Re: Ross Enamait Training (Was: Crossfit)

[Guest guest]

If you go to the Ross Training forum and click on S & C and click on What is

Ross Training?, you'll get a sense of why people tend to like Ross Enamait.

He's a class act and understands that every person or athlete has different

needs. One of the things that often turn people off to the merits of a

program like CrossFit is the " one-size fits all " attitude amongst some

CrossFitters, but this is true amongst many exercise communities.

Ross has written three books: one book on overall training, one on

bodyweight training, and one on conditioning. All three are great

resources. Even if you are already aware of many methods of training,

Ross's conditioning book and DVD are worthwhile purchases in my opinion.

Ross espouses exercises that require little equipment, such as dumbbells,

ab-wheel, sledgehammer, etc. While many feel that Ross Training and

CrossFit are one-in-the same, they're vastly different. Ross espouses low

rep or ME sessions, plyo or DE sessions, and GPP & work capacity sessions,

in addition to any specific sport or skill training. He provides many

possible ways of organizing these training sessions, but leaves it up to the

individual. Ross rejects the predominant use of aerobic or LSD training for

fighters. He espouses much of the anaerobic conditioning that we're used to

seeing nowadays in fighters.

CrossFit differs from Ross Training and most other S & C programs in that

they tend to blur the strength and conditioning into one workout. For

example, the homepage follows the 3 on 1 off model. During those 3 days,

it's likely that at least 1 of those days is focused specifically on ME

lifts or that at least 1 of those workouts is a " heavy " metcon, which means

that it's short and uses relatively heavy weights for a conditioning

workout. It is in the experience of many CrossFitters that their strength

numbers will continue to go up even though they might only deadlift heavy

once a month, just because they are deadlifting so often in their

conditioning workouts.

Most programs do not utilize the lifts that CrossFit utilizes in their

conditioning workouts. Most feel that they can get the same effect with

simpler and safer exercises. CrossFit uses deadlifts, olympic lifts, etc.

in their conditioning workouts. As you can see, CrossFit loves to use the

barbell, while that's not their only tool, of course.

The mainpage WOD, however, should not be interpreted as the only way to

CrossFit. Many CrossFit Journal articles have been written that talk about

many different tools and different methods. The mainpage WOD is meant for

the mass public to be able to do with little equipment.

In my experience, it is more difficult to recover from CrossFit metcons,

either because of the volume (high reps) or because of the heavy weight,

than it is to recover from a Ross Training conditioning workout. The

prescribed weights, for the stronger athletes bring more of a metabolic

conditioning effect for the metcons. For the weaker athletes, the

prescribed weights will most likely bring more of a strength effect.

All this gets into the different arguments within the CrossFit community on

the best way to scale workouts, whether to lower the weights and keep the

reps the same (more conditioning effect), lower the reps (more strength

effect), etc.

I know that was probably longer than what you expected, but I hope it

helped.

Lee

Cypress, CA, USA

>

>

> >

> > Even in sports with variable motor regimen there are much better ways

> > to organize and program the training than crossfit.

> >

> > A popular approach which works very well for combat sports is the one

> > used by Ross Enamait.

>

> I was not familiar with RossTraining until a few hours ago. Your

> comments on CrossFit and your approval of RossTraining suggest that

> workout components (volume, intensity, length) are the problem but

> not the exercises used. Am I correct?

>

> _____________________________

> Gerald Lafon

> USMC, RVN 70-71

> Director, Judo America San Diego

> Coach, Mira Mesa Weightlifting Club

> http://www.judoamerica.com

> 858 578-7748

>

>

[Guest guest]

In what follow everybody must understand that Im not trying to put the

OP down.

First , roadwork done by fighters is not really LSD. LSD is what your

regular Joe does on aerobics machines while reading the newspaper.

Second, you all should understand that aerobic conditioning is crucial

in combat sports. Think about it: you fight in MMA 3 to 5 bouts of 5

mins. In pro boxing you have up to 12 bouts of 3 minutes. In both

cases , there are small rest intervals between bouts.

