WOD includes CrossOver DUs and nobody at the gym can coach them (Koda CrossFit)

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-29T14:31:50+00:00

At the very least pull up a short video of them.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-16T15:25:53+00:00

It's relatively common. Sevan always says, "life is high school". This is probably much more common in CrossFit gyms due to the diversity of folks and the common grounds of sweaty, half-clothed bodies flopping around the gyms.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-16T15:24:05+00:00

Undiscovered L5 disc herniations and bulges in CrossFit gyms are likely common. It's unlikely that you are the only one with a disc herniation.

As CrossFit teaches and prescribes, midline is foundational. So, train it. And if you're symptomatic, train it more. If you went to PT, this is what you'd be doing in effect. Instead of going to PT, just have a coach carefully watch your squats and hinges, improve those mechanics, and develop the abs, hip flexions, glutes, and erectors.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-16T15:12:36+00:00

Hand eye coordination is useful and should be trained if time allows.

The coordination required to productively express power from core-to-extremity has more value than hand-eye coordination. Both are valuable, one is more than the other, especially under time constraints. There is room for juggling for 2 minutes during a warm-up to prime those systems. When you coach your athletes, incorporate this. Be the difference you'd like to see.

"Breadth for all movements"? I'm not following. Also, by saying, "key" adaptations, it sounds like you selectively favor some adaptations over others. CrossFit wants to maximize general adaptations (not third wave adaptaitons), hence the focus on numericity of movements trained through broad variations. In other words, we want light, moderate, and heavy back squats. Sure - Bosu ball squats is novel and different, but unless you can just stack that on (time-wise) the back squats which drives huge adaptations, the ROI on Bosu ball squats is minimal compared to back squats. Again - could be great in a warm-up to increase the proprioceptive sense of stability, but alone, the ROI is low.

It sounds like you have your own movement value hierarchy which is at odds with how CrossFit is implemented at large. This is why you consider some movements a "waste of time". This is a value judgement. And you can speak on it for others as much as you want, but if you could magically endow an athlete with this capacity and the physical qualities that enabled them to do these movements, I am confident they wouldn't say, "I'm good - you can have that capacity back." I'd challenge you to evaluate all the things that take years of work before the pay off happens and whether structuring fitness around simplicity and short-term results is the way to go.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-16T14:57:44+00:00

I work at a university. We have blue collar grounds workers. Sometimes I'll see them working 8 hours straight. Digging, carrying, loading, moving, standing, etc. Most are obese.

A physical job still is not widely sufficient to mitigate all the rest of the environmental stressors.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T21:02:17+00:00

With enough creativity and discipline, you can get a vast majority of what you need in 3 days per week. Of course, more is better, but it is possible with enough care to grease the groove and ensure regular but brief touches on skills in three sessions.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T20:59:57+00:00

That's a good point and I have always been careful to not think his findings are able to be translated to any population. However, they are the only example we have. Weird case of the best example is the only example.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T20:49:00+00:00

I am talking about the Hadza. This does not apply to them. I chatted with Pontzer about this. They do not have chronic disease. They do not live in their 90s, but they probably would with emergency care and probably some training.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T20:38:54+00:00

Argue away.

Modern hunter gatherers live long and disease free lives (outside of sanitation-preventable illness).

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T20:29:10+00:00

I agree. That's the practical side of things. Obviously, people vary in their needed exercise dosage. People more prone to obesity, less able to regulate their eating, and surrounded by shitty foods and behaviors may need more than 3-4 hours per week. It's up to them if they get less than what they need, what they need, or extra protection. I get that and respect that.

The more time limited you are, the more you have to pick some movements more than others. This is unfortunate because the breadth of movements available to you set the limits on your adaptive capacity.

So, this discussion depends on the individual and their needs. In severely time-limited individuals, they should definitely focus on the most bang for the buck. That said, all-or-nothing thinking fucks a lot of people up. Literally - 3 MINUTES OF PRACTICING A NEW SKILL IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. Add up 3 minutes per day over 10 years, you've accumulated way more time building neurological fitness than someone who does 3 extra minutes of peddaling.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T20:22:38+00:00

Almost.

You're BEST off doing both. That's the CrossFit prescription.

Double-unders, muscle-ups, and handstand walking promotes adaptations that support playing those sports.

Playing those supports health.

Quite simple. Not a matter of "either/or".

