CrossFit Discussion Board

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

Tim Donahey 11-18-2008 12:47 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449595] 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.[/QUOTE]

Ummm... I got a five spot on that!

George Noble 11-18-2008 12:53 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Joe Cavazos;449591]That last bit wasn't directed at you, George. Apologies.[/QUOTE]
Not a problem.

Joe Cavazos 11-18-2008 01:02 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Joe Cavazos;449571]The 750# Deadlift is for conceptual purposes.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449595]... provide proof ...[/QUOTE]

:confused:

Your continued harping on this issue is silly. You've gotten people to apologize for Glassman by saying it was an exaggeration, or a conceptual tool, or a poor guess from earlier in the CrossFit timeline. But that's not what you want. You don't want those explanations because they're just not damning enough. You [I]want[/I] Glassman to be a liar. You [I]want[/I] him to be a snake oil salesman. You [I]want[/I] him to be consciously duping the thousands of adherents to his program.

You're trying to prove motive. No, actually, you're not trying to prove motive. You're just trying to get people to speculate as to the motive in lock step with you.

Give this issue up.

Shane Skowron 11-18-2008 01:03 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Nobody's hit a 1:30 Fran time yet either. My thoughts are that eventually someone very gifted and very dedicated will do it within 2 years of starting Crossfit and following no other structured program. Does that mean it's a lie to say that CF can take you to a 1:30 Fran time in 2 years?

Of course deadlifts and Frans are two entirely different animals but the point being that just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the program is incapable of doing something. Consider the sample size of the following population: a) males, because they're strongest b) who are more than 200# because there's no way a 150# guy can pull 750# on CF alone c) who are dialed in perfectly with their nutrition and sleep d) who actually have a desire to pull that weight e) who are relatively short because I've never seen a tall guy pull that kind of weight and f) who are genetically predisposed to the deadlift g) who started out with a poor deadlift h) who have been doing CF without any external program for 2 solid years.

How many people do you think fit that description? Very, very few. The sample size is far too small to give the definitive answer of no it's not possible. I really don't think Greg Glassman was thinking that some shrimpy guy who is kinda into CF and comes from an endurance background and just does CF for kicks can really pull 750# within two years.

Do I think it's an exaggeration? Probably. But like I said, given the right circumstances the possibility is not out of the question.

David Wood 11-18-2008 01:21 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Brandon, I really can't understand you.

Personally, and speaking *only* for myself, I regret that quote by Coach about the 500-750 pound DL (although I'm reasonably confident that he doesn't regret it, it doesn't seem to be in his nature).

I think he was flush with excitement at the possibilities he was seeing as he started to see results from larger numbers of folks than he could train personally, and he overestimated the range of what was achievable.

And (my personal opinion only, and NOT speaking as an "official" representative of CrossFit) I think he guessed wrong at the degree of carryover from being able to do 250 multiple times to being able to do 500 once. There is carryover, a lot . . . but maybe less than it looked like at the time.

But I really can't understand the hatred from you and your buddies at ********.

The quoted range was 500 - 750. A non-trivial number of CrossFitters have crossed the lower threshold (as evidenced by personal testimony and/or logsitall entries (and assuming that the logsitall stuff is from "CrossFitters")). I don't believe Coach ever asserted that every trainer would do so. So how is it a "lie" (your words)?

FWIW, I'm partially there . . . I have a 415 DL at a bodyweight of 160 (2.6x BW), with NEVER deadlifting more than called for in the WOD. Will I make it to 500? Maybe . . . it looks a long way off right now, and it's not a particularly important mission for me. Would I be there today if I was 5 inches taller and 200 pounds bodyweight? My guess is I would . . . 500 pounds would be a lower fraction of BW (if I weighed that much) than I can do now.


On the "mass building" claim, again, I can honestly say (as my personal opinion only) that I wish he had not said that (and, again, I seriously doubt that Coach thinks that way).

