Deleted member 316
Guest
I got his email today and cant help wonder whats going on. I know he left the rkc a few years ago, but this flies in the face of Pavel. Is this the new trend.
- Status
Journeyman
Level 5 Valued Member
'No excessive tension', basically. Jay doesn't go into a whole lot of detail explaining it online that I've seen.
He also does a lot of non-aligned stuff... cleans starting from a lunge position, that kinda thing.
He also does a lot of non-aligned stuff... cleans starting from a lunge position, that kinda thing.
Chris F.
Level 3 Valued Member
I was hoping someone would bring this up. I'm completely confused by this. I have some of his books and he comes up on my FB wall. He seems pretty aggressive in his stance like he's done a complete 180 from what he did before. I guess this falls under "many paths up the mountain."
He also is quoted extensively in an anti-CrossFit article that's all over the net. basically he says you can't get cardiovascularly fit without running, cycling, etc. That "lifting weights faster is BS."
Wasn't VWC all about building huge cardio without traditional methods? What am I missing here?
He also is quoted extensively in an anti-CrossFit article that's all over the net. basically he says you can't get cardiovascularly fit without running, cycling, etc. That "lifting weights faster is BS."
Wasn't VWC all about building huge cardio without traditional methods? What am I missing here?
To be frank: Being a simple guy, not a math geek, instead of risking a headache from all those numbers and formulas, I did my simple (but profound!) StrongFirst based practice. Few bells, pencil and my training blog (paper!). I sucked at math and physics, I have to admit that.
People will of course try to to distinguish themselves from StrongFirst and its success, I understand that - why not, there are various roads to the top of the mountain, let's respect that. However, whoever says StrongFirst = StrongONLY doesn't know what he is talking about, and it has been said on numerous occasions by far more knowledgable than I am. (If i recall correctly, "Iron Tamer" wrote a once article on that subject).
I was also a doubting Thomas ("seriously, StrongFirst? How about mobility, stability, endurance, explosive power, ...., ... "), but my own experience (both from my own practice, as well as teaching lots of students in the last few years), shows that the Chief was spot-on (damn!). I am definitely not going to fix it if it ain't broken.
People will of course try to to distinguish themselves from StrongFirst and its success, I understand that - why not, there are various roads to the top of the mountain, let's respect that. However, whoever says StrongFirst = StrongONLY doesn't know what he is talking about, and it has been said on numerous occasions by far more knowledgable than I am. (If i recall correctly, "Iron Tamer" wrote a once article on that subject).
I was also a doubting Thomas ("seriously, StrongFirst? How about mobility, stability, endurance, explosive power, ...., ... "), but my own experience (both from my own practice, as well as teaching lots of students in the last few years), shows that the Chief was spot-on (damn!). I am definitely not going to fix it if it ain't broken.
jgruginski
Level 3 Valued Member
I don't think you're missing anything, Chris. I don't know Mr. Jay and can't say what his reasons are for his stance which I think sounds disrespectful to the person who introduced him to the rest of the world. He says very plainly that "focusing on strength first is wrong". His words, not mine. I do find it funny that a person who focuses on physics and physiology has a gripe about a word like "strength", which has many meanings and interpretations and yet plugs the idea of "fast" which is also a relative word. Kind of like the word "cold". Cold is a subjective measure. One can only measure heat objectively just like you can only measure speed and velocity, not fastness (is that even a word?).
I believe he could make his point and just say that focusing on power production and not absolute strength is what he prefers. He states that training with attention to repeatable power performance and higher power production will result in a more "athletic" individual. He also advocates for different positions to develop athletic ability with the kettlebell and elimination of unnecessary tension. I don't disagree with anything he's saying but what he's saying is not completely a 180 of what is taught in this organization, at least not from what I've seen. I recall that Pavel has said that the role of tension is to be able to transfer force to the desired movement : KB press, one arm pushup, etc. However, he has also stated that there is no need to generate more tension than is necessary to perform a movement, especially after mastery of the movement and the weight. Perhaps that view has changed over the years, but I haven't seen anything to the contrary. Also, Mr. Jay doesn't say that he doesn't train, or doesn't advocate training, with high percentage of 1 RM. I find the lack of transparency disturbing in that regard, but in any case I find myself very mixed on Mr. Jay. One the one hand I like that he presents the scientific basis, sometimes limited, to back up what he shares. However, he hasn't learned the quiet modesty that I feel Pavel, Mark, and the rest of the SF organization have displayed, most notably in any reference to the current RKC. It is in fact his insistence on breaking down others' views in a non-scientific way that has kept me from attending his certifications, and similarly why I also choose to stay away from a CrossFit certification. If the overseeing management structure or leadership acts in a way that doesn't seem mature or ethical, then why align with it at all?
With regards to VWC, you're not missing anything. He seems to still stand behind VWC in general, yet states that the KB snatch still falls short of longer duration cardio. It's all in the marketing, really. Cardio has no real definition (much like "fast") so he is now defining cardio a different way than he did with VWC to suit his purposes. I'm mixed on that, too but he seems to be making money off the whole deal and seems to still be able to share some decent information. You just have to look past the marketing garbage.