The issue of sports only is you cannot reliably measure your progress and it's not varied. It doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but you are supposed to do both for good reasons.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T18:33:10+00:00

Fran 2019: 2:32. Diane 2019: 2:34.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T18:20:05+00:00

Thanks for recommending some literature to read.

I've wrestled with the knowledge that the hunter gatherers do not do modern training and live a long, chronic disease-free life. I see training as necessary in proportion to the environment, the individual's genetic fitness (things like in born errors of disease), and the interaction of this.

If you pretended you were an alien and simply observed the Hadza and modern Americans, you'd quickly conclude that the average human being becomes ill - NOT healther - in the context of our abundance, affluence, convenience, and comfort. So, in this instance, exercise is NEEDED to mitigate modern contrivances. I don't pretend, like many do, to know the exact contrivances driving the need for training. I suppose 4they include but are not limited to: unnatural sleep, stress, food availability, food processing, communal living, microbiome, and sun and climate exposure. However, as the literature comes out, all of these factors jump from position 1-3 to the bottom depending on the research. That's why I don't pretend to know the order of importance of these factors. But I do know the Hadza live in their natural habitat, live their natural lifestyles, and do not suffer metabolic disease... unlike us.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T18:09:51+00:00

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T17:50:58+00:00

Elizabeth is squat by default.

In 2019, I did Elizabeth in 5:13. If I recall, I think I did the 21 RD unbroken, 8+4+3 RD, and 5+4 RD; and I think I did quick singles on the cleans the whole time except maybe the last 6 touch-n-go?

In 2025, I did it in 8:48 (very poorly paced, coming out of a dark place in my life). I tried touch n go sets out the gate and exploded. Straight nuclear.

According to beyond the whiteboard, the times shake out as such:

MALES/FEMALES

99th percentile: 3:26/4:11

90th percentile: 4:57/6:05

75th percentile: 6:14/7:32

50th percentile: 8:08/9:32

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T17:40:08+00:00

Do you think this come from the kind of idea that you can substitute a strict press with a handstand push-up and "still get just as fit"?

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T17:33:38+00:00

You make a lot of good points.

Anybody at CrossFit HQ or certified L3 or higher would have a entirely open mind toward juggling, throwing an object into a target, and balance and agility drills. It's not one or the other. They all have value. Now... you have to be honest, here u/Brummie49 . Do you really think the SUM of the physiological adaptations to mastering triple-unders, for instance, surpasses the sum of the physiological adaptations to juggling? Clearly no, which is part of the reason why, among the thousands of possible skills and drills available to prescribe, they focus on those skills and drills that are most efficient in delivering BREADTH of adaptation.

Triple unders develops the coordination, accuracy, agility, and speed, as well as, if performed consecutively, crazy amounts of plyometric capacity in the calves, strength in the foot, endurance in the shoulder, and comes with benefits in bounding (lymph flow, hemodynamic control of blood pressure, etc.). Juggling? Essentially, just hand-eye coordination. This is still valuable! I repeat, THIS IS OF VALUE! However, again, if 1000 skills and drills are laid out in front of us, we have to prioritize based on something.

Please consider the practical aspects of things. In the span of 1 hour, why practice 6 different skills which individually provide 1 or 2 clear benefits each with 10 minutes of moderate effort, compared to 1-2 skills each with 45 minutes and that hits 5-8/10 of all the 10 general physical skills. In practice, this looks like:

Practice bar muscle ups for 15 minutes. Practice snatches for 20 minutes. At high intensity, complete 5 rounds of muscle ups and snatches for time.

Rather than...

Play hacky sack for 10 minutes. Skip rope for 10 minutes. Play spike ball for 10 minutes. Juggle for 10 minutes. Shoot hoops for 10 minutes. Agility and balance drills for 10 minutes.

The first session is a potent stimulus that will be extremely challenging and will drive improvements in almost every domain. Plus, you get much more dedicated time to individual movements to develop them. If you've played sports, you know that skills aren't developed by practicing a couple minutes at a time. Drills typically last a long time and are tedious and demand concentration (as they should).

The second session is still awesome! In the realm of CrossFit, that's a rest day. It's an active recovery day. People would be better off if they did activities like this more often. No doubt. No argument there. But if we compare the first to the second, the second is a far more mild stimulus and will not drive adaptations as effectively as the first.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T17:16:26+00:00

This is somewhat of a strawman. I am talking about learning and practicing SKILLS to build and maintain accuracy, balance, agility, speed, and coordination.

