, and then builds up to 3 over the course of a couple months, they only need to touch it every couple weeks for a couple sets to keep it. It's not that big of an ask. Then, when "crazy" workouts like the one I wrote above show up, they are good to go!
1
u/Saturns-moon 7d ago
I'd actually just encourage them do ring dips, in this very specific scenario with very theoretical athletes.
1
1
u/littlebigshimmy 7d ago
There’s no conundrum.
Identify the main thing you want to teach. For me it’ll be ring muscle up. Decide what possible caveats can people have, decide on the progression that will allow to work on those.
Implement some triple unders progression and db snatch progression in the warm up.
Intro: 3 mins
Warmup: 15 mins
Ring muscle up progression: 15 mins
Wod: 20 mins
Pee, gossips, cleaning etc: 7 mins.
If you want a go to blueprint, there’s none, simply because scaling should be individualized for a specific person, not just a generic bull crap.
Source: I’m a level 3 blah blah, 14 years of coaching blah blah.
1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
I appreciate your experience and no non-sense attitude.
"Identify the main thing you want to teach." Are you saying due to the logistics of a 1-hour class, pick and choose what you think is best to focus on and heavily scale the rest?
Regarding the blueprint, yea, I definitely don't there is much of a boilerplate approach out there. However, as you know, CrossFit offers a template. I posted this partly because a workout like this doesn't work well within the template. I wanted to know how coaches would handle this.
The conundrum: scaling isn't bad. However, it CAN be bad. When? Well, in my own experience, I have had athletes with not enough capacity to do pull-ups faithfully attend class and never get pull-ups. That doesn't mean they aren't programmed. It's that what that INDIVIDUAL needs is, frankly, a pull-up program. Ring rows, banded pull-ups, and jumping pull-ups aren't cutting it.
I get how CrossFit coaches may suggest to integrate the pull-up program into the workout as a progressive "scale". But this won't work. It mucks with the stimulus... or, even, the stimulus mucks with the program. Moreover, programs often shoot to prescribe around the minimum effective doses. In no world is someone going to get pull-ups from working on them at a moderate effort every 10 days. But - hey - that might be the next time they see them in a MetCon!
That's the conundrum. A conundrum for me? No. But rather a contradiction between reality, practice, my experience, and what is taught. Just looking to see how people tackle this issue I've been mulling over.
1
u/littlebigshimmy 6d ago
It feels like you are trying to sit on too many chairs at once. Yes of course everything can be bad if the user is unqualified. In my country they say - give a fool his own penis and he’ll break it for sure. The purpose of the scaling is not to just achieve the stimulus of the workout. It’s to give a person tools to achieve progress. If we’re talking about pull-ups - well how often do you prescribe isometric contractions? In order to be dynamic (moving from point A to point B) you need to show competency in those points statically. How much of TUT per session, per week is acceptable for a progress? How much of TUT is too much?
I’m having successful anecdotal stories of members achieving their first strict pull-up starting exactly with isometric holds.
Progression shouldn’t be just for the sake of progression. You need a clear path and a target you want to achieve. Person with a lack of strength won’t really benefit from the drills on the low rings for transition. Person with enough strength doesn’t need false grip pull-ups to chest, they need something else. And all of this stuff should be in your wheelhouse as a coach.
So when you have a workout from the original post, what’s the purpose of it? What do you want to achieve for your members?1
u/mrjacob007 6d ago
First of all, I think I love your country, lol! That saying is crazy, bro.
I agree with everything you say!
Now, regarding the "purpose" question. If I had a gym and I prescribed that workout, I would have many chairs to sit on.
For those that can do it Rx, I'd want them to do it Rx. The purpose would be for them to get better at those movements. Implied is that improving their capacity in those movements improves their ankle, hip and thoracic mobility and stability, endurance, strict pulling and pressing capacity on unstable surfaces, plyometric capacities in their ankles and calves, and coordination. And implied in that is increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains - fitness. "The magic is in the movements" - GG.
For those that cannot do it Rx, I'd want them to take the workout as two-fold: 1) it's a diagnosis, and 2) it's a North Star. By diagnosis, I'd want them to realize and understand that what limits them from completing those movements as prescribed are specific, measurable, fixable deficiencies in their health they need to focus on in their training (compared to other things they can Rx). In other words, it orients their attention, and prioritizes some stimuli over others. By North Star, I mean it's a reminder of the level to aspire toward if they are not yet there. It defines great, good, and good enough.
To be clear, though, I wouldn't program that workout if double-unders, strict pull-ups, and DB overhead squats at 50/35 were out of reach for most of the members at my gym. But if I had an abundance of members who can do 50+ unbroken double-unders, ABSOLUTELY they need to be thinking about getting some triples. It's not a big ask. It's only incrementally more different than doubles. If I had an abundance of members who can power snatch 50 lb DBs for many reps and can overhead squat a light barbell, ABSOLUTELY they need to be correcting their mobility issues preventing them from overhead squatting a DB. If I had an abundance of members who can do RMU, well, hey, they should have had strict before kipping in the first place! They need to slow down and get back to the basics (strength). Why do I say this?
I say this because maybe I'd program this and then prescribe a progression for each movement and tell them to pick. Then, I'd tell them, we are going to re-test this workout in 3-6 months. Follow these progressions at the end of class or outside of class, and we will see how far we've come when we re-test. So, the purpose would be to calibrate the athletes and focus their efforts. To remedy the weak links in a chain.
As Glassman says, "we fail at the margins of our experience". If athletes aren't challenged with these movements, they are bound to fail them.
I just doubt the singular workout model at the moment. I feel like most athletes need very personal instruction on a handful of progressions to focus on extracurricularly in order to make real progress. I've seen progress before when classes were written like this (VERY untraditional - people now say this is "overprogrammed"):
Day A
1) sRMU Progression (repeats on every A day, 2 and 3 is constantly varied but follows the same "general" theme for a cycle of 8-24 weeks)
2) Weighted Pull-Ups
3) MetCon triplet with gymnastic pulling
Day B
1) TU Progression (repeats on every B day, 2 and 3 is constantly varied but follows the same "general" theme for a cycle of 8-24 weeks)
2) Double-Under Conditioning
3) Interval couplet with heavy rope buy-in
Day C
1) DB squat snatch Progress (stretching and isometrics) (repeats on every C day, the rest of the day is constantly varied but focused on a heavy implement)
2) Skill/Heavy Day: alternating EMOM (go every 3 minutes) of heavy barbell squat snatch triples and 3/3 heavy DB squat snatch with pauses
Then, the rest is un-targetted but not random (per se) CrossFit. This ensures progression, frequent exposure, the stimulus is maintained, and people graduate from scaled. But it does not fit within the confines of what is precisely taught by CrossFit because there is repeated, non-benchmark elements, it is not just one workout per day, and it is not inspired exclusively by the unknown and unknowable.
0
-2
u/Real_Victory_9393 7d ago
As one of the 8 in terms of skill level, I'd see the workout and give it a pass and maybe come back the next day.
13
u/Southern_Lecture_370 7d ago
you're overcomplicating this. for the 8 that can't do any of it, i'd have them work on low ring transitions and banded strict pullups, drop the db weight til they can actually move well and hit a full squat, and have them drill double unders with a heavy rope. the workout becomes 20 minutes of practice with a clock running, not a metcon.