CrossFit Oakland

I didn't even have to look at the rest of the post - I just saw the title of graph and knew it was a post from Mike. Uncanny!

Shira, I'm catching up to you. 4 rounds of the WOD today.

I've heard the best way to become a good "insert sport here" athlete is to practice that sport, and only that sport, over and over. Then your body basically focuses its energies on developing the specific musculoskeletal groups that it uses repeatedly. These muscles become very stong, and you become very good at your sport. You become a better distance runner by choosing to run, over doing, say 400 dead-hang pullups...since you are specializing your training.

It's not a paradox because "fit" is a relative term. For example, some runners are VERY fit, and they have very high endurance and high speed - but it doesn't mean they can lift weights. Crossfit gives you well-balanced fitness, but it doesn't mean you're going to be a world-class runner either. That answer could be reworded to say "Specialize in running" and it wouldn't seem so contradictory. Or, more ubiquitously speaking: "practice makes better, but perfect practice makes perfect."

I think they have these shoes that talk to you while you run. That is probably a good way to become a better runner.

Also not avoiding the 10/5K WOD.

Chad got 6 rounds +15 D-U +15 Burpees +10 Box Jumps on yesterday's workout, which was the second best score of any posted to the national site.

Mike, your definition of "better" is fuzzy, and the scenario lacks some context (Were they a runner before? Totally out of shape? Bodybuilder?), but here's my take:

If a peson really pushes on the metcon workouts they'll improve their cardiovascular fitness, hence becoming a "better" runner. They probably won't be as fast as if they were specializing, but they'll improve.

Not of that, of course, is possible without a pair of expensive talking shoes.

I would say we must first define our terms: what is distance? What is fitness?

If we subscribe to the mainstream view that fitness = aerobic capacity over long distances (Lance Armstrong, etc.) Then your paradox holds no weight.

If however, we use the CrossFit definition of fitness:

Competency in cardiovascular, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, coordination, agility, balance and accuracy, an ability to perform well at any imaginable task and an ability to recruit the phosagen, glycolitic and oxidative pathways:

Then, clearly true long distance running (say 50 miles a week) requires enough specialization that the athlete focusing on marathons, etc will be be deficient in all but cardiovascular power: have an poor ability to perform tasks requiring stamina, strength, flexibility, power, coordination, agility, balance and accuracy and be unable to adequately recruit the phosagen and glycolitic pathways. In other words they will be slow and weak.

I don't think 10 or even 15K runs are fundamentally incompatible with fitness however they should probably be done at a considerably higher intensity level than most people might be willing to tolerate.

It depends how you define "fit".

I very agree with Jeralee.

If your goal is to become a better long distance runner, you should do long distance running.

mike sucks and is lame

annie,

where is that on the chart?

fit is coming to see my band play next friday at Blakes and kicking everyone's ass in the moshpit. but seriously, come see my band. It's the middle of our west-coast tour and we will need gas/food money. here are the details.

Friday, June 22
Blakes on Telegraph
2367 Telegraph Ave, Berkeley, CA
$6, all ages, 8:30 pm

www.myotonia.net

mike sucks and is lame, plus he owns two pairs of those expensive talking shoes

Also, I would like to know how one cuts mustard in the first place.

Do you need to be CF certified to do that?