Why does being in shape matter?

[Jake Di Vita]

Ok, I'm now convinced I'm being trolled. Why don't you provide me with data on the fitness of a hockey player, motocross champion, or elite marathoner. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Fitness is not measured in your ability to do one thing well, fitness is the measure of how well you can do anything and everything. If you can back squat 1000 pounds, that's real impressive, but I bet you get tired walking to your mail box. That is not fit. If you can bike 100 miles in 3 hours, damn that's impressive, I bet you can't help your friend move his refrigerator. Not fit. Fitness is NOT a measure of how good you are in your sport, it is a measure of the output of the human body in a wide range of tasks. Elite athletes? Absolutely they are. Extremely high level of fitness? No, not at all.

But hey, since my ideas are stupid, how do you think the best shooters in the world can get better? I anxiously await your expert testimony.

[P.E. Kelley]

I would be foolish to say or believe that being a fit person doesn't help in most every area of life.

The mental clarity that comes with your body working correctly has to help in any endeavor.

At the same time...other than me, (not fit) who here has posted that isn't above average for fitness?

Sing to choir and all are in tune.

[Jake Di Vita]

I suppose that depends on who you include in the discussion for average. I have pretty high standards for calling someone fit.

But I want to reiterate again, I don't believe fitness is what gives you the majority of the benefit in shooting. I believe it is being able to transfer how you learned to move heavy weight fast, or your body fast, and accurately through space. If I have 275 pounds over my head, there is only one way I'm going to set my shoulders to hold it because I'm terrified to do it any other way. This position is the best expression of how the body mechanically works and I never would have learned it had I not trained and coached in this manner. I contend that transferring those skills to a competitive shooting environment will yield small gains in everything you do. Maybe you get out of position .005 faster every time. Maybe you control recoil a little better because your arms, shoulders, and trunk are set in the best position to absorb impact (recoil). How do you decide what that is worth? Accuracy? Maybe. Speed? Maybe. I don't know for sure, but my gut tells me it will be better. The reason I feel this is worthy of further looking into is because once you learn how to move and stabilize, you can transfer it to everything that you do in the confines of a stage.

All this is outside of the actual benefit you get from being in shape.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Jake Di Vita

[frgood]

I think all this discussion is sort of ignoring the proof in the pudding. Look at the top shooters. Max, Ben, JJ, Dave, Chris, Ron, Eric, etc. They're all incredibly agile shooters who are without question "athletes". They're "strong". IMO, it's a requirement of the sport to compete at that level and it's the reason (or at least one of the reasons) there aren't a bunch of beer-belly'd office workers winning majors. There's a reason they're doing stages in 10-12 seconds that the rest of us are doing in twice that time, points aside. The ability to enter and exit shooting positions as fast as possible with as little acceleration or deceleration time as possible requires strength.

I can also say from personal experience that "being in shape" (or the opposite thereof) is a huge factor when coping with heat/cold. I shot a match the last weekend of March in blowing snow and 30 degree temps. It was a cold winter here in VA and I was accustomed to that cold. Two weeks later I shot the A6 championship in 95 degree heat. 12 stages and 19 mikes later, I was absolutely exhausted and demoralized. The heat was a major, major factor along with a few other self-imposed environmental variables. Having to lug all my gear around in addition to more pounds of extra body weight than I'd care to admit in that heat really affected my physical stamina and subsequently my mental state.

There's a reason this is called a "sport" and not a "game".

Hear Hear!

[motosapiens]

Ok, I'm now convinced I'm being trolled. Why don't you provide me with data on the fitness of a hockey player, motocross champion, or elite marathoner. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Fitness is not measured in your ability to do one thing well, fitness is the measure of how well you can do anything and everything. If you can back squat 1000 pounds, that's real impressive, but I bet you get tired walking to your mail box. That is not fit. If you can bike 100 miles in 3 hours, damn that's impressive, I bet you can't help your friend move his refrigerator. Not fit. Fitness is NOT a measure of how good you are in your sport, it is a measure of the output of the human body in a wide range of tasks. Elite athletes? Absolutely they are. Extremely high level of fitness? No, not at all.

But hey, since my ideas are stupid, how do you think the best shooters in the world can get better? I anxiously await your expert testimony.

I didn't say your ideas were stupid, but you posted at least one thing that was *provably* false (about marathoners not being able to jump 6"), and I would say your apparent claim that elite cyclists can't move furniture is also likely false.

the data on various measures of fitness for various top athletes is readily available on the internet. Go find if you actually care. I categorically reject your claim that only *your* definition of fitness is valid.

