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)

John Filippini 11-17-2008 03:28 PM

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

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan (Post 448733)
The entire purpose of ALL science is to provide logical, reasonable mechanisms to explain why things we observe happen. So if we are all observing something in reality that goes against what the current "science" tells us should be happening, it is the science that is WRONG, not the observations. Just because a study has never been done to verify something does not mean that it is not true.

You're quite right, but incomplete. The part of me that studied psychology also wants to add that the job of science is also to verify the validity of our observations, which can be imperfect and biased. If our studies don't line up with our experiences, the next job is to find out why there is a discrepancy. There may be an error in our study, or there may be a bias in our casual observations. Another study is needed to find out. That's how science continues to grow and change. We only let it rest when the body of evidence, made up both of studies and casual observation, reaches consistency.

Besides, I never even argued that without a supporting study the community was wrong. I don't happen to have that position. I merely get confused when the following discussion occurs and it degrades to CFers get ****ed.

CFer: "Dude, this CF stuff is awesome, you should try it."

Dude: "Why should I believe you? Where's the evidence?"

CFer: "Look at all these people it worked for!"

Dude: "Yeah, but I like what Plan X has been doing for me, and there's no organized science to make me think CF will work better. Without that, I might just be wasting time I could be training with Plan X to roll the dice on an untested program."

CFer: "**** you then, you're an idiot."

Clearly this is an exaggeration, I don't think all CFers are like this, or your average Dude doing Plan X. Chances are the dude will try at least one or two WODs, that's how I got hooked a year and a half ago. But there's nothing wrong with the above argument, or trainers recommending to others not to try CF on those same grounds. It's a situation that should be easily and happily remedied, instead of the final response being the summary of the reaction on these boards.

Daniel Schmieding 11-17-2008 04:16 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Phil (you don't mind if I call you Phil, do you?),

My "deadlift" analogy was the waterbottles being lifted properly. Not some set of barbell-loaded lifts pre-race.

Don't be an ***.

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-17-2008 04:19 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
How do you propose to run a valid study with controls? Anecdotal evidence is not science, but people knew gravity worked well before Newton.

Derek Maffett 11-17-2008 04:33 PM

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

Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr (Post 448742)
So even though there are hundreds of people with quantifiable increases instrength, speed, endurance (sometimes all three) because it wasn't done in a "study" it's not valid um...OK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448747)
Anecdotal evidence is not science. Thousands of people have claimed to see bigfoot that doesn't make it evidence.

Phillip, that is a straw man argument and you know it.

Shane Skowron 11-17-2008 04:46 PM

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

Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr (Post 448791)
How do you propose to run a valid study with controls? Anecdotal evidence is not science, but people knew gravity worked well before Newton.

Right on.

How could you possibly have a control group with a study on elite athletes? Elites, by definition, possess capabilities beyond that of the standard control population.

Tate Rivera 11-17-2008 05:31 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448747)
Anecdotal evidence is not science. Thousands of people have claimed to see bigfoot that doesn't make it evidence.

Really? Bigfoot? I mean c'mon. There is a slight difference between 'claims' of bigfoot and hardcore evidence that many people, through CrossFit, are fitter now than they were before.

Brandon Oto 11-17-2008 05:34 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
I really doubt that Phillip is arguing that CrossFit doesn't make anyone more fit. The issue is how much more fit, in what ways, and particularly whether it's better at those things than other programs -- since these are the questions you want to know when telling someone whether CF is right for them.

Anyone, especially a beginner, will get more fit doing almost anything, from hula hooping to CrossFit. That's not an interesting point to debate.

David Wood 11-17-2008 06:30 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
I wonder if people will ever get tired of this topic (or, at least, this thread)?


The ideal "scientific" experiment would be something like this:

a) take a "large" "population" (more on this in a moment),

b) randomly split them into two groups,

c) subject them to "enough" training (3 months? 6 months? a year? 3 years?) under two different regimens: CrossFit and whatever you want to compare it to (traditional bodybuiding? (whatever that is, everyone seems to have their own definition) . . . or whatever the CSCS-approved regimen is these days (if there is such a thing)?)

d) then, compare the two groups on previously-agreed up "tests".

So, as soon as you contemplate doing this, a whole lot of problems (and decisions) show up.

What population?

Newbies? Untrained? College-age students (probably something like 90% of all studies are done on untrained college-age students, 'cause there are a lot of them, and they're relatively easy for academic researchers to get access to). (And remember, 87.3% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.)
Athletes (already trained)? "Elite" athletes? Middle-aged frumps like myself? Senior citizens?

The results you get for any program may vary quite a bit depending on which population you want to work with.

How large? Well, you'd like to have enough to provide a good sample size and some statistical reliability . . . I'd suggest at least 100 or so in each arm of the study (each training group). You're going to have to account for dropouts, especially if you're planning on a year or more for the training.


Ok, then, you have to agree on what you're going to test on. Frankly, the only test that would make sense to me is to agree on the following: make up a LONG list of various physical tasks . . .
a) run 100 yards
b) run 400 yards
c) run a mile
d) run 10 miles
e) climb a 20-foot rope
f) shovel 1 ton of gravel into a wheelbarrow and move it 75 yards (multiple trips allowed)
g) shoulder a sandbag equal to your bodyweight and carry it 50 yards (then put it down, pick it up, and carry it back)
d) etc . . .

