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 C. Brown 11-16-2008 11:37 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
You are correct Donald, personal attacks are childish.

You are incorrect in what Phillip is saying. He is saying that having a high VO2 makes someone a good firefighter. I am saying it has nothing to do with it. Does CrossFit improve your VO2? Absolutely. Are we CrossFitting to gain a higher VO2? No. Why? Because it is a by-product, a correlate and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. What good is a high VO2 max if I am too feeble to pick up my children? Does it help me all that much if I am incapable of pushing, pulling or in any functional way moving my body? No. Therefore, is it a reasonable means of measuring someone's fitness? No.

Joey Powell 11-17-2008 04:50 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Actually, VO2 max is not a good indicator at all. At the Fire Fighter Challenges the CrossFitters have been known to use LESS air than their counter-parts for the same amount of work completed even when time in the mask is settled out.

A big VO2 max is big engine and big Fuel/oxygen mix... this is being turned on it's head with the amount of air left in the bottles by CF'ers.

VO2 max may indeed be a by-product of fitness, but evidence supports that it maybe not even that, wnen you train to make the engine more efficient using CF protocols.

So is it a good way of measuring fitness?? Only if you think the CF'ers who win the Fire-fighter challenges are LESS fit than their losing competetors...

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-17-2008 06:34 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Tim,
I don't know that "everything is CF", but strength training is. Is the GG hybrid different than mainpage? Yes obviously, but so is MEBB and it is still CF, I truly (no sarcasm) do not understand your point about the theoretical template, please help me to.

David Stout 11-17-2008 07:02 AM

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

Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr (Post 448314)
Tim,
I don't know that "everything is CF", but strength training is. Is the GG hybrid different than mainpage? Yes obviously, but so is MEBB and it is still CF, I truly (no sarcasm) do not understand your point about the theoretical template, please help me to.


Heavy lifting is definitely part of CF. Even w/in the context of the theorectical template.

HOWEVER, Hybrid programs such as Gant's and Coach Rutherford's specifically combine CF metcon training with Strength Training Methodologies of OTHER systems.

See the difference? Go back and read Gant's original thread and the original MEBB article of April 2005. Note how both writers credit methodologies from different camps for the strength training portions of their programs. Edit - Hence, for example, the suggested nomenclature by Coach Rut in his article that his permutation be called Maximum Effort Crossfit or ME CrossFit. Which is a tribute to his source material of sorts.

Darrell E. White 11-17-2008 07:07 AM

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

True, but at least in Gant's program there is insufficient attribution of the Crossfit contribution to the Hybrid, and insufficient acknowledgement of the need/desire for more fitness than that provided from strength programs alone, or that Crossfit principles are the superior route to "the rest of the story".

Robert D Taylor Jr 11-17-2008 10:50 AM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
The theoretical template has nothing to do, as I see it, with how the GG hybrid is or is not CF. As I understand it CF borrowed from other protocols (Tabata jumps to mind) So how is the hybrid less CF? (whether Gant accredited it sufficiently not withstanding, as I recall he posted it in the CF discussion board as a CF hybrid)

Tim Donahey 11-17-2008 11:09 AM

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

Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr (Post 448500)
The theoretical template has nothing to do, as I see it, with how the GG hybrid is or is not CF. As I understand it CF borrowed from other protocols (Tabata jumps to mind) So how is the hybrid less CF? (whether Gant accredited it sufficiently not withstanding, as I recall he posted it in the CF discussion board as a CF hybrid)

If I came up with a Crossfit/Yoga hybrid would that still be Crossfit just because we Samson Stretch?

To put a clearer point on it, the GG Hybrid has less to do with Crossfit than it has to do with strength. Yes Crossfit and GG Hybrid both use sets of 1/3/5 in the major lifts, but GG didn't borrow that from Crossfit, Crossfit borrowed that from the same place GG did. Not Crossfit. Yes both Crossfit and the GG Hybrid use gymnastics and bodyweight movements, but GG didn't borrow that from CF either, CF borrowed it from the same place GG did. Again, not Crossfit. The only singular aspect that Crossfit and the GG Hybrid share are the met-cons, which are significantly shorter and heavier than most anything on the front page. In fact the metcons are so different that they necessitated that new ones be made up altogether.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 12:09 PM

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

Originally Posted by John C. Brown (Post 448226)
You are correct Donald, personal attacks are childish.

