SCALING OPTIONS for this workout, courtesy of the wonderfully awesome CrossFit/Brand X forums:

Big Dawgs:
As Rx’d
women - 95#

The Porch:
With a continuously running clock do one 115 pound Clean and Jerk the first minute, two 115 pound Clean and Jerks the second minute, three 115 pound Clean and Jerks the third minute… continuing as long as you are able.

Use as many sets each minute as needed.

Women - 80#

Pack:
With a continuously running clock do one 95 pound Clean and Jerk the first minute, two 95 pound Clean and Jerks the second minute, three 95 pound Clean and Jerks the third minute… continuing as long as you are able.

Use as many sets each minute as needed.

Women - 65#

Puppies:
With a continuously running clock do one 45 pound Clean and Jerk the first minute, two 45 pound Clean and Jerks the second minute, three 45 pound Clean and Jerks the third minute… continuing as long as you are able.

Use as many sets each minute as needed.

Women 25#

Buttercups:
With a continuously running clock do one 25 pound Clean and Jerk the first minute, two 25 pound Clean and Jerks the second minute, three 25 pound Clean and Jerks the third minute… continuing as long as you are able.

Use as many sets each minute as needed.

I'm too startled by that last article to comment, so I defer to this blogger:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/scientists-can-tell-whos-conservative.html

"It's interesting, in this context, that gun control goes with the liberal ideas. It suggests that liberals support gun control not so much because they are afraid of gun violence, but because they are relaxed about the possibility that they may need to defend themselves."

"I'm inclined to believe that there is something at a very basic physical level that makes a person tend toward conservatism or liberalism. And this study -- even assuming it's accurate -- doesn't necessarily mean that conservatives are more cowardly than liberals, only that they are more sharply tuned to perceptions of threat."

"Perceiving and responding to threats had obvious survival value for human beings over the span of evolutionary time, beyond what makes sense in the modern world. But there is also value in remaining calm and steady in the face of threat and in accurately perceiving that a seeming threat is not real."

"Who's to say what level of over- or under-reaction to threat would have been most useful to our distant ancestors as the human race evolved over the ages? But we've inherited variable tendencies, and it stands to reason that these feelings and capacities affect our political views."

"Perhaps if we truly understood this, our political arguments would mellow."

This wod looks awesome. Work has been crazy the last week and I'm going through a serious case Box withdrawl.

word up, Hari.. I mean, Ms. Althouse.

Perhaps we might start with our inherited ingroup bias, which was certainly understandable throughout our evolution, but undermines our morality and, combined with modern weaponry, threatens the existence of a number of "ingroups", if not our species as a whole.

Fighting another legacy of our evolution - the chest cold.

Good luck at OCS, Brian!

Re: Kstar's checklist: I scored 14 out of 16 because I:
a. Don't know the fat content of my breakfast. Thought this was strange since I am not sure how specific you have to be.
b. I believe that my fitness limits my competitive success. This was even stranger, as I compete in endurance events, where my fitness is one of the main determinants of success. Maybe I am just reading it wrong.

Re: Conservatives article. That was so ridiculous it shouldn't have even been published. First, a sample size of 46 is meaningless, especially 46 people from Nebraska. How divergent are their political leanings actually going to be? Second, the relation between tested variables and reported results is weak at best. Last, the idea of "favoring patriotism" (one of the tested policy viewpoints) is silly. I could see asking whether they consider themselves patriotic (not that this would really determine whether someone was conservative or radical) but what does it mean to favor patriotism?

Are you guys doing full squat cleans or power cleans?

It always scares me when "respectable" publications put absolute and complete CRAP out to the public...
That last article is ridiculous.

My first thought was as Kurt said: a sample size of 46? Supposedly "random" (likely a bunch of people hanging around campus - or worse, some people looking for a quick buck who "volunteer" for these things for a "small stipend" or extra university credit. The mentality of people who would choose to do that should be a factor more than anything else. Talk about self-selecting groups...).

The factor of culture is noted at the end (although with a weird framing of speaking English vs. French... As a Canadian who speaks both I find this weird) yet not fully explored. How and where you are raised will play a huge factor in how you react and the decisions you make. At the very least it would be good to know if all the "random people" were actually from Nebraska.