As far as how the best shooters in the world can get better, I don't know. If I were them, I would probably analyze myself (or get help) to figure out the weakest areas of my game, and work hardest on those areas, while not neglecting everything else. Probably a different answer for every shooter. But I'm quite sure they know how to do that better than I do, which is why they are already the best in the world.

Edited May 21, 2015 by motosapiens

[Jake Di Vita]

Ok, I'm now convinced I'm being trolled. Why don't you provide me with data on the fitness of a hockey player, motocross champion, or elite marathoner. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Fitness is not measured in your ability to do one thing well, fitness is the measure of how well you can do anything and everything. If you can back squat 1000 pounds, that's real impressive, but I bet you get tired walking to your mail box. That is not fit. If you can bike 100 miles in 3 hours, damn that's impressive, I bet you can't help your friend move his refrigerator. Not fit. Fitness is NOT a measure of how good you are in your sport, it is a measure of the output of the human body in a wide range of tasks. Elite athletes? Absolutely they are. Extremely high level of fitness? No, not at all.

But hey, since my ideas are stupid, how do you think the best shooters in the world can get better? I anxiously await your expert testimony.

I didn't say your ideas were stupid, but you posted at least one thing that was *provably* false (about marathoners not being able to jump 6"), and I would say your apparent claim that elite cyclists can't move furniture is also likely false.

the data on various measures of fitness for various top athletes is readily available on the internet. Go find if you actually care. I categorically reject your claim that only *your* definition of fitness is valid.

As far as how the best shooters in the world can get better, I don't know. If I were them, I would probably analyze myself (or get help) to figure out the weakest areas of my game, and work hardest on those areas, while not neglecting everything else. Probably a different answer for every shooter. But I'm quite sure they know how to do that better than I do, which is why they are already the best in the world.

This: "In the meantime, I have no doubt that top shooters everywhere will be flocking to this thread to see how they can get those last few points to win a national championship." implies exactly what you think about it. Which is fine. It's easy to shit on things from your computer.

Provably false? Prove me false then. My information is second hand from coaches that have personally worked with elite marathon runners, can you produce anything at all that proves that wrong? Somehow I doubt it. Believe me or don't. It really won't impact me in the slightest. I didn't say an elite cyclist can't move furniture, it was an example illustrating that people that have devoted the physical lives to endurance sports are not going to be strong outside of that sport. Not. Fitness. That is called specialization.

Define what fitness is. What does that word mean and how do you measure it. How can you tell me if a swimmer is more fit than a runner or cyclist. How can you tell me if a hockey player is more fit than an NFL player, or NBA player. Crossfit's definition of fitness allows you to conclusively prove this with pretty basic calculations, work divided by time, higher score wins. The wider the range of tasks tested, the more credible the claim. You tell me to go look at numbers for various top athletes. What numbers are important? If you find someone with a super high vo2 max but low strength and power, is he more fit than an nfl running back with a lower vo2 max but more strength and power? How can you argue that the person that performs the best across a wide range of tests isn't the fittest?

I know a lot of the best shooters in the country. I've competed with them, I've talked with them, I've watched and diagnosed them at least since I started shooting in 1999. I see what I would call basic movement/motor control flaws in every single one of them. As I said in my original post, this is time being left on the table.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Jake Di Vita

[motosapiens]

Define what fitness is. What does that word mean and how do you measure it. How can you tell me if a swimmer is more fit than a runner or cyclist. How can you tell me if a hockey player is more fit than an NFL player, or NBA player. Crossfit's definition of fitness allows you to conclusively prove this with pretty basic calculations, work divided by time, higher score wins. You tell me to go look at numbers for various top athletes. What numbers are important? If you find someone with a super high vo2 max but low strength and power, is he more fit than an nfl running back with a lower vo2 max but more strength and power? How can you argue that the person that performs the best across a wide range of tests isn't the fittest?

ANY test will allow you to 'conclusively prove' someone's fitness, but it will be an arbitrary number based on the criteria you have chosen, because you are biased towards those criteria.

I think it's silly to try to argue which athletes are the 'fittest', but I suppose you can argue which athletes have the highest caloric burn rate during their sport, or which athletes have the highest vo2 max, or better, which have the highest velocity at vo2 max (for speed based sports).

Crossfit's definition is just as narrow and specialized as the others, because it obviously favors the adherents of your particular chosen pasttime. It's not any more objective than any other measurement.

Just so you know, I don't think very many top athletes don't engage in *some* form of cross-training to address areas that their primary sport doesn't address. It's proven to be beneficial for injury prevention and mental and emotional health. For example, most serious cyclists also lift, and many run or xc ski at least part of the time. Many also find it beneficial to participate recreationally in team sports of various sorts.