You are incorrect in what Phillip is saying. He is saying that having a high VO2 makes someone a good firefighter. I am saying it has nothing to do with it. Does CrossFit improve your VO2? Absolutely. Are we CrossFitting to gain a higher VO2? No. Why? Because it is a by-product, a correlate and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. What good is a high VO2 max if I am too feeble to pick up my children? Does it help me all that much if I am incapable of pushing, pulling or in any functional way moving my body? No. Therefore, is it a reasonable means of measuring someone's fitness? No.

What I'm saying is an above average VO2 according to research is one of the predictors of succes as a firefighter. Not the only predictor

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 12:11 PM

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

Originally Posted by John C. Brown (Post 448193)
Wow! did someone pee in your maple syrup?

I had posted a pithy reply but my judgment caught up to me about 10 minutes later... You are waste of time.

There is nothing mean or ****y about my response. I simply stated that VO2 is a predictor of success based on research I've helped conduct. I'm asking you from what basis you're making your opinion, is based off being a firefighter, training them, or hypothesis based on your opinion of thwt you think firefighters need fitness wise.

Nick Cummings 11-17-2008 12:11 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
I have been doing CrossFit for about 3 years now. My deadlift went from about 250lbs to 495lbs. I know there are people who much fitter and more dedicated than me practicing CrossFit.

I think the interesting point is that while VO2 max, and whatever else is being discussed here, Greg is out there expanding CrossFit exponentially. Something must be working right.

This is why I like the BlackBox method. If its stupid and it works then its not that stupid. =)

Nick Cummings 11-17-2008 12:14 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448572)
There is nothing mean or ****y about my response. I simply stated that VO2 is a predictor of success based on research I've helped conduct. I'm asking you from what basis you're making your opinion, is based off being a firefighter, training them, or hypothesis based on your opinion of thwt you think firefighters need fitness wise.

I am curious how old you are. You have stated that you have done research, trained as a firefighter, studied how firefighters train, trained as a weightlifter, and trained as a strongman. You seem to have a lot of experience that I would think would lead you to be able to be a lot more open minded and less agressive in discussing things that your statements imply you have little mastery in.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 12:16 PM

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

Originally Posted by Steven Anderson (Post 447986)
...you've "studied" firefighting...and what training? I AM a firefighter. I haven't just studied it and trained it, but I live it, every third day. Aside from the fact of pulling hose, carrying an ax and hauling other equipment; wearing gear and breathing through an SCBA mask and the whole adrenaline "spike" that comes with fighting an actual fire is a whole different ball game than wearing spandex and an aerodynamic helmet and riding a ****ing bicycle. I don't give a **** what your VO2 max is? I work alongside firefighters that go into burning buildings with a wad of ****ing dip in their mouths and come out and smoke a cigarette. I guarantee you they would blow the pants of most tour de france riders.

I have read some really great posts here, especially from the greats: Coach, Rob Wolfe, etc. Your knowledge and explanation of EVERYTHING that we've been discussing here is tremendously insightful and refreshing, and frankly is still making me wonder why some just aren't getting it.

But, I would have to say, I'd like to hear from some of the other greats. YOU KNOW, the elites that actaully DO the ****ing program and can give an educated response on what CF has done for them and their fitness level and its carryover to everyday life activites and specialized sports. Speal, Jason K, OPT, those guys. It still baffles me how Poliquin, Boyle, etc. can criticize a program they have never tried, and I mean TRIED. How can anybody bash something they have never even attempted for a REASONABLE amount of time? Kinda like Sean ****ing Penn and every other hollywood actor with an opinion on the conflict in the Middle East. Really? Maybe Poliquin should do CF for a year and TRULY find out what the hell CF is really all about. Maybe Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon should join the Army for a year and TRULY find out what the hell war is really all about. Get my drift?

The argument that CF prepares you for everyday life activities shouldn't really be an arguement at all...again if one has put any REAL time into the program. I think under Anthony Bainbridge's profile it says something in effect of "If you don't get nervous before you train, then you're not training hard enough." I find this to be true. CF builds tremendous mental toughness, more so than any other program I've ever been associated with.