My own experience (validated by the pictures posted above) is that the following modification would be truer: "CrossFit will do a better job of creating the body that the *vast* majority of men and women want (which is NOT what wins bodybuilding contests) than the splits and body parts routines commonly practiced and publicized in the bodybuilding 'literature'". It's certainly true for me personally . . . I'm happier with my physique (at the decrepit old age of 53) since CrossFit than I ever was when I was body(not)building.

I recognize that that is NOT what was said . . . but my experience is that it's closer to the truth, and I think it's what most people here "get" instinctively once they start training, (and what you, apparently, don't).


Brandon, I'm trying to figure out why you feel you have the self-appointed role of public scourge? I honestly don't recall establishing that category of membership . . . did I miss something? I recognize you're a follower who needs validation from your buddies elsewhere (such a *great* group of guys over there) . . . but I'm honestly getting very tired of your ****.

You're intelligent, you've got a number of great posts to your credit . . . and yet you're the kind of person who can't see the forest for the trees. I don't get it.

Tim Donahey 11-18-2008 01:43 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=David Wood;449647]"CrossFit will do a better job of creating the body that the *vast* majority of men and women want (which is NOT what wins bodybuilding contests) than the splits and body parts routines commonly practiced and publicized in the bodybuilding 'literature'". [/QUOTE]

Agreed! 110%

Brandon Oto 11-18-2008 01:44 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=David Wood;449647]The quoted range was 500 - 750. A non-trivial number of CrossFitters have crossed the lower threshold (as evidenced by personal testimony and/or logsitall entries (and assuming that the logsitall stuff is from "CrossFitters")). I don't believe Coach ever asserted that every trainer would do so. So how is it a "lie" (your words)?[/quote]

A range is given, which implies that results anywhere within that range are possible. I assert that some parts of this range are not possible. (That he would say "we can take you..." further implies that he had actually performed this action with athletes previously, but I won't even ask for that; I'll give you any time range, for any CrossFitter, from Santa Cruz to Hong Kong.)

Even one single person placing in the upper bounds of that description would justify the range given. I assert that none exist or will exist. Perhaps I'm wrong.

If the misleading nature of the claim isn't clear, it can be inflated to make it more obvious. What would you say if I told you that CrossFit could take you from a 200lb deadlift to a 5000lb deadlift?

That I'm not technically lying?

Or "CrossFit can give you a 5000 pound deadlift?!"

[quote]Brandon, I'm trying to figure out why you feel you have the self-appointed role of public scourge? I honestly don't recall establishing that category of membership . . . did I miss something? I recognize you're a follower who needs validation from your buddies elsewhere (such a *great* group of guys over there) . . . but I'm honestly getting very tired of your ****.

You're intelligent, you've got a number of great posts to your credit . . . and yet you're the kind of person who can't see the forest for the trees. I don't get it.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how this bears on the topic. You can pretend I'm a CrossFit-hating robot sent from the planet Krypton if you want. We're discussing the truth value of objective statements; it doesn't matter who I am.

Robert Callahan 11-18-2008 01:46 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449595]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.
[/QUOTE]

I was going to respond with the exact same argument I used last post since you seem to have neglected it, but David's post is much better :)

btw what is someone like Greg Amundson's Deadlift? Since he was one of the several savages that Coach was training in those early days who I could see reaching a some pretty heavy lifts.

Shawn Casey 11-18-2008 01:52 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
DaMN YoU coACh, DaMN YOu CrOssFit!!! YOU"VE RUINED MY DREAM OF A HAVING BETWEEN A 500-750 LBS DEADLIFT FROM A VERY LOW STARTING POINT OF 200LBS. ANOTHER THING CROSSFIT, I"LL NEVER BE ABLE TO FLEX MY HAMSTRINGS ON STAGE!!!!!

Maybe I'll try that crap that Mr. Oto got going on over there and see if I get the same results( even though I'm on a filtered net and haven't a clue what it's about). You have a new disciple Mr. Oto, train me please!! Dude, coach said 500-750 not just 750.

