- Each weight produces a different mechanical rep based on its relation to the individual's bodyweight - from Simmons and Pendlay, and especially relevant in the olympic lifts, as the momentary weightlessness in which lifter and barbell are moving solely in relation to each other derives its characteristics from the weight ratio: when the lifter weights more, their COG will remain more stable relative to the bar, as the COG of the entire lifter/bar system biases towards the individual. In lifts where the weight is greater than the lifter, the opposite happens, and new mechanics and timing must be learned. I'm starting to believe this is why so many people hit the bodyweight snatch as a barrier - they haven't taken the time to learned a new set of mechanics required for the new movement patterns. Put simply, I wonder if this can be fixed by hanging out in the 1RM realm with assistance exercises - snatch balances, pulls, etc.
- Without proper starts, powerful, smooth lifts will never be achieved (Kono)
- Without proper flexibility, proper starts can never be made - Potential Potential (Kono/Starrett)
- Without proper starts, then heavy lifts will inevitably induce injury (Starrett)
- For proper lifts, there must be proper starts. For proper starts, there must be a capacity for proper biomechanics. If those biomechanics are not possible, then they must be achieved first.
- It is unreasonable to ask an individual to sideline workouts because of these issues, but at the same time it is irresponsible to allow them to derange themselves incrementally simply for their own. While working on mobility, is it preferable to reduce weights with the same movements, or simply find new movements that can be loaded heavily without possible damage? This would be most difficult with the basic lifts (deadlift, squat, press, etc).
- The base strength > strength endurance > work capacity > short time domain work model for developing success in CF is currently most successful - it out GPP's CF's own GPP model. Is there a way to produce a programming model that produces Westside-type constant readiness without the randomness of CF main site? Many boxes and programs aim towards this goal, but few seem to pay much attention to the body's recovery/adaptation needs - very few programs consider the adaptation abilities of the novice (70% of CFers), intermediate (25%), and advanced (5%) individuals. The numbers are my own guesses, but the actual numbers can only be more skewed. More trained individuals need more than different load and rep schemes, they need different exercise frequency and loading patterns (undulating, wave, etc).
- Are microcycles that move from pure strength to pure short-term work capacity effective in producing adaptations? Theory would say yes given proper recovery, but would these gains be too incremental compared to traditional periodization? Simmons says that his program creates GPP, but is his method successful because of a relatively narrow pursuit within the full realm of athletics?
- Sport vs training vs athletic base - CF posits itself as all three simultaneously, though its different implementations have had defined and clear differences within the three realms. Each one has its own appropriateness and best method for use, but how do you sell this to the client? People either want everything or are simply disinterested in the nuances, so can this even be addressed in a group setting, and more importantly to the satisfaction of the client? Programming CF and doing CF workouts have dramatically different attitudes and goals if someone does them for health or as sport. Furthermore, many who want to do it as sport are likely not ready and should be doing it as training instead. CF's draw is as sport, but to train its athletes for it as sport requires a sport approach, not a CF one.
And then there are the nutrition questions....