The tests should (collectively) stress every possible metabolic pathway, and every dimension of fitness (strength, speed, accuracy, endurance, etc.). I'd want to make them as low "skill" as possible . . . no olympic lifts here.

Ideally, in my version of this test, the list would have at least 40 items, along with clear rules for how they would be scored.

Then, finally, in my version, on the testing day, only 10 of them would be drawn at random and tested. No one would know until the day of the exam what the test would be (because it wouldn't be determined yet).

(This is the way the CF Games should be run, too, but do you think they ask me? No . . . . . )


If you haven't fallen asleep yet, you can begin to see why this is a fairly difficult and expensive study to run . . . large population needed, long-term training needed, a very richly-supplied testing setup needed (have to be ready to test all 40 items).

However, I submit that this is the test that really reflects what CF is striving toward . . . enhanced work capacity on wide, wide variety of real-world requirements.


The costs of doing such a study are what lead researchers to try and test simpler things, that are easier to measure:

vertical jump
leg extensor strength
VO2 max
treadmill run times

and then use the fact that these tests appear to have some degree of correlation to what they really want to get at to justify using them. (Actually, even the notion that they have a simple idea of "what they really want to get at" is probably mistaken . . . athletic superiority? "health?" longevity? a winning basketball season? . .. . what?)

This testing of simple measurements (which are correlates of something more complex) is what usually "scientists" are talking about, and which (I think) Phillip is suggesting should be done.


I'm not opposed to it . . . I just doubt that it would ever be as satisfactory as the test I describe above.

Tim Donahey 11-17-2008 06:30 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tate Rivera (Post 448826)
Really? Bigfoot? I mean c'mon. There is a slight difference between 'claims' of bigfoot and hardcore evidence that many people, through CrossFit, are fitter now than they were before.

No, I think he's claiming that Bigfoot does Crossfit.

WOD
Three rounds, 21-15- and 9 reps, for time of:
Footprints in Alaska, California and Washington

3-2-1-GO!

Mike Prevost 11-17-2008 07:21 PM

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

Originally Posted by David Wood (Post 448874)
I wonder if people will ever get tired of this topic (or, at least, this thread)?


The ideal "scientific" experiment would be something like this:

a) take a "large" "population" (more on this in a moment),

b) randomly split them into two groups,

c) subject them to "enough" training (3 months? 6 months? a year? 3 years?) under two different regimens: CrossFit and whatever you want to compare it to (traditional bodybuiding? (whatever that is, everyone seems to have their own definition) . . . or whatever the CSCS-approved regimen is these days (if there is such a thing)?)

d) then, compare the two groups on previously-agreed up "tests".

So, as soon as you contemplate doing this, a whole lot of problems (and decisions) show up.

What population?

Newbies? Untrained? College-age students (probably something like 90% of all studies are done on untrained college-age students, 'cause there are a lot of them, and they're relatively easy for academic researchers to get access to). (And remember, 87.3% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.)
Athletes (already trained)? "Elite" athletes? Middle-aged frumps like myself? Senior citizens?

The results you get for any program may vary quite a bit depending on which population you want to work with.

How large? Well, you'd like to have enough to provide a good sample size and some statistical reliability . . . I'd suggest at least 100 or so in each arm of the study (each training group). You're going to have to account for dropouts, especially if you're planning on a year or more for the training.


Ok, then, you have to agree on what you're going to test on. Frankly, the only test that would make sense to me is to agree on the following: make up a LONG list of various physical tasks . . .
a) run 100 yards
b) run 400 yards
c) run a mile
d) run 10 miles
e) climb a 20-foot rope
f) shovel 1 ton of gravel into a wheelbarrow and move it 75 yards (multiple trips allowed)
g) shoulder a sandbag equal to your bodyweight and carry it 50 yards (then put it down, pick it up, and carry it back)
d) etc . . .

The tests should (collectively) stress every possible metabolic pathway, and every dimension of fitness (strength, speed, accuracy, endurance, etc.). I'd want to make them as low "skill" as possible . . . no olympic lifts here.

Ideally, in my version of this test, the list would have at least 40 items, along with clear rules for how they would be scored.

Then, finally, in my version, on the testing day, only 10 of them would be drawn at random and tested. No one would know until the day of the exam what the test would be (because it wouldn't be determined yet).

(This is the way the CF Games should be run, too, but do you think they ask me? No . . . . . )


If you haven't fallen asleep yet, you can begin to see why this is a fairly difficult and expensive study to run . . . large population needed, long-term training needed, a very richly-supplied testing setup needed (have to be ready to test all 40 items).

However, I submit that this is the test that really reflects what CF is striving toward . . . enhanced work capacity on wide, wide variety of real-world requirements.


