What's the point in doing "snatches" other than getting better at doing "snatches"? It involves a lot of technique. Just do a "clean"..less technique more weight. "Thrusters"?? That;s a fav of crossshit. The strength in shoulder press (in this case a "jerk") is incongruous with strength in a front squat. Makes much more sense to do them separately..do your set of front squats. Do your set of "clean & jerks". The weight is matched to the strength of each movement. "sans isolation"?? Biceps curl IS an iso exercise. What you say is inconsistent... the biceps need direct work via iso to maximize development, but no other muscle group? The "Big Three" have been around forever...your lineup is just the same with a little tweaking the reasons which escape me.
Hi wjk, I can't really comment on your routine as you described it. It has far more moving parts than mine, and the study on higher reps for hypertrophy that I referred to called for going to failure. However, your higher rep sets seem to principally be your warm ups. I think the stiffness you felt afterwards may had more to do with the newness of the rep numbers you were doing rather than necessarily the numbers themselves. As for me, since I decided to do a slightly higher rep work set on my RT exercises, I decreased the reps on my warm ups. The only comment of value I can give you, if that, is on your diet. And I think I may have mentioned this before. Rather than have a dietary regimen that you do in intervals, so to speak, why not adopt something that works and that you can comfortably adhere to on a continuous basis? It's when we feel that we have been deprived that we're more likely to binge out. Enter the yo-yo. Crash diets tend to crash.
Try harder. I had stated that the curls are the only isolation that I/would do; "Squats, DLs, bench, overhead press, bicep curls (only isolation exercise)." It is not a jerk. It is one continuous motion. There is nothing incongruous about including a shoulder press with a squat motion (uh, C&J?). You're taking the weight from the floor to overhead. Nobody would do a C&J or a snatch if using your shitty logic. A C&J involves a pause at the top of the front squat; so why do the press at all? Why do any combination-lift? "Matched to the strength of the movement" is bullshit. People lift light and heavy through periodization. It's (thruster) a phenomenal cardio exercise that will likely improve one's 1RM. I like the idea of running them heavier in 10-20 rep sets for efficiency in a full-body program. I use the thruster as a metcon exercise, hence the reference to the sweating and the rise in BMR that can be quantified by the temporal thermometer. I dislike the CrossFit cult because they overtrain and do ridiculous one-off sandbag shit, et al. I am not going to go through the tedium of tipping cows to find something new to do. And I'd bet I can snatch more than you can bench. I'd also bet that your vag closes like a steel-trap with you spending so much time on the Nautilus ab/adductor machine. WTF. Is. This?
This woman can snatch more than you. I'd hazard to guess she can do twice as many 85lb thrusters in 10mins than you can do in 20. Does she look like she is deficient in mass or fitness? I would seriously wager that she can best all of your lifts on 5-reps. She doesn't curl... she doesn't sit on the Nautilus doing her adductor exercise in a singlet. How do her biceps look?
People who excel at dynamic lifts are stronger and leaner than those who do not. They gain all of the metcon benefits as well as the "downstream" endocrinology (test/epi ratio; hGH -> IGF levels). I have had a ton of bloodwork and my test and IGFBP3 are materially improved when I do dynamic(Olympic) lifts; when compared to bloodwork taken during a classic 4-split routine. Nominally, even though some of the bloodwork is over 10 years old and the levels were worse (in the past).
Ok, i'll try harder ..listen to me! Cue this at 1:04: Now, cue this at 0:57: Let them both run together side by side. The biomechanics, ie. "the clean" is identical for each for most of the move (till the top where you drop under the weight..arms locked out above with snatch) But the finesse of the snatch at the top forces a lighter resistance during the clean portion. the most productive portion for muscle development is the CLEAN part of it! the rest in snatch is technique (falling under arms locked). 20%-40% less resistance! My point is clear...I'll do the CLEAN (and with lot more potentially productive weight), f^ck the snatch. The snatch is pretty, i'll give you that, but pales in comparison to others for sheer muscle building potential. Why would I want to do a snatch except to get better at doing a snatch
Yes, she can snatch more because she practices the skill. That's MY point! Only possible conclusion from your pic is that rope skipping builds great traps
This wasn't a criticism of Baron's physique, just observation from my POV looking at his pic a flawed angle for those groups. He has done a terrific job, outstanding cudos to him. Means nothing, I'm FOS
Let's (you) stop trolling this fine thread. I am not bringing anything new to the table with Olympic lifts; other than to state that the complexity of isolation exercises are not needed to practice bodybuilding. More importantly, people lose motivation when spending hours hitting a group from different angles in what is a binary function (concentric/eccentric). It relates to the fallacy of hitting the "head" from different angles -- complete BS from a A&P-perspective. Stacie Tovar (above pic) is proof of that, and she's built better than 99.996% of the "fitness" population, guys included. This (Tovar) from the vast majority of exercises being Olympic lifts, and ZERO isolation exercises.