Let's not even mention age (the likelihood that most were students) as your level of experience with and in the world will directly effect how you react.

The study also did not focus on what it was actually measuring - it did say the "sweat response" as used by lie detectors. This is weak. At least the article does mention that it could have been measuring sweat response to any number of other emotions. I have some experience with lie detectors in my past life and some people are just so freaked out to be taking the test and hooked to a machine that it takes forever to establish baseline and even then you just can't be sure...

If the study wanted any depth of response, or wanted to know if the feedback they were getting from their machines was connected to certain emotional responses, they could have simultaneously asked questions about how they were feeling, or what they were thinking and looked at any correlations...Of course, even the simple act of asking and answering questions will change a person's physical response.

The absolute worst part of the whole article is linking of key subjects to political bent... If someone supports gun control, it does not mean they are a Liberal, or if they support a stronger penal system, it does not mean they are a Conservative. These things have significant variances all their own... So they are making a leap in pigeon-holing political types before they even get into the flawed analysis of their ridiculously small sample.

This isn't junk science, it's not even science at all. Hell, it's not even bad political science... It's just crap.

Power Cleans (115#): got 4 Rounds...my power clean form needs work and I think my core was fried from the heavy KB swings yesterday...

And of course it wouldn't be a proper Jacinto morning workout without a second WOD! (and since my initial WOD count was disappointing I was hoping for a little redemption).

We did the same workout, but with pullups. I got up to 14 on this one. Jason was a monster on this (as well as the original WOD) and got up to 16.

Thanks for yet another brutal morning crew workout!

I haven't had a chance to read the article on sweaty Nebraska conservatives (did I even get that right?), but I'm disappointed to learn that it's crap.

Imagining Sen. McCain being startled out of a nap by news of the financial crisis would have made his behavior so much more understandable.

re: power/squat clean

Usually, if HQ means power clean/snatch, they say power clean/snatch. The default clean is a full squat clean. However, Grace and Isabel are notorious exceptions to this rule. What matters most is to write down how you perform a given WOD (scaled, "heavy", power/squat clean, push/split jerk...) to avoid any confusion next time the workout comes up or when you compare your time to others.

As Josh said, it was a fun morning...

Subbed 95# for the Clean & Jerk (still working that form!):
11 rounds

and in Jacinto's second WOD: the pull ups(as if the first wasn't enough...):
Also 11 rounds (Managed 11 pull ups in the 12th minute! That kind of thing just makes you want to cry - and get more next time.)

Thanks Jacinto and the Morning Posse!

Ewen,

"Imagining Sen. McCain being startled out of a nap by news of the financial crisis would have made his behavior so much more understandable."

Actually, at least some people were startled by the situation five years ago:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Here are McCain's coments from two years ago:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m

But "calmer" heads prevailed and did nothing:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html

FYI EVERYBODY--

When leaving comments with links in them, please be sure to ONLY HAVE ONE LINK PER COMMENT (i.e., if you have multiple links you'd like to post, make multiple comments) otherwise your comment will end up in comment purgatory, where I have to go rescue it as blog admin.

I don't mind doing so but sometimes it won't happen in a timely fashion (like it just did with Hari's comment above) and then your fellow black boxers miss out on your wit, wisdom, and interwebs knowledge...

THANK YOU.

{end of PSA}

Hari,

While it's interesting to read about Republicans pushing for more regulation and Government control --although "[t]he administration's proposal [...] would not [have] repeal[ed] the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies [and would not have] alter[ed] the implicit guarantee that Washington [would] bail the companies out if they [ran] into financial difficulty,"-- and about Sen. McCain joining as co-sponsor of a bill on reforming GSE's --a year and a half after it was introduced and almost a year after it had last been sent to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs-- I still don't quite understand why, more recently, he was insisting that the economy was fundamentally sound one day, and "suspending" his campaign the next.

To me, it still looks more like startle reflex than political astuteness. Anyway, not my election, not my problem.

Very interesting article about Fannie Mae. Back in 1999 the Clinton Administration put pressure on them to extend "mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

The clearest summary of the conservative position on Fannie and Freddie is summed up in this series of WSJ Editorials that dates back to 2002:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599777668249845.html?mod=article-outset-box

(For the record, I don't consider Bush or McCain to be conservatives, at least not on economic matters.)