[Jake Di Vita]

It's like talking to a door. I'm done. Beyond help.

[motosapiens]

It's like talking to a door. I'm done. Beyond help.

Like talking to a door that calls people on their BS and refutes outlandish claims.

[ToddKS]

So by your definition fitness is measured in horsepower. How many horsepower per hour does a marathon runner generate? How many horsepower per hour are required to be fit under your definition?

[motosapiens]

So by your definition fitness is measured in horsepower. How many horsepower per hour does a marathon runner generate? How many horsepower per hour are required to be fit under your definition?

I suspect it involves performance in a series of copyrighted crossfit exercises. Probably a fee to the crossfit owner or one of their distributors to participate, lol. Like mary kay.

[Jake Di Vita]

So by your definition fitness is measured in horsepower. How many horsepower per hour does a marathon runner generate? How many horsepower per hour are required to be fit under your definition?

It's a little harder to measure running as with hills and wind it can be difficult to make to calculations. You can measure wattage with cycling though. There isn't a magical number of horsepower that makes you fit, especially because you will generate a different amount of horsepower depending on the activity you are doing. A reasonably fit athlete can generate upwards of .5 hp doing air squats for a short amount of time, whereas the horsepower for a 1rm snatch will be significantly higher and the horsepower for a 5k run will be considerably lower. Horsepower is the measuring stick we use to compare fitness. How much horsepower makes you more fit than someone else? More than the other person generated doing the same tasks as you. Standards for what makes someone kinda fit or really fit are subjective. For me, placing in the top 150 in your region in the open is pretty fit, you can look on games.crossfit.com to see what that would be.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Jake Di Vita

[ToddKS]

The question isn't what makes person A more fit than person B. The question is what criteria have to be met for a person to be considered fit.

You have described multiple groups of people including various professional athletes and marathon runners as "not fit." You have also indicated that horsepower is the measure of fitness thus it stands to reason that there must be a quantifiable line that these athletes are falling short of.

I do see your point regarding the various horsepower potential of certain exercises so is there a horsepower matrix by activity that would apply? I am thinking something along the lines of a statistical grouping and for example anyone above the 90th percentile would be considered fit. Are such standards calculated for Crossfit?

Absent of such calculations are there some other quantifiable criteria that are used (pull ups per minute for example). It sounds like under your definition the only way a person can be considered fit is if they do Crossfit and place in the top 150. I don't think I can align with that proposal but I may be simply misunderstanding what you are really trying to say.

[Vlad]

I think that if crossfit creates the perfect level of fitness, then the people at the top of the crossfit pile should be able to dominate most sports. Ok so may be not some of the overly technical ones like pole vault or shooting which requires some specialized skills ..

I suggest we should test that theory by having crossfit "champions" or whatever they are called (I dunno what they use as equivalent operating thetan levels) should enter some events in some of the sports use a more generalized set of skills.

I think rugby would be a good first test of speed, balance, and strength. That would be some jolly good fun to watch.

[Nimitz]

while I find this whole discussion entertaining the real question is if participating in crossfit will "only" improve the top performers in our sport by a tiny fraction of a percentage (i think it was mentioned ".005 secs here and there"), is there real value in spending training time on this activity? Even gaining .005 secs multiple times on a CoF doesn't seem to be a lot of 'bang for the buck' unless you don't have to devote a lot of time to achieving those gains. Although I know absolutely zero about crossfit, I'm going to assume there is a fair amount of time you need to spend on it to see real gains .....?

Now look at the resulst of a typical level II or III match. it's not like the top 10 finishers are only separated by a second or less on a regular basis where shaving a fraction of a second over a match is critical. We're not talking about down hill skiing where pretty much most races are decided by less than one second ....

The only action shooting where this may be important is Steel Challenge where tenths of a sec & less can be very important. However, since there is virtually no movement I'm not sure even here if crossfit would be beneficial enough to warren the time required to achieve the desired results.

It just looks to me like "the juice is not worth the squeeze" in our sport as compared to many other training areas .... BWDIK

Edited May 21, 2015 by Nimitz

[Swanny10]

Lol, of course I am. I wonder how crossfit fanatics got the reputation they have....

You don't need to wonder. It's because of ignorant people that have no frame of reference to even understand what the argument is yet they still talk like they are experts. Maybe next time you should do your own homework on researching the subject before you make yourself look like a fool with your responses.

I know of nfl players, including pretty much the entire roster of the New Orleans Saints, Major League Baseball players, Olympic gold medalists, at least one pro surfer, Olympic skiers, and a shit ton of other professional athletes that aren't even close to qualifying for regionals in crossfit and they have been training with crossfit for years. Yet you tell me hockey players and motocross racers with no crossfit experience would do great in crossfit? Meanwhile you talk about vo2 max like it is some awesome measure of fitness. You can't even define what fitness is. You literally have no clue whatsoever about what you speak of.