All this talk with testing this and that in the lab...yea, whatever. Here's a solution, test yourselves. Pick a goal. Do the program for x amout of time. Do another program for x amout of time. Compare the results. Which one brought you to your goal faster? Which one made you faster, bigger, stronger, better VO2 max, highter VJ, look better naked, etc. etc. etc.? Only each of us truly knows what works for us. With that being said, maybe we ALL should read this: http://rosstraining.com/blog/2008/11...80%99ll-do-me/ (w/f/s)


I've been a research assistant on some of my colleagues research. A good friend of mine did his doctoral dissertation on the metabolic and physical demands placed on firefighters during a firefight. They routinely exceed HR's above 180bpm during the time they are in the fire, and rely heavily upon the Aerobic system while inside a fire. In fact the demands placed on the body in many ways mimmick a 5-10k run and thus the needs of endurance athletes. It is based off that data that researchers have determined that an above avaerage VO2 is one of the predictors of success as a firefighter, or recruit.

If you're interested in some of the research look up Dodd et al, Rhea et al, and Peterson et al.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 12:22 PM

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

Originally Posted by Nick Cummings (Post 448577)
I am curious how old you are. You have stated that you have done research, trained as a firefighter, studied how firefighters train, trained as a weightlifter, and trained as a strongman. You seem to have a lot of experience that I would think would lead you to be able to be a lot more open minded and less agressive in discussing things that your statements imply you have little mastery in.

I've never trained as a firefighter sorry if anyone got that assumption. I've done research on firefighters and their training needs and metabolic demands while actually fighting a fire. I'm 30 years I've been an athlete most of my life and researcher for a few years. I'm very openminded and am a very ardent supporter of CF, but as a scientist I desire for us to not make claims based on conjecture or logical conclusions but based on cold hard data. If we want to claim our system is better than anyone else's we need to back that up with more than increasingly fast "Fran" times. What about my statements imply I have little mastery of things I've talked about? I've never claimed to be an expert in anything.

Daniel Schmieding 11-17-2008 12:38 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Yes, it would still be CrossFit if you incorporated functional moves from Yoga.

CrossFit's main page WOD is quite different, often times, than it was 7 or 8 years ago. Despite a greater reliance on max-effort (ME) days on the main page now, it was still CrossFit back then.

If the main page decided to post ME days every other day it would still be CrossFit.

--

VO2 max doesn't mean much, even to a marathoner, if he/she rolls an ankle getting the water bottles into the car without a properly performed/practiced/integrated deadlift before the race.

Tim Donahey 11-17-2008 12:44 PM

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

Originally Posted by Daniel Schmieding (Post 448599)
Yes, it would still be CrossFit if you incorporated functional moves from Yoga.

CrossFit's main page WOD is quite different, often times, than it was 7 or 8 years ago. Despite a greater reliance on max-effort (ME) days on the main page now, it was still CrossFit back then.

If the main page decided to post ME days every other day it would still be CrossFit.

Well I hope GG doesn't get sued for stealing Coach's "intellectual property," lol.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 12:56 PM

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

Originally Posted by Daniel Schmieding (Post 448599)
Yes, it would still be CrossFit if you incorporated functional moves from Yoga.

CrossFit's main page WOD is quite different, often times, than it was 7 or 8 years ago. Despite a greater reliance on max-effort (ME) days on the main page now, it was still CrossFit back then.

If the main page decided to post ME days every other day it would still be CrossFit.

--

VO2 max doesn't mean much, even to a marathoner, if he/she rolls an ankle getting the water bottles into the car without a properly performed/practiced/integrated deadlift before the race.


Ahh yes, the pre race deadlift, the secret of all "real" marathoners

Chris Walls 11-17-2008 12:59 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
So you missed the part where the actual fire fighter said VO2 max was a useless metric for judging whether or not someone is fit to be a fire fighter, or where the CrossFitters winning fire fighter challenges, consuming less O2 from their O2 tanks (therefore a LOWER VO2 max) are less fit be fire fighters then the guys losing to them while sucking more air...

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 01:04 PM

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

Originally Posted by Chris Walls (Post 448620)
So you missed the part where the actual fire fighter said VO2 max was a useless metric for judging whether or not someone is fit to be a fire fighter, or where the CrossFitters winning fire fighter challenges, consuming less O2 from their O2 tanks (therefore a LOWER VO2 max) are less fit be fire fighters then the guys losing to them while sucking more air...