Oh, I must have built all my mass from my bowflex. Plus, I got a 400LBS and rising deadlift from the bowflex, too. You can't compare what they say on a bowflex commercial to crossfit. I believe it is possible to start your first crossfit workout with a 200lbs deadlift and achieve over a 500lbs on crossfit in 2 years. If anyone achieved this, coaches statement would be true. from a 200 to 500-750. If someone hit 501 and never hit higher than 503 his statement would still be true. Doesn't matter if he said 500-1million the statement would still be true. Plus, I think I just proved that you can build more mass with crossfit, or at least the same, than a natual bodybuilder can with a traditional bodybuilding program. Plus, you get more bennefits with crossfit than bodybuilding.

Who are you trying to convince, anyway? You are preaching to the wrong people. Sounds like jealousy, with a touch of hateraid.

On a serious note, whatever.

David Wood 11-18-2008 02:02 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[quote=Brandon Oto;449655]A range is given, which implies that results anywhere within that range are possible.
. . . .


If the misleading nature of the claim isn't clear, it can be inflated to make it more obvious. What would you say if I told you that CrossFit could take you from a 200lb deadlift to a 5000lb deadlift?

That I'm not technically lying?

[/quote]

Well, since you seem to be so deeply into the minutiae of the argument (the trees rather than the forest), I would point out that if a range is given, and any part of that range is achieved, then the claim has been met. The range does not imply that all parts of the range must be satisfied for the statement to be true . . . only that some part of it must be.

If you said that (insert program here) could take you from a 200 pound DL to a DL in the range of 500 to 5,000 pounds, then, yes, a 501-pound lift satisfies the range.

Again, for the record, as my personal opinion only, I think Coach was over-enthusiastic in that interview.

Brandon, you and I have corresponded enough for me to know that you're not a robot . . . you're a real person with an agenda I can't understand.

Seriously, I think Joe got it right above (his post while I was typing my last one) . . . you seem to be motivated by a deeply-felt need to make Coach *wrong*. I realize that there's a population out there that needs that to be true in order to make up for their own pathetic shortcomings . . . but why are you trying to fit into that category?

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:09 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Shane Skowron;449625]Nobody's hit a 1:30 Fran time yet either. My thoughts are that eventually someone very gifted and very dedicated will do it within 2 years of starting Crossfit and following no other structured program. Does that mean it's a lie to say that CF can take you to a 1:30 Fran time in 2 years?

Of course deadlifts and Frans are two entirely different animals but the point being that just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the program is incapable of doing something. Consider the sample size of the following population: a) males, because they're strongest b) who are more than 200# because there's no way a 150# guy can pull 750# on CF alone c) who are dialed in perfectly with their nutrition and sleep d) who actually have a desire to pull that weight e) who are relatively short because I've never seen a tall guy pull that kind of weight and f) who are genetically predisposed to the deadlift g) who started out with a poor deadlift h) who have been doing CF without any external program for 2 solid years.

How many people do you think fit that description? Very, very few. The sample size is far too small to give the definitive answer of no it's not possible. I really don't think Greg Glassman was thinking that some shrimpy guy who is kinda into CF and comes from an endurance background and just does CF for kicks can really pull 750# within two years.

Do I think it's an exaggeration? Probably. But like I said, given the right circumstances the possibility is not out of the question.[/QUOTE]

A person several deviations above "norm" might meet these standards, but that would say more about them then the program. There are scores of NFL players right now who did HIT all through college, does that mean HIT is better than CF?

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:10 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=David Wood;449647]Brandon, I really can't understand you.

Personally, and speaking *only* for myself, I regret that quote by Coach about the 500-750 pound DL (although I'm reasonably confident that he doesn't regret it, it doesn't seem to be in his nature).

I think he was flush with excitement at the possibilities he was seeing as he started to see results from larger numbers of folks than he could train personally, and he overestimated the range of what was achievable.

And (my personal opinion only, and NOT speaking as an "official" representative of CrossFit) I think he guessed wrong at the degree of carryover from being able to do 250 multiple times to being able to do 500 once. There is carryover, a lot . . . but maybe less than it looked like at the time.

But I really can't understand the hatred from you and your buddies at ********.