Compare this to the liberal position, in my opinion, best summed up in this 2003 quote from the Chairman of the House Banking Committee Barney Frank (D, Mass):

"I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."

To whoever is keeping count:
Claire and I are in at the rest day dinner.
Thanks

Dice rolling = bad

Sub - 95lb

7 mins (6 reps)

Power cleans not full squat

Does this not have rather more to do with Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Greenspan's easy credit unleashing our insatiable greed than the Freddie Mac misconduct?

In any case, many of our proudly serving legislators have been through this before but didn't get anything through their ideologically thick skulls. Name this tune:

"In conclusion, let me say there is little evidence that the future will change human nature and its weakness for over-enthusiasm and excessive pursuit of gain and a tendency of mankind to be secretive. Yet this aspect of human behavior lies beneath many of the challenges the financial system has faced in the last decade. I don't challenge those reasonable to change human nature. But perhaps it is fair to challenge the next generation to use technology, disclosure, supervision, cooperation and vigilance to successfully manage the 'uncontrollable'."

DaveB- As a wargamer, I strongly disagree that all dice rolling is bad. It's actually a lot of fun.

WoD at 85# power cleans
9 rounds + 6

I mean really its hard to blame any particular group, political party, GSE, or company. Its the American way, spend now, worry about it later and its everyone's fault. Companies making loans with no sort of underwriting standards, people cash out refinancing their mortgages mutliple times to pay for credit cards, vacations, cars. People putting 0% down on their homes or even having their house over appraised so they can get cash back. People buying 1 or 2 or 3 investment properties with the intention to flip them and not ever being able to manage the payments. The weird securities created on the street with layer upon layer of hard to quantify risk, lack of oversight from the government. Mortgage brokers who fudge people's applications so they can collect their fee and sell that loan to bigger banks. There was no accountability and now we all have to pay. I just hope the House realizes this tomorrow and approves this legislation, otherwise its going to be hard to live without a mortgage, auto loan, and credit card.

Chad,

"Does this not have rather more to do with Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Greenspan's easy credit unleashing our insatiable greed than the Freddie Mac misconduct?"

In my opinion the bulk of the blame lies with the credit-rating agencies. But for this cartel putting AAA ratings on junk, none of this could have happened.

To put it simply, if the agencies had said that bonds backed by "no documentation" loans deserve a rating of BBB, then the market would have demanded a return of, say, 12% for these bonds, making them impossible to sell, since the underlying mortgages were at about 6%. This would have immediately forced the lenders to charge rates appropriate to the real risk. And of course, charging rates appropriate to the real risk would have kept a lot of people from buying homes they could never really afford.

any spots left at the rest day dinner? i'll jump in if so.

7 full rounds + 5 in 8th minute

Notes:
I'm not sorely disappointed with this performance, but I'm not really pleased either.

-----

That's a total of 33 reps. That means, if you don't count minutes 1 and 2 where I did a total of 3 reps, I essentially did Grace in 6 minutes. Compare that with two weeks ago in 9/18 when I did it in ~7:34. Not a bad improvement, especially when you consider how much "unnecessary" rest I had to take in the earlier rounds.

-----

We weren't dropping weights due to neighbors' previous complaints. I'd like to think that if I could have dropped, I could have made it into the middle of the next round.

Not dropping weights has its advantages though. By controlled lowering rather than dropping, you get the benefits of an eccentric phase which is largely responsible for strength building. Court mentioned a recent article posted by Allison (by Jon Gilson, perhaps?) goes in to greater detail, but all I could find was this:
http://sanfranciscocrossfit.blogspot.com/2008/09/respect.html
where Boz argues to not drop weight so that you extend the longevity of the equipment--not exactly the same point. Can anybody help me find the article?

Also, by not dropping the weight and having to recatch and control the bouncing bar, you can cycle into your next rep faster. For instance, my reps were 'touch and go'. (This increase in rep rate of course is going to be offset by the fact that you fatigue from setting the bar down rather than just dropping.)

All in all, if I had to do this one again, I would drop the weight if I could. I'll save the controlled negatives for the strength days where we're not being timed.