Now, , when your work can total **36 minutes** how can you pretend

things like that ? When you have small rest intervals, and you know

(or you should know)that aerobic processes are governing recovery (and

recovery between bouts is crucial in any combat sport), how can you

say we are used " to see anaerobic conditioning " in combat sports?

What you see in fact is typical of energetics of sports with variable

motor regimen. First you must understand that aerobic processes are

important, and a base. You would be wise to develop (enumeration not

exhaustive, only things pertinent to this message are enumerated)your

ability to recover, and you would be wise to train acquisition of

strength in slow twitch fibers in aerobic regimens (in east many

called this strength-aerobic regimes, and they can be implemented in

many creative ways, one uses circuit training for example).

Energetics based on glycolitic pathways (I guess this is what popular

is called 'anaerobic conditioning') are also very important, in many

sports with variable motor regimen. In combat sports, the involvement

of glycolytic mechanism is variable, how much obviously determined by

the sport (wrestling relays more than boxing on glycolytic system for

example), and by the rules of engagement (for example local policy

regarding fighting on floor, clinch rules , and so on).

Once you know the basic energetics you can think at

strength-endurance. It is probably the most important **physical

preparation** limiting factor in NHB performance (not to say RFD and

max-strength are not important). You should think at

strength-endurance as the ability to display muscular contractions

for long periods of time without experiencing diminished work capacity.

As for comparing the system described by Ross with Crossfit. It is

superficial and flawed , but i wont go in details about the whys,

because I dont feel the need to talk more about Xfit.

Dan Partelly

Oradea Romania

> Ross rejects the predominant use of aerobic or LSD training for

> fighters. He espouses much of the anaerobic conditioning that we're

used to

> seeing nowadays in fighters.

>

> CrossFit differs from Ross Training and most other S & C programs in

that

> they tend to blur the strength and conditioning into one workout. For

> example, the homepage follows the 3 on 1 off model. During those 3

days,

> it's likely that at least 1 of those days is focused specifically on ME

> lifts or that at least 1 of those workouts is a " heavy " metcon,

which means

> that it's short and uses relatively heavy weights for a conditioning

> workout. It is in the experience of many CrossFitters that their

strength

> numbers will continue to go up even though they might only deadlift

heavy

> once a month, just because they are deadlifting so often in their

> conditioning workouts.

>

> Most programs do not utilize the lifts that CrossFit utilizes in their

> conditioning workouts. Most feel that they can get the same effect with

> simpler and safer exercises. CrossFit uses deadlifts, olympic

lifts, etc.

> in their conditioning workouts. As you can see, CrossFit loves to

use the

> barbell, while that's not their only tool, of course.

>

> The mainpage WOD, however, should not be interpreted as the only way to

> CrossFit. Many CrossFit Journal articles have been written that

talk about

> many different tools and different methods. The mainpage WOD is

meant for

> the mass public to be able to do with little equipment.

>

> In my experience, it is more difficult to recover from CrossFit metcons,

> either because of the volume (high reps) or because of the heavy weight,

> than it is to recover from a Ross Training conditioning workout. The

> prescribed weights, for the stronger athletes bring more of a metabolic

> conditioning effect for the metcons. For the weaker athletes, the

> prescribed weights will most likely bring more of a strength effect.

>

> All this gets into the different arguments within the CrossFit

community on

> the best way to scale workouts, whether to lower the weights and

keep the

> reps the same (more conditioning effect), lower the reps (more strength

> effect), etc.

>

> I know that was probably longer than what you expected, but I hope it

> helped.

>

> Lee

> Cypress, CA, USA

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Even in sports with variable motor regimen there are much better

ways

> > > to organize and program the training than crossfit.

> > >

> > > A popular approach which works very well for combat sports is

the one

> > > used by Ross Enamait.