The quoted range was 500 - 750. A non-trivial number of CrossFitters have crossed the lower threshold (as evidenced by personal testimony and/or logsitall entries (and assuming that the logsitall stuff is from "CrossFitters")). I don't believe Coach ever asserted that every trainer would do so. So how is it a "lie" (your words)?

FWIW, I'm partially there . . . I have a 415 DL at a bodyweight of 160 (2.6x BW), with NEVER deadlifting more than called for in the WOD. Will I make it to 500? Maybe . . . it looks a long way off right now, and it's not a particularly important mission for me. Would I be there today if I was 5 inches taller and 200 pounds bodyweight? My guess is I would . . . 500 pounds would be a lower fraction of BW (if I weighed that much) than I can do now.


On the "mass building" claim, again, I can honestly say (as my personal opinion only) that I wish he had not said that (and, again, I seriously doubt that Coach thinks that way).

My own experience (validated by the pictures posted above) is that the following modification would be truer: "CrossFit will do a better job of creating the body that the *vast* majority of men and women want (which is NOT what wins bodybuilding contests) than the splits and body parts routines commonly practiced and publicized in the bodybuilding 'literature'". It's certainly true for me personally . . . I'm happier with my physique (at the decrepit old age of 53) since CrossFit than I ever was when I was body(not)building.

I recognize that that is NOT what was said . . . but my experience is that it's closer to the truth, and I think it's what most people here "get" instinctively once they start training, (and what you, apparently, don't).


Brandon, I'm trying to figure out why you feel you have the self-appointed role of public scourge? I honestly don't recall establishing that category of membership . . . did I miss something? I recognize you're a follower who needs validation from your buddies elsewhere (such a *great* group of guys over there) . . . but I'm honestly getting very tired of your ****.

You're intelligent, you've got a number of great posts to your credit . . . and yet you're the kind of person who can't see the forest for the trees. I don't get it.[/QUOTE]


Whats publicized in the bodybuilding magazines and what real top amatuer bodybuilders do are too completely different things.

Joe Cavazos 11-18-2008 02:12 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=David Wood;449674]Seriously, I think Joe got it right above (his post while I was typing my last one) . . . you seem to be motivated by a deeply-felt need to make Coach *wrong*.[/QUOTE]

Not just "wrong." I think most of the people posting here in his defense could accept that he was [I]technically[/I] wrong (though even that's still debatable). He wants Glassman to be a liar. He wants malfeasance.

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:15 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=George Noble;449579]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.

[url]http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=layne+norton&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=HxYjSZbDNYz6wQHO7I0j&gbv=2[/url] 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.



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.



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.[/QUOTE]

I've met Layne and his physique is very impressive. My former boss is a natural amatuer bodybuilder and he has a physique most people would find very impressive. Look up Don Willes.

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:19 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Pat McElhone;449439]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.[/QUOTE]

What studies are you specifically speaking of that were so bad?

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:22 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=John Filippini;448759]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 [I]verify[/I] 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 [I]may[/I] be an error in our study, or there [I]may[/I] 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.

[B]CFer[/B]: "Dude, this CF stuff is awesome, you should try it."

[B]Dude[/B]: "Why should I believe you? Where's the evidence?"

[B]CFer[/B]: "Look at all these people it worked for!"

[B]Dude[/B]: "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."

[B]CFer[/B]: "**** 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.[/QUOTE]


I still can't understand how wanting to subject CF to more rigorous examination somehow makes us doubters.

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:23 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Daniel Schmieding;448790]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 ***.[/QUOTE]

I know it's called humor

George Noble 11-18-2008 02:23 PM

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

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:26 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Adam Scheiner;448712]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.[/QUOTE]

You clearly don't understand VO2 max. It's about alot more than slow steady work. Doing anaerobic work actually can improve your VO2 as well, hence Tabata protocols. VO2 is a measurement of capacity to consume and use oxygen. Besides I never said VO2 is the be all end all of performance. But to say VO2 has no bearing on ANY performance in ANY form is silly.