One last thing, even though I didn't do this, I would encourage people to 'finish out their sets', in a manner of speaking. That is, even though your WOD scorekeeping officially ends when you don't complete the prescribed number of reps, you might as well keep going and finish out that round. In my case, I would have done 3 more reps to finish out my round 8.

Hari,

I agree, that the rating agencies are one of the main culprits. It goes to show how much pressure (and money) they, the rating agencies & the monoline insurers at that, get/got from the banks. Perhaps our market based economy put too much respect and power into the Moodys, S & P, and Fitch Oligarchy.

Everywhere else in the mkt investors assume their own due diligence and risk, but everybody just took their word for it.

I would like to see more oversight & competition in regard to these agencies. Nonetheless, capital is resourceful and when banks need to put it to work creativity ensues.

on a lighter note - i just increased my odds of getting kicked out of NYSC because my rock climbing chalk and bag just arrived at my apt.

here's a great warren buffett interview about the whole thing, and a number of other topics:

http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/8/that-awesome-warren-buffett-cnbc-interview

quote:

Mr. BUFFETT: Well, it's really an incredible case study in regulation
because something called OFHEO was set up in 1992 by Congress, and the sole
job of OFHEO was to watch over Fannie and Freddie, someone to watch over them.
And they were there to evaluate the soundness and the accounting and all of
that. Two companies were all they had to regulate. OFHEO has over 200
employees now. They have a budget now that's $65 million a year, and all they
have to do is look at two companies. I mean, you know, I look at more than
two companies.

QUICK: Mm-hmm.

Mr. BUFFETT: And they sat there, made reports to the Congress, you can get
them on the Internet, every year. And, in fact, they reported to Sarbanes and
Oxley every year. And they went--wrote 100 page reports, and they said,
`We've looked at these people and their standards are fine and their directors
are fine and everything was fine.' And then all of a sudden you had two of the
greatest accounting misstatements in history. You had all kinds of management
malfeasance, and it all came out. And, of course, the classic thing was that
after it all came out, OFHEO wrote a 350--340 page report examining what went
wrong, and they blamed the management, they blamed the directors, they blamed
the audit committee. They didn't have a word in there about themselves, and
they're the ones that 200 people were going to work every day with just two
companies to think about. It just shows the problems of regulation.

6 rounds w/ 105#

7 rnds + 3 reps

135# power clean & jerk

9+4 RX'd

re: the mkt & some insight.

Warren Buffet was on Charlie Rose for the hour last night. Great interview.

For a general grasp of how we got here, especially if you are not familiar with finance, download on itunes - this american life - the giant pool of money

actually the guys that did this podcast are releasing another episode tomorrow & they started a daily blog & podcast - NPR Planet Money

Conservative Leaning economist I follow. gregmankiw dot blogspot dot com

Here is a link to a great article by Nouriel Roudini, a Stern professor & more liberal leaning economist.
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/01/goldman-morgan-run-oped-cx_nr_1002roubini.html

he has a blog at rgemonitor dot com

Decided to make a return to the mainsite WOD and try this... Got 7 rounds + 3 as Rx'd (squat cleans + push jerks). Dropping the weight, while making it easier (debatable actually) slows you down way too much.

Justin
I did notice that not dropping the weights did allow me to bang out my earlier sets unbroken and left me with about 40 seconds of rest.

I think I started dropping around my final 2 or 3 rounds. At that point, everything was going to shit real fast.

Were you dropping the weight right from the beginning?

8 Rounds Sub 95 lbs Power Cleans

No... I didn't start dropping the weights until my 7th set. Problem was, by the time I finished my last rep, it was time to start the next set. I had to bail on my 4th rep and couldn't get the bar back in time (it got too far away from me). If I cycled through faster on my 7th set, I could have gotten 8 because the weight wasn't too heavy that I needed to drop, I was just being a bit lazy on that set.

4 rounds +4 as rx'd (full squat cleans and push jerks)

Did drop the weights which did slow me down. I really wanted to have good from on these but when you are being timed and need to fit in the reps, your form goes to shit fast. It becomes a "from the floor to overhead anyhow".
Worked clean and jerks with focus on skill/technique after the WOD.

135 lbs
power cleans & split jerks

5 rounds

9 rounds + 6 reps

pre, baseline test