The costs of doing such a study are what lead researchers to try and test simpler things, that are easier to measure:

vertical jump
leg extensor strength
VO2 max
treadmill run times

and then use the fact that these tests appear to have some degree of correlation to what they really want to get at to justify using them. (Actually, even the notion that they have a simple idea of "what they really want to get at" is probably mistaken . . . athletic superiority? "health?" longevity? a winning basketball season? . .. . what?)

This testing of simple measurements (which are correlates of something more complex) is what usually "scientists" are talking about, and which (I think) Phillip is suggesting should be done.


I'm not opposed to it . . . I just doubt that it would ever be as satisfactory as the test I describe above.


Hi David

I learned pretty early on as a grad student in exercise physiology that the science lags behind the coaches. The usual order of things is that coaches figure out what works and then much later (years and sometimes decades) scientists prove that it works. If coaches wait around for science, they will be way behind the cutting edge. Coaches should never ignore the science, but they must forge ahead if they want to gain an advantage. The same is true for athletes. If you wait for the science, you will be behind the power curve. Sometimes you have to experiment or look around at what other athletes are doing successfully. Successful athletes have always been ahead of the scientists from glycogen loading, to periodization to tapering etc...

The other big issue is that there are lots of good studies to be done but nobody to pay for them. Research is not free. This is particularly problematic for strength training research. There is alot more research out there on endurance training due to it's connection to cardiovascular health. There isn't much money out there to fund strength training research. I can't imagine who would pay for a Crossfit study except maybe Coach and I can't see what he would gain by doing so. The study you lay out would be good but expensive....

Then there are all of the issues you mentioned. Having done some human subjects research myself I can tell you that rats make MUCH better research subjects. Humans don't follow the protocol, they fail to show up for testing, they don't follow instructions, they drop out of your study without telling you and figure out many ways to mess up your study. If you want 10 good tests, you need to recruit 20 subjects. It is a tough business. Gives me a headache just thinking about it.

Mike

John Filippini 11-17-2008 08:12 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
David, I like the set up. It would be pretty sweet if something like that could ever be set up. Likely, components of it would have to be broken down piecemeal, but it would still be neat. Any piece of that study would be very powerful in actually backing up the "empirical" nature of CrossFit.

Funding is of course a major issue, for reasons Mike mentioned as well as a host of others. I think it's silly to think that Coach has nothing to gain from studies like this though. While it is clear that good coaching does have to forge ahead of the science, the usefulness of the science in expanding and furthering a growing movement should not be ignored.

Jonathon Brown 11-17-2008 08:44 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
One thing to consider, which people have been trying to get, is context for CrossFit.

For what CrossFit is meant to do, it does exceptionally well.

For what CrossFit is not meant to do, it doesn't do that well.

It's similar to the domain of validity diagram for physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics (link wfs)

Classical Mechanics, General Relativity and the other two work exceptionally well for their domain. Are they perfect for their domain? Not exactly. Each has areas where it's lacking. It is better than everything else though.

And there arbitrary definitions within those as well (density of pure water being 1, for example). Doesn't make the theory any less valid.

I hope this helps in discussing the validity and domain of CrossFit.

George Noble 11-18-2008 06:44 AM

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

Originally Posted by Jonathon Brown (Post 449021)
One thing to consider, which people have been trying to get, is context for CrossFit.

For what CrossFit is meant to do, it does exceptionally well.

For what CrossFit is not meant to do, it doesn't do that well.

But what is CrossFit meant to do? If we are to believe what Greg Glassman says, it's
a. the best routine for bodybuilders to do;
b. a world class powerlifting routine, better at developing limit strength than SS, Westside, Sheyko, Smolov or anything else out there that doesn't claim to take a 200 deadlift to 750 in 2 years;
c. the best routine for health and general fitness;
d. probably a few more things if I cared to look.

So perhaps a better question is, what exactly is CrossFit not meant to do?

Frederic Giraud 11-18-2008 07:56 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
WoW George where are you getting your facts from?

I can only agree with c.

There's a difference between stating that it is the best routine for bodybuilders and stating that it is better than non-compound bodybuilding routine... I mean come on don't take it to the extremes like that....render the debate quite meaningless....

Sean Dunston 11-18-2008 07:59 AM

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

Originally Posted by Brandon Oto (Post 448727)
If you hit 750, I will study you myself.



Aside from the Canadian study, there don't seem to be. To quote the Journal itself,

"CrossFit trainers and athletes can certainly observe and measure the response to CrossFit training, but there are few other similarly intense training protocols that we can compare results with. Without this comparison it is difficult to scientifically validate CrossFit methodology. The Canadian military has done that, comparing CrossFit methods with conventional physical training methods (CrossFit Journal issue 41), but more such studies are needed." (http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf...atDoWeKnow.pdf wfs)

The author later goes on to voice the opinion that such studies may be impossible.

If you get a minute, please provide some of the articles you mentioned. These things have a habit of being more existent in the memory than in reality.

Brandon-
Absolutely no chance of me hitting 750 - that is nearly 5X my bodyweight (have you seen many 100# people pulling 500#, or 250# people pulling 1,250#?), plus I have ZERO interest in getting there.

The article you've cited is the one that immediately came to mind. I thought there were more, but I have zero interest in wasting my time finding them.

