CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (http://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Community (http://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit (http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=38880)

Robert Wolf 11-12-2008 03:26 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 444987)
I certainly believe that anecdotal evidence has it's place. But IMHO the best way to silence the critics is not to attack them or simply state "they don't get it" the best is to embrace the scientific model. Poliquin objects to CF becuase he feels that doing lots of different random things will make it impossible to improve at anything. Instead of being combative with him, do studies and prove him wrong. Using reliable and standardized metrics (VO2 max, lactate threshold, anaerobic power, lower leg power, vertical jump, sprint time, lateral agility time etc) will show Cf's efficacy at providing a very effective GPP base. IF for some reason CF show's a weakness in one area after testing we should use that oppurtunity to improve CF to bring any possible weaknesses. Which is IMHO the goal of any good program.


Phillip-
This has been done in the case of low carb diets...it's OBVIOUS they provide the goods for health. The nay-sayers change the argument one scintilla (anyone who knows anything about science knows that a minor tweak on the variables makes everything different) and then I'm off to the lab to "prove" the obvious. This has bene the state of nutritional sciences, idiots like Ornish and Mcdougal still advocate a starch based diet...It's like convincing flat-earthers the world is round...a complete waste of time. Academics want academic validation. Everyone else just wants results.

Ketogenic diets have been found (anecdotaly and via research) to be VERY effective against various cancers...a simple, non-invasive nutritional approach. How much support is there for this among academics? precious little. you go prove the veracity or lack-there-in of crossfit, get back to me when you have a definitive answer.

I have a rebuttal to the poliquin piece...just need a little more time.

Phillip Garrison 11-12-2008 03:31 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
The studies that have been done that show that low carb diets do have many benefits are touted much more often by the supporters of these diets than the anecdotal evidence. These same studies have silenced many (not all) critics of the precieved health risks of low carb diets.

Derek Maffett 11-12-2008 03:39 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 445184)
The assessment used for SPARQ would be a good objective test to determine which produces better results.

Based on what I'm seeing in that SPARQ test, I would be inclined to disagree with the idea that it's a good test of fitness. It seems mostly geared towards sprinting and related heavily to sports like football or basketball. It's not the worst test in the world, but hardly an extensive one such as could be used to test all-around fitness. For instance, picking up a heavy object (which will always be an important time and modal domain) is completely ignored in the SPARQ.

Christian Gotcher 11-12-2008 03:55 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
First off, it's good to see you posting on the boards, Coach. Your contributions are always... lively, to say the least.

Quote:

Instead of being combative with him, do studies and prove him wrong. Using reliable and standardized metrics (VO2 max, lactate threshold, anaerobic power, lower leg power, vertical jump, sprint time, lateral agility time etc) will show Cf's efficacy at providing a very effective GPP base.
Why is an improved Fran time not a reliable metric when done consistently under the same conditions by the same person multiple times? It's not accepted by the academic community only because of its arbitrariness, but then again so is the vertical jump, VO2 max (which changes depending on the modality being performed), etc.

My metric is the Navy Physical Strength Test. After 1 year of Crossfit (with slight modifications because the CF mainpage has no swimming, unfortunately), my times and numbers on all events improved dramatically. I was not a sedentary populace before beginning CF and was participating in what would be considering your average 'Milfit'-style doctrine.

I could not do a swing on the parallel bars into handstands before. I can now. My CFT max has raised by 100 points from its beginnings. These are all metrics, and although they are insignificant from one person, taken from thousands of people in affiliates all across the nation, they establish a startling conclusion. These improvements are not only happening in a lot of people, they are happening over a broad range of activities and they are happening quickly.

Are we raising the bar in powerlifting? No. But all across the board, CF'ers are getting stronger in their deadlift, squat, bench press, and press than their counterparts in the "Spin," "TaeBo," and "Fitboxing" communities certainly as well as those in most competitive bodybuilding and other communities.

Is your argument illogical? Perhaps no, but it's disconnected, and you haven't really answered Glassman's challenges. If Glassman poses that Uncle Rhabdo functions in the exact same role as Kima and Smokey, you must establish either than UR is different, somehow, or that Kima and Smokey are tasteless. You question that Crossfit has not undergone any other tests except the Canadian MilFit comparison, but you haven't challenged that test, and it was a rather effective one, I think. You claim that Glassman uses a hearsay argument (from my personal experience, CF produces more hypertrophy than bodybuilding), and then go on to say that your personal experience of having heard of rhabdo before CF debunks Glassman's point (that CF has done more to spread knowledge of rhabdo than anyone else). If he's making logical errors, so are you.