I've grown weary of wasting my time responding to you. If you don't agree, fine, I really don't care. Just do yourself and everyone else a favor and keep your thoughts on this subject to yourself. When there is a subject I know nothing about, like brain surgery, I keep my damn mouth shut. I wonder how long it will take you to learn that lesson.

Christ, you still don't even understand that this thread isn't even about fitness primarily.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are starting to sound like a cult member. You are simply defining 'fitness' as 'being good at crossfit'. That's fine, but it's a pretty narrow definition that only other cult members care about.

Then instead of discussing the topic, you simply call names and make broad assertions about how ignorant other people are. That's cool, but it doesn't help make your point any more than it helps tom cruise when he talks about scientology.

I think we can agree that being in shape is good for your health and well being and quality of life. Beyond that, you'll have to come up with some actual data to convince me.

I get that you believe in crossfit and probably make money from it but this whole thread sounds more like an advertisement for your professional 'coaching' services than anything else.

Ah the famous old cliche cult assertion of crossfit. Go look up how Websters defines a cult, and get back to me. Funny how you berate me for calling names when you start your post out with an insult. What a joke. By the way, since definitions appear to be difficult for you, ignorance is the state of not knowing something, it isn't an insult.

No. My definition of fitness falls in line with Crossfit's, which as I stated earlier in this thread, is work capacity across broad time and modal domains. If you don't understand what that means, it is your average power output measured in horsepower across a wide range of activities and time durations. VO2 max has literally nothing to do with it. Elite marathon runners have great vo2 max, most also can't jump more than 6 inches off the ground. You going to tell me they are fit? They are amazing at what they do, which is run long distances. They aren't very good at anything else physical.

I don't make any money from crossfit whatsoever, and I'm not currently offering any coaching services, go back to your troll cave with your wild accusations.

What are you even asking for data on? I'm not trying to prove anything, I wrote a post about a way to possibly make the best shooters in the world better, and you used it as your personal soapbox to attack crossfit, which is not something I even mentioned in the original post. It's obvious you like so many others out there have an agenda against it, and you know what? I don't really care, just take it somewhere else.

Did you even read my post? Unless you believe I am lying about my background how could I not have a proper understanding of crossfit?

I've read peer reviewed literature from the NSCA that "proved" that hamstrings aren't involved in squatting. If one of the most respected associations in strength and conditioning can get away with publishing bunk like that, I'm going to take anything else they say with a grain of salt. If you think that sitting in on a couple studies and thesis defenses, an L1 seminar, and grad school gives you a solid understanding of crossfit, you greatly underestimate the amount of material and complexity there actually is to it. I've attended 6 L1's, 4 of them working as an intern, an L2 before it was called the L2, mobility, 4 years of coaching in an affiliate ran by a senior seminar staff member, and 10 years before that coaching and researching on my own, and I still learn things daily. I don't think you're lying, I think you don't have nearly enough experience in methodology that is for the most part not taught in schools.

Wow. Okay. I guess I forgot to mention I spent 4 years under Cliff Rovelto on both the track and field and the weight room as well as a year in the football weight room under Rod Cole. Which I'm certain was a total waste of time since it wasn't crossfit. As was 5 years of studying exercise physiology and biomechanics...part of which was spent participating in research SPECIFICALLY ON CROSSFIT. I am certain I am not an expert. I have met too many people who know way more than I do to ever claim that. And even though I was a crossfit subscriber for 18 months (hell I still have 9 hours of crossfit video on my computers and chapters of articles from their publication) I now find myself deeply disappointed to learn that I apparently lack both the education and intelligence to comprehend the rare and mysterious physiological benefits which can only be attained from doing double unders for time and doing high rep Oly lifts when your neuromuscular system is already on the verge of failure. I appreciate you exposing me to my ignorance and arrogance to think that anyone besides a crossfit grandmaster can truly grasp the nuanced intricacies of "crossfit methodology".

Unfortunately it appears I will forever be a slave to my "fancy book learnin", my D1 coaching mentors, and years of personal athletic experiences.

Have fun with the thread folks. I apparently do not have the capacity to understand it.

[Youngeyes]

Enough with the personal name calling. This thread is now locked for obvious reasons. For those that are "obvious" challenged, let me remind you..

Posting Guidelines

Attitude
Please be polite. Or if not polite, at least respectful.
No bickering. Regardless of the subject matter.
Antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones are not acceptable.
No trolling. No alternate accounts.