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:28 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;448828]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.[/QUOTE]

Exactly

Adam Scheiner 11-18-2008 02:29 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449655]


I don't see how this bears on the topic. You can pretend I'm a CrossFit-hating robot sent from the planet Krypton if you want. We're discussing the truth value of objective statements; it doesn't matter who I am.[/QUOTE]

I live with a person who is a philosophy major and he does the exact same things that Brandon does. I believe from reading Brandon's post and checking his website that he is a philosophy major, which gives me the impression that Brandon's goal is simply to iron out what is true and what is not to the very last minuscule detail. To accomplish this he plays a never ending game of devil's advocate. The problem with this is that it annoys the **** out of people and at some point people have a breaking point.
Brandon, perhaps it will help people if you tell us [I]why doth you persist soo much?[/I]

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:33 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=David Wood;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.[/QUOTE]

Or instead of one test do lots of studies using lots of different people done by lots of different researchers that have no bias for or against, and we'll see what happens. Thats real science

Saying "we can't do studies, becuase no study will ever accurately test our definition of fitness except for the workouts we do" is a cop out very remniscint of Arthur Jones.

Brandon Oto 11-18-2008 02:34 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Adam Scheiner;449724]I live with a person who is a philosophy major and he does the exact same things that Brandon does. I believe from reading Brandon's post and checking his website that he is a philosophy major, which gives me the impression that Brandon's goal is simply to iron out what is true and what is not to the very last minuscule detail. To accomplish this he plays a never ending game of devil's advocate. The problem with this is that it annoys the **** out of people and at some point people have a breaking point.
Brandon, perhaps it will help people if you tell us [I]why doth you persist soo much?[/I][/QUOTE]

Because I love the truth more than I love you guys.

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:36 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Tim Donahey;448875]No, I think he's claiming that Bigfoot [i]does[/i] Crossfit.

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

3-2-1-GO![/QUOTE]

I actually always pictured bigfoot as more a Weider guy personally. :welcome:

John Filippini 11-18-2008 02:38 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Phillip Garrisonq;449707]I still can't understand how wanting to subject CF to more rigorous examination somehow makes us doubters.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't. I was just using the example because there are generally only two purposes I can think of such study fulfilling: (1) to expand and improve upon the practices within CrossFit and (2) to use as convincing evidence for skeptics so as to expand and improve upon the practices of the larger community.

Though you bring up a good point. Perhaps people that are content without such studies go on the defensive so fast because those that desire them are immediately assumed to be "doubters" and they get insulted somehow.

[QUOTE=George Noble;449712]Combo breaker![/QUOTE]

Also, this made my day. :D

Tom Woodward 11-18-2008 02:38 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449728]Because I love the truth more than I love you guys.[/QUOTE]

If that was true, you'd seek it silently.

You're not seeking truth anymore in this argument. You've obviously come to the truth for yourself. Now you're just forcing it down our throats.

Phillip Garrison 11-18-2008 02:40 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=John Filippini;449733]It doesn't. I was just using the example because there are generally only two purposes I can think of such study fulfilling: (1) to expand and improve upon the practices within CrossFit and (2) to use as convincing evidence for skeptics so as to expand and improve upon the practices of the larger community.

Though you bring up a good point. Perhaps people that are content without such studies go on the defensive so fast because those that desire them are immediately assumed to be "doubters" and they get insulted somehow.



Also, this made my day. :D[/QUOTE]

IMHO rigourusly studying CF will only improve it, not hurt it.

Tom Fetter 11-18-2008 02:46 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449728]Because I love the truth more than I love you guys.[/QUOTE]Perhaps. To be fair, it truly doesn't come off that way.

I've liked much of what you've posted on this site and elsewhere, Brandon, but this thread looks more like attempted vilification than a search for "the truth." This horse - it's dead.

Phillip,

I agree that VOmax correlates well with aerobic sport performance ... until it doesn't. In rowing, for instance, studies confirm that it's the single most effective predictor of performance for novices and "club" rowers.

But by the time you're dealing with elite rowers, VOmax isn't a terribly good predictor. For them, the most reliable predictor of performance is peak power, followed by squat strength ... VOmax is down the list.