I'll let our resident expert researchers look for them.

Brandon Oto 11-18-2008 08:15 AM

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

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud (Post 449267)
WoW George where are you getting your facts from?

I can only agree with c.

There's a difference between stating that it is the best routine for bodybuilders and stating that it is better than non-compound bodybuilding routine... I mean come on don't take it to the extremes like that....render the debate quite meaningless....

Extremes? Those are all based on DIRECT quotes from Glassman.

I mean, I agree they're extremes, but that's part of what we're trying to talk about here -- claims about the program versus its actual function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Dunston (Post 449270)
The article you've cited is the one that immediately came to mind. I thought there were more, but I have zero interest in wasting my time finding them.

I'll let our resident expert researchers look for them.

Yeah... well... unfortunately this is usually the case, rather than "It has been backed up - there have been publications of its efficacy... each time such things are posted, people turn up their nose them." So it'd be nice if people would stop making vague allusions to ironclad evidence that's just barely out of sight.

Frederic Giraud 11-18-2008 09:00 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Come on Brandon you know better than that...

A lot can be said thanks to out of context quotes.

So going back to George's post:

-Best bodybuilding routine? Wrong. Crossfit wont make you win a bodybuilding contest, it will help you put on more mass than bad no-compound exercise routine. That's all that the quote says. Now if you guys want to conclude that it is a better bodybuilding routine than you might want to check back your bodybuilding definition.

Quote:

b. a world class powerlifting routine, better at developing limit strength than SS, Westside, Sheyko, Smolov or anything else out there that doesn't claim to take a 200 deadlift to 750 in 2 years;
I guess this is why Coach ask the expertise of people like M.Rippetoe and Coach Burgener, just to laugh at them and make them realise how his regimen is much much better? Come on guys,
Quote:

[...]Our program delivers a fitness that is, by design, broad, general, and inclusive. Our specialty is not specializing. [...]
How can you associate such a specialisation to crossfit when it clearly says the exact opposite. You will get stronger with crossfit. One thing we could say is that, if a program like Starting Strentgh has the possibility of taking your strentgh to the max level ( 100% , which is wrong since it's a beginner program but let's just assume it's right for the purpose of my example please) then crossfit would have the possibility of taking your strentgh level to 80% of the max strentgh you could ever had.

Now this conversation is just going in circles you guys are being/having bad faith. ( French expression I can't seem to translate correctly sorry)

Gavin Harrison 11-18-2008 09:39 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
If westside barbell club has only a dozen or so deadlifters over 800, what makes anyone thinks CF will generate many 750 DLs.. I've also never heard this claim.. I've heard maybe 400-500, but I think I'd remember 750..

David Stout 11-18-2008 09:48 AM

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

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud (Post 449313)
Come on Brandon you know better than that...

A lot can be said thanks to out of context quotes.

So going back to George's post:

-Best bodybuilding routine? Wrong. Crossfit wont make you win a bodybuilding contest, it will help you put on more mass than bad no-compound exercise routine. That's all that the quote says. Now if you guys want to conclude that it is a better bodybuilding routine than you might want to check back your bodybuilding definition.



I guess this is why Coach ask the expertise of people like M.Rippetoe and Coach Burgener, just to laugh at them and make them realise how his regimen is much much better? Come on guys,


How can you associate such a specialisation to crossfit when it clearly says the exact opposite. You will get stronger with crossfit. One thing we could say is that, if a program like Starting Strentgh has the possibility of taking your strentgh to the max level ( 100% , which is wrong since it's a beginner program but let's just assume it's right for the purpose of my example please) then crossfit would have the possibility of taking your strentgh level to 80% of the max strentgh you could ever had.

Now this conversation is just going in circles you guys are being/having bad faith. ( French expression I can't seem to translate correctly sorry)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin Harrison (Post 449342)
If westside barbell club has only a dozen or so deadlifters over 800, what makes anyone thinks CF will generate many 750 DLs.. I've also never heard this claim.. I've heard maybe 400-500, but I think I'd remember 750..

Gavin - Here's the interview being referenced in the DL side discussion (WFS):

http://www.powerathletesmag.com/arch...ewglassman.htm

Frederic - Here's the quote of the entire paragraph so you can decide if it's being taken out of context:

Quote:

But here's the fascinating part. We can take you from a 200 pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years while only pulling max singles four or five times a year. We will though work the deadlift, like most lifts, approximately once per week at higher reps and under grueling conditions. It may intuit well that if you can pull a 250 pound deadlift 21 times coming to the lift at a heart rate of 180 beats per minute, then 500 pounds for a single at a resting heart rate is perhaps manageable.

Benjamin Smith 11-18-2008 10:00 AM

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

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud (Post 449313)
Come on Brandon you know better than that...

A lot can be said thanks to out of context quotes.

So going back to George's post:

-Best bodybuilding routine? Wrong. Crossfit wont make you win a bodybuilding contest, it will help you put on more mass than bad no-compound exercise routine. That's all that the quote says. Now if you guys want to conclude that it is a better bodybuilding routine than you might want to check back your bodybuilding definition.