> >

> > I was not familiar with RossTraining until a few hours ago. Your

> > comments on CrossFit and your approval of RossTraining suggest that

> > workout components (volume, intensity, length) are the problem but

> > not the exercises used. Am I correct?

> >

> > _____________________________

> > Gerald Lafon

> > USMC, RVN 70-71

> > Director, Judo America San Diego

> > Coach, Mira Mesa Weightlifting Club

> > http://www.judoamerica.com

> > 858 578-7748

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

**** Ross rejects the predominant use of aerobic or LSD training for

fighters. He espouses much of the anaerobic conditioning that we're

used to seeing nowadays in fighters.****

, I know you're only quoting someone else, but I really wonder

if this move away from steady-state aerobic conditioning in some US

sports -- not necessarily long, slow distance -- is responsible for

the decline in performance in certain sports.

The boxing results for the USA at the Beijing Olympics were,

reportedly, the worst in 60 years. From what I recall, it was

abominable.

The US used to dominate marathon running but nary a champion these

days. Okay, the rise of the Africans is partly responsible for that,

but you can see the point I'm making. As Dan has pointed out, sports

and activities in which there is a lot of prolonged movement, with

not much break, need a decent aerobic base. You can get some of this

with high-intensity interval training, but you can't get the same

capillary and mitochondrial density that make the difference to

endurance performance -- nor probably collateral blood supply.

I also see Crossfit and others promoted for military training. Okay,

that might be one part of an acceptable program, but we shouldn't get

the idea that you can get fit for military service, especially in the

elite forces, without doing some real aerobic training -- and that

means plenty of distance running!

Gympie, Australia

[Guest guest]

Enamait knows what he is doing. He doesn't reject roawork, fartlek and

so, he basically is drawing attention to one thing: you dont train for

middle distance running or marathon. So roadwork should be built

accordingly, and the time gained used for applying other more

important training loads (btw, roadwork =! long slow distance).

I cant comment on the cause of results of a certain probe in Olympics,

because I dont have enough information about the respective sportsman

training regimen, nor did I watched the events to see what happen.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about strength

and conditioning in the popular community. As you can see even on this

list, the understanding of energetics is under the sea level. Myth

prevails, and with the advent of " new " training systems myths and

misnomers are many times purposeful implemented and maintained in the

name of allmighty dollar.

So I dont really blame regulars for being so misguided. They are

contently bombarded with idiocy and tricked into buying sub-par DvDs

and books by ruthless business man. Most of those guys are extremely

marketing savvy, but their expertise in SC is subpar. No wonder that

every corner now has a MMA and Navy Seal expert. Like in Europe we

have a soccer coach in every idiot.

(There are also good products out there, reasonably priced, by

excellent trainers, as in Ross case).

The irony is that SC is not rocket science. In hindsight, most of it

is old plain common sense.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> **** Ross rejects the predominant use of aerobic or LSD training for

> fighters. He espouses much of the anaerobic conditioning that we're

> used to seeing nowadays in fighters.****

>

> , I know you're only quoting someone else, but I really wonder

> if this move away from steady-state aerobic conditioning in some US

> sports -- not necessarily long, slow distance -- is responsible for

> the decline in performance in certain sports.

>

> The boxing results for the USA at the Beijing Olympics were,

> reportedly, the worst in 60 years. From what I recall, it was

> abominable.

>

> The US used to dominate marathon running but nary a champion these

> days. Okay, the rise of the Africans is partly responsible for that,

> but you can see the point I'm making. As Dan has pointed out, sports

> and activities in which there is a lot of prolonged movement, with

> not much break, need a decent aerobic base. You can get some of this

> with high-intensity interval training, but you can't get the same

> capillary and mitochondrial density that make the difference to

> endurance performance -- nor probably collateral blood supply.

>

> I also see Crossfit and others promoted for military training. Okay,

> that might be one part of an acceptable program, but we shouldn't get

> the idea that you can get fit for military service, especially in the

> elite forces, without doing some real aerobic training -- and that

> means plenty of distance running!

>

>

> Gympie, Australia

>