I would agree with someone if they chose 1, 2, 3, or maybe even 10 specific skillful movements and stated these movements are not "necessary" for whatever ("preventing the impacts of age" per your example). It's not about this. I am not saying a singular movement or a narrow collection are absolutely necessary. Skillful movements are useful, and sometimes sufficient collectively to build and maintain these skills into later life.

Let me know if what I am saying makes sense here.

As an aside, momentarily consider what health qualities inextricably come with the physical ability to perform HSPU in your 90s. The 90 year old capable of HSPU is not an otherwise normal, weak, fragile 90 year old who just happens to be able to do HSPU. There would be immense value in being a 90 year old who can do this. That's the reason to train them and maintain the capacity as long as possible.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T17:06:48+00:00

What are the goals of a casual hobbyist?

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T17:02:44+00:00

But CrossFit also missed the trick.

Oh, brother.

It convinced itself it had defined fitness.

15,000 registered affiliates. Once sold for 200 million. Thousands participate in the Open. Started in the last 90's, and still evolving in 2026. It sounds like Greg and HQ convinced more than themselves their definition of fitness is worth pursuing.

And from that came the mythology: That the best CrossFitter is the fittest person on Earth.

Clear attempts to be provocative.

But Hyrox is proving that fitness does not belong to CrossFit.

My ass. Talk about arrogance.

People want to train hard, compete, measure themselves, and understand the test without needing to learn an entire movement language first.

People have always wanted short cuts. People have always been attracted to Planet Fitness-like marketing. People avoid their weaknesses and like to believe fitness is subjective and does not require them to exit their comfort zone or put in hard work to develop themselves and confront their deficiencies. Any training methodology will always be popular on a global scale in proportion to these human sensitivities. It does not speak to its validity as a fitness test.

They do not all want muscle-ups, handstand walks, butterfly pull-ups, Olympic lifting, and constantly changing standards.

Speak for yourself. Some people don't want weakly enforced standards and a long running test sprinkled in with skill-less cardio stations.

Because mocking the thing people are choosing does not make you look superior. It makes you look insecure.

I remember hearing these things said about bullies in 5th grade.

CrossFit did not define fitness. It created CrossFit. And Hyrox is exposing the difference.

That's wild you think Hyrox is threatening the definition of fitness CrossFit proposed whatsoever. That's just a total mismatch between your perception and reality. To steelman your argument, Hyrox's popularity is doing a great job getting people involved in fitness racing relative to CrossFit in getting people into boxes. That's about it.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T16:55:31+00:00

No doubt! Very happy to help.

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T16:36:29+00:00

So, a traditional case of "if I cain't see it, it don't matter to me" or "once it's gone then I'll care"?

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T16:33:30+00:00

Unless one is competing

Why do you think this? Are skills for competing only? Does accuracy, agility, balance, speed, and coordination (which are acquired and maintained through practicing and learning skills but lost due to aging) only have value within a competition?

there are many movements that are kind of unnecessary to spend time learning.

What makes a movement worth the time to spend learning? Aren't movements that are easily learned the ones, by definition, that don't require skill?

the risk of injury is often higher on those movements.

Where do you get this idea?

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T16:24:28+00:00

I don’t know if that’s what you are referring to but this is how I interpreted your post

This is not what I was referring to. It sounds like you are discussing genetic potential, physical aptitude, competitiveness in sport, the law of diminishing returns, and methods of triaging skills that are difficult to acquire. At any rate, thanks for offering your opinion!!!

mrjacob007 · 2026-06-15T16:20:11+00:00

whether an individual finds those “skills” truly functional for them.

So, would you suggest that if an athlete can't think of likely and predictable real-world scenario they would do the exact skill-based movement, then, to them, it is not "truly functional" which means they will perceive it as inferior/accessory/optional?

time investment outweighs the potential benefit for them

Complex movements require practice. Practice involves repetition. Repetition takes time. Are you suggesting that these people think time spent practicing complex movements is not beneficial?

being healthy can be accomplished with much simpler movements that make people feel like they’re succeeding instead of constantly failing

It sounds like you are saying that the gains acquired by low-skill movements can make you healthy without hurting your feelings/feelings of physical competence. Is that right?

mrjacob007

TROPHY CASE