I guess this is why Coach ask the expertise of people like M.Rippetoe and Coach Burgener, just to laugh at them and make them realise how his regimen is much much better? Come on guys,


How can you associate such a specialisation to crossfit when it clearly says the exact opposite. You will get stronger with crossfit. One thing we could say is that, if a program like Starting Strentgh has the possibility of taking your strentgh to the max level ( 100% , which is wrong since it's a beginner program but let's just assume it's right for the purpose of my example please) then crossfit would have the possibility of taking your strentgh level to 80% of the max strentgh you could ever had.

Now this conversation is just going in circles you guys are being/having bad faith. ( French expression I can't seem to translate correctly sorry)


Frederick, here's the bodybuilding quote from the main page FAQ, "according to Coach". You can read it again and decide if the context that you ascribe to it is actually there.

"If you train the WODs hard, and eat right and get lots of sleep, you will definitely gain lean mass, lose fat, and yes, you can build muscle mass with the crossfit protocol. More specifically, according to Coach,
Here is a hierarchy of training for mass from greater to lesser efficacy:
1. Bodybuilding on steroids
2. CrossFitting on steroids
3. CrossFitting without steroids
4. Bodybuilding without steroids
The bodybuilding model is designed around, requires, steroids for significant hypertrophy.
The neuroendocrine response of bodybuilding protocols is so blunted that without "exogenous hormonal therapy" little happens.
The CrossFit protocol is designed to elicit a substantial neuroendocrine whollop and hence packs an anabolic punch that puts on impressive amounts of muscle though that is not our concern. Strength is.
Natural bodybuilders (the natural ones that are not on steroids) never approach the mass that our ahtletes do. They don't come close.
Those athletes who train for function end up with better form than those who value form over function. This is one of the beautiful ironies of training."

Tim Donahey 11-18-2008 10:01 AM

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

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud (Post 449313)
-Best bodybuilding routine? Wrong. Crossfit wont make you win a bodybuilding contest, it will help you put on more mass than bad no-compound exercise routine. That's all that the quote says.

No, GG actually says that the only thing better than Crossfit for adding mass is taking steroids. Any other conclusions that you've drawn from his statements from the FAQ you've extrapolated on your own:

"The bodybuilding model is designed around, requires, steroids for significant hypertrophy... Natural bodybuilders (the natural ones that are not on steroids) never approach the mass that our athletes do. They don't come close."

Nowhere does he mention split routines nor compound routines, he lumps them all together as the "bodybuilding model," and he lumps all "natural bodybuilders," into one category as well. It doesn't even imply that a different mass building program (ie. westside, starting strength, full body compound routines) exists, let alone that it could work better. If you took this claim at face value value, you'd come to two conclusions: 1) There are only two kinds of bodybuilders; those on steroids and those not on steroids, and, 2) Only bodybuilders on steroids can build more mass than your typical Xfitter. Everyone agrees this claim is, at best, misleading, and at worst, fraudulent.

Shane Skowron 11-18-2008 10:06 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Regarding the deadlift claim, Greg never said what sort of athlete he was talking about starting out with. Surely I don't think he meant people like me, 5'8" 145#. Perhaps a guy who is 5'10" 200# to start with and has good genes to boot, it is certainly possible to pull 500#+ in two years. Some people are genetically predisposed for elite performance at certain athletic events, like running the mile or the deadlift.

Frederic Giraud 11-18-2008 10:19 AM

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

Originally Posted by Tim Donahey (Post 449372)
No, GG actually says that the only thing better than Crossfit for adding mass is taking steroids. Any other conclusions that you've drawn from his statements from the FAQ you've extrapolated on your own:

"The bodybuilding model is designed around, requires, steroids for significant hypertrophy... Natural bodybuilders (the natural ones that are not on steroids) never approach the mass that our athletes do. They don't come close."

Nowhere does he mention split routines nor compound routines, he lumps them all together as the "bodybuilding model," and he lumps all "natural bodybuilders," into one category as well. It doesn't even imply that a different mass building program (ie. westside, starting strength, full body compound routines) exists, let alone that it could work better. If you took this claim at face value value, you'd come to two conclusions: 1) There are only two kinds of bodybuilders; those on steroids and those not on steroids, and, 2) Only bodybuilders on steroids can build more mass than your typical Xfitter. Everyone agrees this claim is, at best, misleading, and at worst, fraudulent.

We are still talking about mass gains routine and not bodybuilding routines, if you want to be that strict . Mass gain is only 1 part of any bodybuilding routine, thus you can't say crossfit is a better bodybuilding program....but a better mass gain program.

And about what did he really means when using bodybuilding well who knows? Only him. But I'm still someone able to draw my own conclusions. And with all the taught he puts into fitness/crossfit, I think saying that he doesn't and wouldn't agree on the fact that there is different "kind" of bodybuilding routine, is an attakc to his intelligence more than anything. Come on guys stop with the non-sense... This has been debated more than enough and this is the general conclusion, that yes if we could get more precision regarding his claims, everyone would be happy, but what he said is still true, just because of the hormonal response of the exercise, period.