For me, that illustrates the utility ... and the limitations ... of using "accepted" tests (like VOmax) as proxies. And underscores that if the goal is actually performance ... whether in sport or in "real life," then after a certain level of fitness is achieved, proxies are no longer terribly useful.

It suggests to me that an analysis of CF's effectiveness should not rely on proxies like VOmax, or vertical jump. And should instead compare athletes when faced with disparate "real world" tasks ... such as what GPP theoretically prepares us for.

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-18-2008 02:47 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
There are websites out there that I don't agree with, provided by people that I think are liars. I don't have 2900 posts on those sites. And I don't expect those sites to underpin my pet projects, which could be perceived as a rival to theirs.

Sean Dunston 11-18-2008 02:47 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Stand up Philosopher!

One of the all-time great movie scenes!

wfs - with the exception of the word bullsh*t that is repeated a few times.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec[/url]

Derek Maffett 11-18-2008 02:53 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449728]Because I love the truth more than I love you guys.[/QUOTE]

Please tell me you've attempted to contact Greg Glassman [I]outside[/I] these forums. Unless you seriously expect this truth to be found here. The thirty pages of... what do you call it? Debate? Bickering? Anyways, it seems to me that you could just talk to the source of all your grievances.

Come to think of it, don't you [I]live[/I] in Santa Cruz? Could you just simply walk over and talk to him?

Christian Mason 11-18-2008 02:54 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=John Filippini;449733]It doesn't. I was just using the example because there are generally only two purposes I can think of such study fulfilling: (1) to expand and improve upon the practices within CrossFit and (2) to use as convincing evidence for skeptics so as to expand and improve upon the practices of the larger community.

Though you bring up a good point. Perhaps people that are content without such studies go on the defensive so fast because those that desire them are immediately assumed to be "doubters" and they get insulted somehow.



Also, this made my day. :D[/QUOTE]


How about (3) To expand the body of knowledge about differing approaches to training athletes that is available.

It's not about convincing the people here, who are already convinced, and it's not just about recruiting or converting new people. I believe Coach has pointed out that science often lags behind what coaches practice, because the standards of evidence are higher, and the investigative process is slower.

That doesn't mean that either is wrong. Ideally they should be complementary. I.e. We see that coaches appears to be getting some impressive results with Crossfit so we investigate the methods scientifically.

Chris Walls 11-18-2008 02:56 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Derek Maffett;449755]
Come to think of it, don't you [I]live[/I] in Santa Cruz? Could you just simply walk over and talk to him?[/QUOTE]

I think Coach lives in Arizona. Could be wrong tho.

Robert Callahan 11-18-2008 02:56 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Derek Maffett;449755]Come to think of it, don't you [I]live[/I] in Santa Cruz? Could you just simply walk over and talk to him?[/QUOTE]

Glassman's moved to Arizona like a year ago or something?

George Noble 11-18-2008 02:57 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
I think CrossFit can be studied retrospectively quite easily by looking at affiliate blogs, main page comments, anecdotes, etc. etc.. Here is what I suspect you would find:

CrossFit makes people with bad GPP have good GPP.
CrossFit makes people with good GPP have even better GPP.
CrossFit makes people with even better GPP have world class GPP.
People who train hard at CrossFit get better results than those who don't.
Considering the focus is on function and real life, and there are no weight classes in real life, there is quite a weird fixation on lifts as a ratio to bodyweight.
CrossFit does not produce a 750 lb deadlift in 2 years.
CrossFit is widely lambasted by idiots on the internet who give more reasonable critics (I like to think I'm one of the latter) a bad name.
CrossFitters aren't bodybuilders, nor do they look like bodybuilders.

Now why don't you stop posting multiple times in a row and go do the study?

Derek Maffett 11-18-2008 03:06 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Robert Callahan;449761]Glassman's moved to Arizona like a year ago or something?[/QUOTE]

I see.