I believe he could make his point and just say that focusing on power production and not absolute strength is what he prefers. He states that training with attention to repeatable power performance and higher power production will result in a more "athletic" individual. He also advocates for different positions to develop athletic ability with the kettlebell and elimination of unnecessary tension. I don't disagree with anything he's saying but what he's saying is not completely a 180 of what is taught in this organization, at least not from what I've seen. I recall that Pavel has said that the role of tension is to be able to transfer force to the desired movement : KB press, one arm pushup, etc. However, he has also stated that there is no need to generate more tension than is necessary to perform a movement, especially after mastery of the movement and the weight. Perhaps that view has changed over the years, but I haven't seen anything to the contrary. Also, Mr. Jay doesn't say that he doesn't train, or doesn't advocate training, with high percentage of 1 RM. I find the lack of transparency disturbing in that regard, but in any case I find myself very mixed on Mr. Jay. One the one hand I like that he presents the scientific basis, sometimes limited, to back up what he shares. However, he hasn't learned the quiet modesty that I feel Pavel, Mark, and the rest of the SF organization have displayed, most notably in any reference to the current RKC. It is in fact his insistence on breaking down others' views in a non-scientific way that has kept me from attending his certifications, and similarly why I also choose to stay away from a CrossFit certification. If the overseeing management structure or leadership acts in a way that doesn't seem mature or ethical, then why align with it at all?
With regards to VWC, you're not missing anything. He seems to still stand behind VWC in general, yet states that the KB snatch still falls short of longer duration cardio. It's all in the marketing, really. Cardio has no real definition (much like "fast") so he is now defining cardio a different way than he did with VWC to suit his purposes. I'm mixed on that, too but he seems to be making money off the whole deal and seems to still be able to share some decent information. You just have to look past the marketing garbage.
Journeyman
Level 5 Valued Member
So I just read two of his articles. First was the cardio one. As Joe said, he doesn't really define anything very well. 'Lifting weights faster'--so is this tabata dumbbell curls? There's nothing precise there, you can't just throw colored bars on a graph without explaining them. I do think he makes a good point about the intensity and interval scheme, though.
Then there's this: http://www.movementcode.net/blog/files/dccb179e627d326ffa35c21b517295be-11.html ('Fast Force Part 2')
I saw the power production calculations (more or less, I'm not the best with that) and decided to see what would happen if we take the barbell weight in half again, to 37.5kg, and double the velocity again, to 1.2m/s. Plugging those numbers into Jay's equation, the lift now takes 0.75 seconds to complete, acceleration is 1.6m/s. This results in 427.5N, times the speed of 1.2m/s, and you get 513 watts.
Anyway, by this calculation, it looks like deadlifting 75kg in 1.5 seconds is 'better for power production' than deadlifting 225kg in 6 seconds, and deadlifting 37.5kg in 0.75 seconds is even better than that.
To this I have two responses: First--really? 75kg (or even 37.5kg) is going to result in more expressible power production? Maybe you can express more power when lifting the 75kg, versus the 225kg, but if you cannot lift the 225kg at all then good luck expressing that power you demonstrated with 75kg on the field. Second, who is taking 6 seconds to lock out a deadlift in training? Generally takes me around a second and a half, tops. So there must be something wrong with the way he set up his calculations there... anyone else have thoughts on that?
Then there's this: http://www.movementcode.net/blog/files/dccb179e627d326ffa35c21b517295be-11.html ('Fast Force Part 2')
I saw the power production calculations (more or less, I'm not the best with that) and decided to see what would happen if we take the barbell weight in half again, to 37.5kg, and double the velocity again, to 1.2m/s. Plugging those numbers into Jay's equation, the lift now takes 0.75 seconds to complete, acceleration is 1.6m/s. This results in 427.5N, times the speed of 1.2m/s, and you get 513 watts.
Anyway, by this calculation, it looks like deadlifting 75kg in 1.5 seconds is 'better for power production' than deadlifting 225kg in 6 seconds, and deadlifting 37.5kg in 0.75 seconds is even better than that.
To this I have two responses: First--really? 75kg (or even 37.5kg) is going to result in more expressible power production? Maybe you can express more power when lifting the 75kg, versus the 225kg, but if you cannot lift the 225kg at all then good luck expressing that power you demonstrated with 75kg on the field. Second, who is taking 6 seconds to lock out a deadlift in training? Generally takes me around a second and a half, tops. So there must be something wrong with the way he set up his calculations there... anyone else have thoughts on that?
Gentlemen, we cannot say if he is wrong, only that we do works. The principles we espouse have remained unchanged; our methods continue to improve.
-S-
-S-
jgruginski
Level 3 Valued Member
And that response is exactly why I'm all in on StrongFirst, Steve.
Chris F.
Level 3 Valued Member
Thank you Joe and Aris for the excellent explanations. And Steve, I agree 100%. I do though always like to understand a contrary point of view. You see this throughout the fitness/martial art industry: a person establishes an effective system and then a student goes on to create their own often competitive system. To me that's all well and good and often drives positive change. I never did get though why often the upstart has to make their forebears "wrong" when they owe so much to that tutelage.
In any case, I am grateful for the class this group conducts itself with. Top notch.
In any case, I am grateful for the class this group conducts itself with. Top notch.
ericreichelt81
Level 3 Valued Member
I remember doing VO2 max at the end of the RKC very and thinking this is garbage. To many easier ways to get desired improvement without timers broke down to 7 second intervals. Aria brings up the main point in the why? Why is everyone looking for the easier. If you pull 75kg fast you need to decelerate or you'll jack your s*** up. It's nothing. I think a lot of people go for the money grab and forget they need decades of success under them to think there's any merit to a new system. Fred Hatfield was one of the pioneers of power production in strength sport and he has said intent on the heavy weight yuejds desired adaptation. If we apply logical fallacy of appealing to authority then the conclusion logically is who has done more. Kenneth who, or Doctor Squat. Follow at your own consequence.
- Status