Also, how would you compare training protocols for something like this? How is the Sparq test a measure of broad, general, inclusive fitness? 2 of the five tests are running dependent, and all but one are in a completely anaerobic range. As soon as you design a test that includes all the aspects of fitness, it starts to look vaguely similar to CF, and the athletes involved complain like hell. The pentathlon is close, as well as the goals of Milfit, to the goals of CF. CF has already proven itself in the Milfit field, are you suggesting a pentathlon for the next CF Games?

Robert Callahan 11-12-2008 04:24 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 444168)
I'll gladly apologize if you can show me a hospital, University, Junior College, Rehab center, community fitness center, commercial gym (yes I know they suck) or private contractor for government/military run facilities that lists as one of their required certifications CF level 1,2 or 3.

UC Riverside had CF level 1 cert as a preferred credential for the position of assistant strength and conditioning coach. I am not sure if it was a required cert but still it is a major University using the CF cert.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 444168)
As far as scientific scrutiny, most of the fitness protocols from which you've borrowed as the basis for many of your exercises for WOD's do most certainly have a solid science basis to back up the argument that they should be included in a training protocol.

The problem is that it is simple to say, "well you should scientifically test this stuff" but not so simple to actually carry it out. Running a major scientific study can take a significant amount of money. I think it is presumptive to assume that Coach should front the bill for this. After all shouldn't the burden of disproof be on those attacking it? Why don't you right a proposal and submit it to the NSCA or some other group and ask for funding for studying crossfit and see what the response is?

-Robert

Jeff S Johnson 11-12-2008 05:08 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 445184)
Ok so why not the NFL combine, or the Sparq fitness test, or the heptathlon? Pick measures for which the validitity and reliability are agreed upon, VO2, anaerobic power, lower body power, vertical jump, sprint time, agility time, upper body power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARQ_Training

The assessment used for SPARQ would be a good objective test to determine which produces better results.

SPARQ testing is largely a test of athletic ability, not fitness.

No matter how fit I may become, or how much I train specifically for it, I will never be able to run a 40-yard dash in 4.6 seconds. There are large numbers of high schoolers across the nation who are marginally fit, but can run 4.6 or faster.

Ditto for the shuttle drill and vertical jump.

There's a reason that college football coaches value the testing at NIKE Combines for high school prospects - it shows them the baseline athletic ability of the prospects they are evaluating and allows them to project how they will perform once in a college strength and conditioning program.

Freshmen enter college all of the time with good combine numbers - speed and/or strength, but find out real quick they're nowhere close to the kind of shape (fitness) their older, new teammates possess. While they will rapidly get much more fit, their 40's, shuttle and vertical times rarely increase substantial amounts. And some of that improvement is attributable to simply maturing towards their athletic prime. A kid who ran a 4.45 as a 17 year-old might improve to 4.42 in three years, but be vastly more fit than he was as a high school junior. All of that says SPARQ primarily test athletic ability.

Lastly, none of the SPARQ tests last more than a handful of seconds. Four of the five are generally under five seconds in duration. Not sure how long the Yo-Yo drill generally runs, but it can't be more than 30 seconds or so.

John Filippini 11-12-2008 08:39 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan (Post 445316)
UC Riverside had CF level 1 cert as a preferred credential for the position of assistant strength and conditioning coach. I am not sure if it was a required cert but still it is a major University using the CF cert.

First, UC Riverside did have that as a recommended attribute... but wouldn't your boss in that position have been Josh Everett? If he'd gotten away with making it required, I might have agreed that it meant something, since he had to get that by the university. As it is, it just shows his preference.

Quote:

After all shouldn't the burden of disproof be on those attacking it?
Also... that's not how science works. The scientific method is that if you want to state something is true... you do everything in your power to disprove it, thus showing it's robustness.

That being said, there's certainly no harm in trying to get funding for such a study from an agency that would have some sort of interest and likely has more money. Hell, given more time in my life, I think this would be a lot of fun to do.

Christian Gotcher 11-12-2008 09:40 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

After all shouldn't the burden of disproof be on those attacking it?
There's really no such thing as a burden of disproof, just a burden of proof. If you pose a hypothesis, it is your obligation to provide the evidence for it. The question, in this case, is whether Glassman has provided enough evidence to convince a reasonable person of the efficacy of a "constantly varied" program (intense and functional don't seem to be the question). Yes-s in the red corner, No-s in the blue corner, fight!

Chris Hill 11-13-2008 03:00 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Wolf (Post 445249)
I have a rebuttal to the poliquin piece...just need a little more time.

Having patiently waded through all of this thread i guess i can wait a little longer

Bob Long 11-13-2008 05:10 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Reading this thread makes my modal domain hurt. :confused:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.