Frederic Giraud 11-18-2008 10:28 AM

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

Well I still don't have much problem with what he's saying. I mean it is 2 years. It is a lot of time. And keep training hard and following good nutrion and sleeping paterns during those 2 years, I don't see why not.

The thing is that now, keep the same good efforts of following a "program" for 2 years, let's say a pure strentgh program, eat clean, sleep a lot, but only do some kind of SS and then Westside type training for the WHOLE 2 years. Deadlift will be higher, by definition.

I can't see why is it so hard for people to understand. No. Crossfit won't give you a better deadlift than a powerlifter who's been specializing in such lifts for the last 2 years while you were speacializing not specializing...........

As for the raw numbers he pulled ( 500 - 700 ) I'm sure we could get him to precise what kind of frame he had in mind at the moment ( by the way this article is close to 6'ish years old), but please stop being so close minded and that since he said that then any guy in the world will get there without taking into consideration bodies physical limits....

Tim Donahey 11-18-2008 10:39 AM

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

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud (Post 449396)
We are still talking about mass gains routine and not bodybuilding routines, if you want to be that strict . Mass gain is only 1 part of any bodybuilding routine, thus you can't say crossfit is a better bodybuilding program....but a better mass gain program.

Actually you can't say that Crossfit is a better mass gain program, because it isn't.

Quote:

And about what did he really means when using bodybuilding well who knows? Only him. But I'm still someone able to draw my own conclusions. And with all the taught he puts into fitness/crossfit, I think saying that he doesn't and wouldn't agree on the fact that there is different "kind" of bodybuilding routine, is an attakc to his intelligence more than anything.
I'm not talking about what Coach knows, I'm talking about what he says, because a newbie, who has no fitness experience, coming to the FAQ for the first time won't be privy to what Coach knows, only to what he says. And what he says is, "Crossfit is the best program for bodybuilding." Newbie reader thinks, "Crossfit will make me the best bodybuilder." Only later would he come to realize Coach actually thought and meant something entirely different. It's a bait and switch.

Quote:

Come on guys stop with the non-sense... This has been debated more than enough and this is the general conclusion, that yes if we could get more precision regarding his claims, everyone would be happy, but what he said is still true, just because of the hormonal response of the exercise, period.
What he said isn't honest. Period.

Robert Callahan 11-18-2008 10:39 AM

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

Originally Posted by David Stout (Post 449350)
We can take you from a 200 pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years

So it sounds like this has actually happened, many times over. Maybe the upper bound he cited is not achieved but that is why there is a range! Jesus guys maybe he got a little zealous and made the upper bound a little too high, is it really that big of a deal?!? Maybe the range should have been 400-600 pounds, but honestly when you are trying to sell something that goes against most of the current thought you have to say things that turn heads. By using a range he could say something that isn't untrue, but still have an upper bound that would catch peoples attention.

The upper bound is a bit high. Okay can we move on now?

David Stout 11-18-2008 10:49 AM

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

Originally Posted by Frederic Giraud (Post 449405)
@ David:

Well I still don't have much problem with what he's saying. I mean it is 2 years. It is a lot of time. And keep training hard and following good nutrion and sleeping paterns during those 2 years, I don't see why not.

The thing is that now, keep the same good efforts of following a "program" for 2 years, let's say a pure strentgh program, eat clean, sleep a lot, but only do some kind of SS and then Westside type training for the WHOLE 2 years. Deadlift will be higher, by definition.

I can't see why is it so hard for people to understand. No. Crossfit won't give you a better deadlift than a powerlifter who's been specializing in such lifts for the last 2 years while you were speacializing not specializing...........

As for the raw numbers he pulled ( 500 - 700 ) I'm sure we could get him to precise what kind of frame he had in mind at the moment ( by the way this article is close to 6'ish years old), but please stop being so close minded and that since he said that then any guy in the world will get there without taking into consideration bodies physical limits....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan (Post 449414)
So it sounds like this has actually happened, many times over. Maybe the upper bound he cited is not achieved but that is why there is a range! Jesus guys maybe he got a little zealous and made the upper bound a little too high, is it really that big of a deal?!? Maybe the range should have been 400-600 pounds, but honestly when you are trying to sell something that goes against most of the current thought you have to say things that turn heads. By using a range he could say something that isn't untrue, but still have an upper bound that would catch peoples attention.

The upper bound is a bit high. Okay can we move on now?

Frederic -

I've posted no opinions on the matter. Only posted links to the referenced material (with respect to the DL side discussion). Please don't presume to know where I stand on the issue.

Robert -

Some additional information that might help (maybe/maybe not) - I took a look at (WFS) logsitall.com and pulled this performance data from the site: http://www.logsitall.com/stats-embed...&ag=20&mmx=max

The metrics show a 166 records with this query. 1 RM Deadlifts range from 123# - 565# with an average of 343.94#. The top 10 are the 1 RM that reach the bottom the cited range (ranging from 505#-565#). This is obviously limited data but what's available readily for discussion here.

Again - I am just presenting this here with no conclusions.

