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)

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 02:04 PM

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

Sean Dunston 11-17-2008 02:08 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448689)
very impressive

No - it really isn't that impressive. I'm desk jockey by day - and only workout 20-30 minutes, 4 or 5 times per week at my affiliate. To look at me, you'd know I am not an elite athlete. I was just illustrating the point that someone earlier attributed to Coach Glassman regarding DL increases.

If you watch the boards and go to affiliates, you will see the same things happening with LOTS of people who follow CF.

Maybe somebody should do a study...

:shrug:

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 02:12 PM

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

Originally Posted by Sean Dunston (Post 448693)
No - it really isn't that impressive. I'm desk jockey by day - and only workout 20-30 minutes, 4 or 5 times per week at my affiliate. To look at me, you'd know I am not an elite athlete. I was just illustrating the point that someone earlier attributed to Coach Glassman regarding DL increases.

If you watch the boards and go to affiliates, you will see the same things happening with LOTS of people who follow CF.

Maybe somebody should do a study...

:shrug:

Lol, my thoughts exactly. A nearly 3xbw dead while concurrently decreasing body fat within such a short time period is very impressive IMHO. This is why I keep strongly advocating we do studies to show the validity of CF as a training protocol, lets start backing up everything with cold hard data. The best to silence critics is to beat them at their own game.

John Filippini 11-17-2008 02:16 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Does anyone else notice the paradox of CrossFit's relationship with science?

Much of the CF community likes to say that the method is backed up by science and by study, but as soon as people look for scientific evidence in the form of studies, people just get angry.

As much as I have a lot of respect for the people here that are firefighters (or any other emergency responder, military, etc), and I'm frankly in awe of the stories you've told of comrades on this very thread, none of those stories are qualified to refute a single study. They're just your personal experience. It's not qualified because it's biased by taking a sample only from the people you know, in the place that you live/work -- there's no good reason to assume they're indicative of the population/environment as a whole. Those experiences are certainly better than my experience as someone that has no exposure to the field, but any science done in good conscience is required to use random sampling to avoid such biases.

By bringing up studies that are different from somebody's experiences, no one is trying to belittle or insult that experience. The experience of people in the field should be exactly what should be used to come up with hypotheses to get tested. There could be any number of reasons why folks that have high VO2 maxes which could lend them to improved performance as a firefighter might get weeded out of the pack that stays around long enough to get noticed by the casual observer. But that's the sort of thing we'll never know without testing for.

Sean Dunston 11-17-2008 02:21 PM

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

Originally Posted by John Filippini (Post 448698)
Does anyone else notice the paradox of CrossFit's relationship with science?

Much of the CF community likes to say that the method is backed up by science and by study, but as soon as people look for scientific evidence in the form of studies, people just get angry.

I'm not angry - just confused.
It has been backed up - there have been publications of its efficacy... each time such things are posted, people turn up their nose them.
Check the old Journal articles.
They are there.

Adam Scheiner 11-17-2008 02:30 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448644)
How does doing more total work while expending less energy ever make you score as less fit? That's one of the classic definitions of improved fitness the ability to do the same amount of work, or more work more efficiently.A High VO2 means the ability to do lots of work. A person with a VO2 of 70 has to work half as hard to a task as a person with a VO2 of 35, or they can do twice as much in the sametime as a person with a VO2 of 35. If that isn't a good definition of fitness what is?

It means the ability to do a bunch of aerobic work, where you go at a relatively slow pace for a very long time and you don't need much else other than the willingness to breathe and not stop. When you do anaerobic work your VO2 max means ****, work is determined by your strength, speed etc. When the lines get blurred a person needs all components, but VO2 max is less important, power endurance is needed. I can be breathing really hard and have a VO2 max of 2 and be able to do more work than a person with a VO2 max of 100. Fight Gone Bad is a perfect example of this.
Phillip your old way of thinking is ****ing you up because most exercise science in the past has been developed around aerobic studies. They left out anaerobic and what happens when you blur the two, in short they ****ed us all, oh wait Greg Glassman, Mark Rippetoe, and other have written about this. Problem solved. Mark Twight wrote in a cfjournal about this once. If you can find it go read it. In short he had a high VO2 max and got messed up doing FGB.

Brandon Oto 11-17-2008 02:52 PM

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

Originally Posted by Sean Dunston (Post 448693)
If you watch the boards and go to affiliates, you will see the same things happening with LOTS of people who follow CF.

Maybe somebody should do a study...:

If you hit 750, I will study you myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Dunston (Post 448706)
I'm not angry - just confused.
It has been backed up - there have been publications of its efficacy... each time such things are posted, people turn up their nose them.
Check the old Journal articles.
They are there.

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.

Robert Callahan 11-17-2008 03:01 PM

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

Originally Posted by John Filippini (Post 448698)
As much as I have a lot of respect for the people here that are firefighters (or any other emergency responder, military, etc), and I'm frankly in awe of the stories you've told of comrades on this very thread, none of those stories are qualified to refute a single study.

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. All science whether it is physics, biology, chemistry, or a combination there in, are in a constant state of change as we are able to observe in more detail the universe we live in and old ideas and theories are shown to not hold up in real world observations. The purpose of a study is to prove a theorized mechanism, not a result. Many people on these boards and else where have experienced the results of increased fitness and I think it is reasonable to say a very likely pathway is CF. If you need a study to prove it then so be it, but do not begrudge the community for making a reasonable jump in logic.

-Robert

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-17-2008 03:14 PM

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

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 03:16 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

Anecdotal evidence is not science. Thousands of people have claimed to see bigfoot that doesn't make it evidence.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:01 PM.

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