Look where we've gone. We've gone from

prescription,

from RX to power,

from power

to fitness.

And now fitness entirely dependent on

technique.

that says technique.

>> Sir,

>> I guess what I'm getting from this is

you're saying that it's acceptable to

have 20%

um technique flaw, I guess.

>> Yeah. Essentially, right? In fact, what

we see is of our very best performers,

you look at it and go, that's damn good

work. It might even be 85 90%. It's like

a minus b plus.

It just seems to contradict what he said

earlier, which is they don't have We got

to back up.

>> Well, if you can't if you can't create

it, mime it. If you don't know what the

line of action is with nothing in your

hands, load ain't going to help you.

We're not going to all of a sudden with

enough intensity, he got stupid enough

it got perfect. I mean, every once in a

while something like that happens. If

you've got some cognitive uh intercept

to getting the right thing, I can get

you beat up enough that you start

flowing along efficient lines. Every

once in a while that happens, but

generally not. chair. Look, I we're

working out at intensity so great people

are spiraling into the ground, not

knowing which way's up. How are you

going to make sure you didn't

necessarily pull with the arms?

Will your fine motor recruitment go to

[ __ ] at the limits of your capacity?

Hell yeah. You drive too fast, you're

going to hit the wall. You type too

fast, you'll hit notes. You shoot too

fast, you're going to get outside the

target too much. But to think that

you're going to develop the intensity

absent those crashes into the wall,

hitting the wrong note, hitting the

wrong key, never. Never, never, never,

never going to happen. I promise you

right now. We've had we have this

wonderful experience. Again, big

empirical deal here. I have trainers

that have have have

build themselves as the epitome of

perfection and elegance and grace and

technique. And I'm giving it to you. I

mean, that's are some [ __ ] good

squats at very low intensity.

What you want to do is constantly

ratchet up the point at which the

margins become inaccible so that it

takes more and more and more and more

horsepower to get you to fumble.

And you're not going to do that without

crashing into the wall or hitting the

wrong note. You're not going to do it.

Questions?

Sir,

>> as a trainer with a new client,

completely new to CrossFit, is the

correlation between technique and

intensity a natural progression or how

do we

>> Yeah, I mean, my game plan is I want to

see I want to see excruciatingly

clean technique at lower intensity and

then ratchet up the intensity. And as it

wanders off, I'm going to pull it back

in. And it's threshold training and it's

the most natural thing in the world to

do. So you find me telling you, "Yes,

Greg, I want you to go faster. No, not

sloppy. Faster, faster, faster, less

sloppy. I want both. And I'm going to

push those margins and you have you

really frustrated. If I don't get you to

where you're faltering and I see form

faults, we're not going hard enough. And

it's from that faltering that I want to

make the correction.

I want you to type so fast you're

missing keys. And I'm going to tell you

to quit missing the [ __ ] keys.

Right? It's so it's so intuitive. It's

by the way, it's the way this stuff has

been done forever. We've all been been

been thrown a drift by the bodybuilding

community where each [ __ ] curl is

pretty and there's no reason for ugly

curls. That's because the movement's so

dumb. I don't mean just dumb to do. It

is dumb to do. It's dumb in the sense

that it has no coordination, accuracy,

agility component, no power, speed

component. They're irrelevant to the

task.

They're irrelevant to the task.

Sir,

>> I guess the question becomes because you

have kind of a a gray area there between

intensity and and technique and in our

with firefighting or whatever personal

training a lot of guys are so intent on

getting the job done and they when do

you say you're done let's stop let's

slow down I mean is it you know you're

saying 20% is

>> I see I see ineffective mo movement

Okay.

>> You know, if you're doing if you're

doing a 30 rep planer jerk and the first

one is you know doing I'm like whoa dude

you are not going to get there like

that.

>> So you're looking at more than anything

else is that when their form gets poor

enough that they start to not be able to

create the same.

>> Yes. Or or head down a known path to

danger rounded back

>> right

>> you know but I need some semblance of of

capacity now. And this is a wonderful

thing. I get someone who I just don't

like the movement. So, I tell them,

"Slow down and think harder. Breathe

deeper." And all of a sudden, the pace

picks up.

How's that for cool? I get you to slow

down and you go faster. You'll find

exactly that.

The fastest delivery for a given output

will be along super correct lines of

action. It's a natural place to be. And

everything else is a dead end on the

tree, a branch to out and done, not up.

And you'll have to fix it to back down

in intensity. fix the mechanics to go

back up again to a place where there's

where there's high probability of

success. If you show me a world record

uh uh discus throw, what you won't find

is, "Oh my god, he really did a shitty

job of throwing that."

You don't see a world record clean and

jerk and that's the worst technique I've

ever seen.

Not at not at the highest margins of

performance.

Wherever wherever sport is highly

quantifiable, output, human performance

is highly quantifiable, precision of

movement, this this this neurological

component asserts itself dramatically

and naturally.

Suppose someone

suppose suppose suppose this gentleman

were to get a world record in the discus

throw with a really ugly [ __ ] style.

I mean, wow. That's not how you do it,

but world record. Then he does it. Wow.

Same bad technique but another world

record. Do you understand? It's time to

revisit what we mean by successful

technique.

>> Like like the high jump. Like the high

jump. Like how many times that I see

these analysis of of Michael Johnson's

running to be told that he runs for [ __ ]

and just shattering these world records.

Interesting. He should pay more

attention. Now I got a group of guys

coming and going, "No, no, he's doing it

right." And I like I tend to believe

them.

Look, this this makes us fairly agnostic

on form two. By the way,

are you getting a job done?

Efficiency will fix the problem.

Efficacy will fix the problem. Question.

>> So to go back a step, muscle memory

would have to be relearned if another

variable's changed like intensity or

>> Yeah. In fact, the coordination,

accuracy, agility components

are are stressed with functional

movement exactly consistent,

proportionate to the load. The

difference between a 400 lb clean and

jerk and a 200 is one of coordination,

accuracy, agility, and balance.

You're not twice as strong. Not in any

sense of of of uh uh if we were just to

look at say something as pointless as uh

uh contractile potential of the muscles.

They're girls that can get twice the

weight I can up up overhead. They don't

have twice the contractile potential.

If we hook if we hook if we hook

electromyogram to the muscles, we don't

find that muscles are contracting twice

as hard. They're working more

effectively, more efficiently with the

same contractile potential. They may do

twice the work. That's coordination,

accuracy, agility, and balance.

Your overhead squat will not get heavy

without improved coordination, accuracy,

agility, and balance. You will not clean

heavier without improving coordination,

accuracy, agility, and balance.

The dumbest of our movements, say air

squat, and uh deadlift, you go to the

early part of these progressions. And

what we're learning here today, it's

still imbued with enough that I find

mechanical errors in what you're doing.

The when with the problem you find with

the overhead squat, and you will. I load

you up, watch, load, you watch, load you

up, watch you crumble. The error I find

crumbling is also present in your air

squat. If I have enough visual

perspectuity to look for it, it's there

still.

Whatever is wrong along the line of

action or in the statics in the

structure of your squat will manifest

itself in a failed overhead squat.

Isn't that interesting?