Pat McElhone 11-18-2008 10:50 AM

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

Originally Posted by Mike Prevost (Post 448930)
Hi David

I learned pretty early on as a grad student in exercise physiology that the science lags behind the coaches. The usual order of things is that coaches figure out what works and then much later (years and sometimes decades) scientists prove that it works. If coaches wait around for science, they will be way behind the cutting edge. Coaches should never ignore the science, but they must forge ahead if they want to gain an advantage. The same is true for athletes. If you wait for the science, you will be behind the power curve. Sometimes you have to experiment or look around at what other athletes are doing successfully. Successful athletes have always been ahead of the scientists from glycogen loading, to periodization to tapering etc...

The other big issue is that there are lots of good studies to be done but nobody to pay for them. Research is not free. This is particularly problematic for strength training research. There is alot more research out there on endurance training due to it's connection to cardiovascular health. There isn't much money out there to fund strength training research. I can't imagine who would pay for a Crossfit study except maybe Coach and I can't see what he would gain by doing so. The study you lay out would be good but expensive....

Then there are all of the issues you mentioned. Having done some human subjects research myself I can tell you that rats make MUCH better research subjects. Humans don't follow the protocol, they fail to show up for testing, they don't follow instructions, they drop out of your study without telling you and figure out many ways to mess up your study. If you want 10 good tests, you need to recruit 20 subjects. It is a tough business. Gives me a headache just thinking about it.

Mike

Mike and David are both correct. David, those are good points, but that will never happen because of what Mike said.

I have not seen one study quoted in exercise physiology that I thought was designed well, not one. This is huge and the excuse that is given by the exercise physiologist is always the same, not enough money to do a good study. Well, if that is the case, do not do any studies. I really, really mean this. If a study is not done extremely well, it is garbage.

The fact that exercise physiologists (read ACSM or whomever) put out such garbage influences me to almost disregard anything they say. Really, it does. In fact, everytime an "exercise physiologists" mentions studies this thought comes to mind.

So, for all you exercise physiologists out there, before you say you need evidence, meaning a study, before you will believe something, know I will read you post and think by "evidence" you mean some silly, poorly designed study, where a convience sample of subjects was taken from college kids looking for extra credit, no power analysis was done to determine sample size, nominal data was collected, but analyzed with an ANOVA and the result was probably something I knew anyway...like leg extensions activate the quadriceps better then preacher curls.

Brandon Oto 11-18-2008 10:52 AM

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

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan (Post 449414)
The upper bound is a bit high. Okay can we move on now?

Why would we move on? The possible existence of deceptive, exaggerated, or misleading claims by CrossFit HQ are one of the core issues in this discussion. If we can all agree that Glassman seems to make some stuff up (whether for marketing reasons or who knows why), that would be huge progress in the debate.

Tim Donahey 11-18-2008 11:01 AM

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

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan (Post 449414)
So it sounds like this has actually happened, many times over. Maybe the upper bound he cited is not achieved but that is why there is a range! Jesus guys maybe he got a little zealous and made the upper bound a little too high, is it really that big of a deal?!? Maybe the range should have been 400-600 pounds, but honestly when you are trying to sell something that goes against most of the current thought you have to say things that turn heads. By using a range he could say something that isn't untrue, but still have an upper bound that would catch peoples attention.

The upper bound is a bit high. Okay can we move on now?

I agree with you... it was an off-the-cuff remark, made during an interview, spoken in the more-or-less hypothetical, over 6 years ago. If there are newbies who can get their deadlift up to 500# on a strict Crossfit program that's good enough for me.

Were his remarks printed in the FAQ, however, I would feel differently.

Robert Callahan 11-18-2008 11:07 AM

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

Originally Posted by Brandon Oto (Post 449440)
The possible existence of deceptive, exaggerated, or misleading claims by CrossFit HQ are one of the core issues in this discussion. If we can all agree that Glassman seems to make some stuff up

Like I said the range probably should have been 400-600 pound deadlift in two years for the average person. This quote was taken from what? 6 years ago? So in 2002 when CF was still in its infancy Glassman made a slightly exaggerated claim in order to draw attention to his new workout model. I do not find this deceptive or misleading. He does not say that Crossfit will get you stronger than a traditional power lifting program and he does not say crossfit is the best possible thing you should do for maxing out your deadlift. Just that you can get pretty damn strong doing CF. His numbers may have been slightly exaggerated, but deceptive, misleading or just plain made up? Seriously?

George Noble 11-18-2008 11:56 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
I'll concede that I didn't realise that the 500-750 quote was from 2002. Hopefully GG has more realistic/honest views now. I stand by what I said about bodybuilding and Tim said everything I wanted to in post #261. The only thing I'd like to add is that splits and compound routines are not mutually exclusive. Andy Bolton does a B SQ DL split I believe, and I personally do an upper/lower split with only 4-5 sets of isolation exercises throughout the week (Tate press and hammer curls). Bodybuilders on splits can also do compounds, except they call squat day "leg day" and pullup day "back day."

Shawn Casey 11-18-2008 12:06 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
5 Attachment(s)
Attachment 2901 Attachment 2906 Attachment 2903

Attachment 2904 Attachment 2905





Yeah, you suck at building mass, crossfit.