[QUOTE=George Noble;449762]I think CrossFit can be studied retrospectively quite easily by looking at affiliate blogs, main page comments, anecdotes, etc. etc.. Here is what I suspect you would find:

CrossFit makes people with bad GPP have good GPP.
CrossFit makes people with good GPP have even better GPP.
CrossFit makes people with even better GPP have world class GPP.
People who train hard at CrossFit get better results than those who don't.
Considering the focus is on function and real life, and there are no weight classes in real life, there is quite a weird fixation on lifts as a ratio to bodyweight.
CrossFit does not produce a 750 lb deadlift in 2 years.
CrossFit is widely lambasted by idiots on the internet who give more reasonable critics (I like to think I'm one of the latter) a bad name.
CrossFitters aren't bodybuilders, nor do they look like bodybuilders.
[/QUOTE]

That seems pretty fair.

Glenn Pendlay 11-18-2008 03:09 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;449595]I assert that this is an outright lie on the part of Greg Glassman. This program will not, as claimed, ever take [I]anybody[/I] to a 750lb deadlift. This is not the same as saying it won't take everybody there. It will do so for absolutely nobody.[/QUOTE]

I so, so, so much dont want to get involved in any way in this discussion. However, there is one person who I firmly believe could have achieved a 750lb deadlift inside of 2 years by following the Crossfit WOD as written. This person is Gary Heisey. Gary deadlifted around 700lbs the first time he ever tried to do the exercise, and this was without any extensive prior strength training of any kind. He very quickly went over 800lbs, then several years later in 1992, weighing 358lbs he deadlifted a world record of 925lbs, a record which stood for quite a few years. I do believe he attempted 959 or 979 once, and had his grip fail when he was almost locked out. Gary was very tall, I believe around 6'6", had long arms and legs, and relatively thin legs. He posessed an ideal physique for deadlifting, and obviously very, very abnormal natural talent and strength for the exercise.

Here is a link of a video of him giving some pointers to Grant Pitts on how to do the deadlift. In this vid, Gary is several years past his prime and not in training, but he still handles I believe 700lbs quite easily. Gary is the tall guy in the yellow T-shirt. Grant is the big guy with no shirt on. Grant was a pretty good lifter also, I think in this vid Grant is about 6' tall and around 350lbs.

Near as I can tell, the link is WFS.

[url]http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/9567[/url]

David Wood 11-18-2008 03:14 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[quote=George Noble;449762]
. . .
There is quite a weird fixation on lifts as a ratio to bodyweight.
. . .
[/quote]

:rofl:

As someone who weighs "only" 160, I *need* that fixation (at least in reporting my lifts) . . . I'm not going to match the lifts of my larger brethren. Call it a form of compensation for my inadequacies :)

In specifying a workout, maybe it's just a convenient training protocol to allow a widely-varying potential range of body types do the workouts?


I fully understand that most real world challenges recognize no age, weight, or gender categories . . . as someone once said: "God made all men; it took Samuel Colt to make them equal."

Brandon Oto 11-18-2008 03:15 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=Glenn Pendlay;449780]I so, so, so much dont want to get involved in any way in this discussion. However, there is one person who I firmly believe could have achieved a 750lb deadlift inside of 2 years by following the Crossfit WOD as written. This person is Gary Heisey. Gary deadlifted around 700lbs the first time he ever tried to do the exercise, and this was without any extensive prior strength training of any kind. He very quickly went over 800lbs, then several years later in 1992, weighing 358lbs he deadlifted a world record of 925lbs, a record which stood for quite a few years.[/QUOTE]

Glenn,

Was this using no additional strength training outside of the WoD?

If so, you've got my money. Starting at 700 is radically different from starting at 200 but I'll let it go on good faith.

Sean Dunston 11-18-2008 03:16 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
[QUOTE=David Wood;449783]:rofl:

As someone who weighs only "only" 160, I *need* that fixation (at least in reporting my lifts) . . . I'm not going to match the lifts of my larger brethren. Call it a form of compensation for my inadequacies :)

In specifying a workout, maybe it's just a convenient training protocol to allow a widely-varying potential range of body types do the workouts?


I fully understand that most real world challenges recognize no age, weight, or gender categories . . . as someone once said: "God made all men; it took Samuel Colt to make them equal."[/QUOTE]

Ditto sentiment - and ditto weight!
:highfive:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.