At one point a few years ago work capacity (WC) and GPP were all the rage, and everyone was being advised to drop all aerobic cardio and switch to WC/GPP sessions which generally consisted of doing full body movements in anaerobic intervals. Now the pendulum has swung back, basic weight training and aerobic cardio is considered preferable again and the anaerobic obsession is fading and taking with it the WC/GPP sessions.
Is this a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? How would you define WC, and is dedicating training sessions to improving it a worthwhile use of time and energy?
I didn't know anyone ever called something a "GPP session" but the concept of GPP is important for all athletes regardless of any sort trend.
I would define it as the ability to practice more?
Where is the line drawn on GPP compared to SPP?
As a PLer, would you say doing touch and go bench presses for sets of 8 as GPP or SPP? I am not practicing the lift how it would be done in comp, so it is not specific, although it is more specific than walking on a treadmill.
If it is SPP then I would consider GPP a waste of time for my sport.
jeremy hamilton - I would define it as the ability to practice more?
Where is the line drawn on GPP compared to SPP?
As a PLer, would you say doing touch and go bench presses for sets of 8 as GPP or SPP? I am not practicing the lift how it would be done in comp, so it is not specific, although it is more specific than walking on a treadmill.
If it is SPP then I would consider GPP a waste of time for my sport.
Interesting question, and off the top of my head i would probably consider that an example of SPP since you're carrying out the same activity but tinkering with the rest and time under tension. Like i said before, i'm no expert though. Stealing the definition from wikipedia gives us this:
"GPP is the initial stage of training. It starts every cycle of training from the macro-, meso- and microcycle after restoration and recovery. It consists primarily of general preparatory and some specialized conditioning exercises to work all the major muscles and joints. This preparation prepares the athlete for the more intense training such as explosive plyometrics. This period is also used for rehabilitation of injured muscles and joints, strengthening or bringing up to par the lagging muscles and improvement of technique.[3]"
So is it simply a case that GPP lays a foundation for untrained athletes, and more experienced athletes can simply forego it for more specific training?
If the pendulum is swinging back, are you guys telling me that Crossfit is no longer popular?
Because GPP was what they were essentially selling before the Crossfit Games became a thing.
vermonter - I didn't know anyone ever called something a "GPP session" but the concept of GPP is important for all athletes regardless of any sort trend.
I'll use this as an example of the GPP sessions i was talking about:
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/gpp_asap
It's an article on GPP by Chad Waterbury that recommends doing SPP (in this case weight training) 2 days a week, and then doing intervals of full body movements 4 other days a week. Would you classify this as improving GPP/WC? Would you consider it a worthwhile use of time and effort?
Angle 5 - If the pendulum is swinging back, are you guys telling me that Crossfit is no longer popular?
Because GPP was what they were essentially selling before the Crossfit Games became a thing.
That's a fair point. But CF gets a lot of flack for it's methodology as well. IMHO it seems to be popular in spite of what many high level coaches think of it, not vice versa.