Anybody seen the before and after picture of Jolie in the crossfit journal? She was anorexic in the "before".

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-18-2008 12:08 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
The FAQs as I recall were designed by Lynne Pitts. Is it possible that she took a hyperbolous remark from Coach and put it in the FAQs? Is it that important, how many electrons have been wasted on this discussion? Why should you move on, Brandon? How about the man lets you advertise for a rival GPP system on his website. You've effectively called him a liar in a variety of ways, critisized his entire program unmercifully, and you're still allowed here. Doesn't that earn him some grace? Apparently not, if there is anybody here who hasn't been overly enthusiastic for something they've invented or discovered, my hat's off. Otherwise take a pill.

Brandon Oto 11-18-2008 12:13 PM

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

Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr (Post 449541)
You've effectively called him a liar in a variety of ways, critisized his entire program unmercifully, and you're still allowed here. Doesn't that earn him some grace?

I can't dispense nor am I interested in grace. Only truth.

Are we all in agreement then that official CrossFit sources have made hyperbolic or exaggerated claims, on at least one or both of the points quoted above? That would be a nice bit of progress.

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-18-2008 12:18 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Progress could also be you saying CrossFit is a good GPP model whose founder has different opinions than you do about certain fitness ideas.

Joe Cavazos 11-18-2008 12:27 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Glassman wasn't saying CrossFit will give everyone who does it a 750# Deadlift. It's my interpretation that this was used as an "ideal" number and is to be compared with what would be considered an elite Deadlift by a Powerlifter. Just as very few people, no matter how and how much they train, could ever reach a 950# Deadlift, very few people could reach a 750# Deadlift by doing CrossFit.

The 750# Deadlift is for conceptual purposes. At this point you're only arguing out of the necessity imposed by your general stance on CrossFit.

George Noble 11-18-2008 12:32 PM

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

Originally Posted by Shawn Casey (Post 449538)
pictures

Yeah, you suck at building mass, crossfit.

Anybody seen the before and after picture of Jolie in the crossfit journal? She was anorexic in the "before".

I've never said CrossFit sucks at building mass, that's a strawman. I have said that the statement in the FAQ is ridiculous. Off the top of my head "natural bodybuilders never approach the mass that our athletes do." I'm not big on bodybuilding trivia - the only natural guy I can name off the top of my head is Layne Norton.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...wQHO7I0j&gbv=2 wfs except from the fact that he's in a thong in most of his pictures, and safesearch is off. So not really wfs.

Well, there you go. It seems that natural bodybuilders (one at least) DO approach the mass of CrossFitters. Who'da thunk it? (And yes, I know you can say Layne is only pretending to be natural, but I can say the same about the biggest CrossFitters.) I don't have a problem with CrossFit as a program, I just think it's a shame that CrossFit.com has the same kind of silly claims I'd expect from Bowflex.com or BodyBuilding.com, because I thought CF was for serious trainees who wouldn't fall for such BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr (Post 449563)
Progress could also be you saying CrossFit is a good GPP model whose founder has different opinions than you do about certain fitness ideas.

For the record, I've recommended CrossFit to lots of people on other forums and in real life who have asked me about Fitness, being lean, etc.. I'm a powerlifter and I know there are a lot of CrossFitters who are stronger than me. I can't remember ever making disparaging comments about the program that weren't reasonable criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos (Post 449571)
The 750# Deadlift is for conceptual purposes. At this point you're only arguing out of the necessity imposed by your general stance on CrossFit.

No, I don't have a general stance on CrossFit, apart from that it's good for GPP. It seems OK to you that the guy whose catchphrase is "evidence based fitness" makes claims about his program that are backed up by... zero evidence? Well, OK there.

Joe Cavazos 11-18-2008 12:42 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
That last bit wasn't directed at you, George. Apologies.

Brandon Oto 11-18-2008 12:44 PM

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

Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos (Post 449571)
Glassman wasn't saying CrossFit will give everyone who does it a 750# Deadlift. It's my interpretation that this was used as an "ideal" number and is to be compared with what would be considered an elite Deadlift by a Powerlifter. Just as very few people, no matter how and how much they train, could ever reach a 950# Deadlift, very few people could reach a 750# Deadlift by doing CrossFit.

The 750# Deadlift is for conceptual purposes. At this point you're only arguing out of the necessity imposed by your general stance on CrossFit.

Absolutely nobody has ever gone from a 200lb deadlift to a 750lb deadlift in two years using the CrossFit.com WoD. I will publicly offer a $50 finder's fee to anyone who can provide proof or reasonable testimony to knowledge of any such person, anywhere in the ranks of thousands of CrossFitters worldwide, whether present or past, or in the reasonable future, no matter how freakish or gifted.

I assert that this is an outright lie on the part of Greg Glassman. This program will not, as claimed, ever take anybody to a 750lb deadlift. This is not the same as saying it won't take everybody there. It will do so for absolutely nobody.

I stake this publicly and on the penalty of my reputation here, under my full name. My home address and phone number are available on my website.

I'm tired of equivocation and apologetics. Call it unimportant. Call it understandable. But don't call it true. Unless you can prove me wrong.

Door's open.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.