The research would suggest otherwise. It's not my research if you disagree talk to the authors of the studies.

Chris Walls 11-17-2008 01:06 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
That is exactly what everyone here is trying to tell you, the research is wrong. If it's not yours why are you fighting so hard to defend it? Why is it all you post is just a quick "nope you're wrong. I am a scientist. Prove it."

And not only is the research wrong, but these "measures" of fitness that you demand we test, we argue are not valid measures. VO2 max doesn't mean anything as far as CrossFit's definition of fitness is concerned.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 01:13 PM

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

Originally Posted by Chris Walls (Post 448629)
That is exactly what everyone here is trying to tell you, the research is wrong. If it's not yours why are you fighting so hard to defend it? Why is it all you post is just a quick "nope you're wrong. I am a scientist. Prove it."

I've never said nope you're wrong. I've simply stated that we need to make our claims based off hard data not speculation. How do you know the research is wrong? I don't care one way or the other about whether or not you believe in the research, but if you're going to state something is wrong you need a better argument than "becuase so and so said it's wrong". If that is the basis of a good argument, we still wouldn't be lifting weights because early "experts" claimed it made you slow, was bad for your heart, and made you stupid.

Crossfit believes in fitness across several domains including aerobic fitness, anaerobic, muscular power, muscular strength. If determining VO2 isn't a good metric of aerboci fitness, what would you suggest is a good metric?

Chris Walls 11-17-2008 01:17 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Because VO2 max isn't a measure of capacity, it's a measure of efficiency. A high VO2 max means you use a lot of oxygen when doing work. If you're more efficient and do the same work with less O2 then you score as unfit when really, you're more efficient, have a higher capacity for the work, and should be classified more fit. no?

I've never taken any university courses on arguing and all that, which is why I try not to get sucked into it with you guys. But I will take the word of people who are actually "in the trenches" doing the damn job over researchers who have never done it, telling them how it's done better.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 01:22 PM

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

Originally Posted by Chris Walls (Post 448639)
Because VO2 max isn't a measure of capacity, it's a measure of efficiency. A high VO2 max means you use a lot of oxygen when doing work. If you're more efficient and do the same work with less O2 then you score as unfit when really, you're more efficient, have a higher capacity for the work, and should be classified more fit. no?

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?

Chris Walls 11-17-2008 01:35 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Well I guess I'm RTFO'er. I'll just stick to coaching my athletes and members here and watch them smash PR's and do things they never thought possible. I'll try to avoid arguing with people much smarter then me about how to measure it to prove that they are in fact, getting far more fit doing this then they ever did doing anything else.

Out.

Brandon Oto 11-17-2008 01:40 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
That was helpful.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 01:48 PM

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

Originally Posted by Chris Walls (Post 448653)
Well I guess I'm RTFO'er. I'll just stick to coaching my athletes and members here and watch them smash PR's and do things they never thought possible. I'll try to avoid arguing with people much smarter then me about how to measure it to prove that they are in fact, getting far more fit doing this then they ever did doing anything else.

Out.

RTFO'er?

Chris Walls 11-17-2008 01:53 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
Right the frig out of'er

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 01:55 PM

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

Originally Posted by Chris Walls (Post 448673)
Right the frig out of'er

I like that. I may have to use that at another time. BTW one of my best friends live in Kelowna, next time I go visit her maybe I'll stop by for a WOD

Sean Dunston 11-17-2008 01:56 PM

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

Originally Posted by Tim Donahey (Post 447962)
I agree. Crossfit won't take your deadlift to 500-750 in two years without some specific training. Crossfit has you maxing out on deadlift maybe 1-2x a month, so let's say we max out on deadlifts maybe 18x a year. That means you'd have to add an average of 8-15 lbs to your 1RM every time you deadlifted (36x) over a two year timespan. I just don't think that's feasible outside of a strength program.

I could be wrong though. Anyone here done this on Crossfit only training?

My first 1RM DL was low 200s.
My current 1RM DL is now 440#.
Been Crossfitting since July 2007 - WODs only - no other specific strength training.
I'm not saying I'll be at 500# next July (after 2 full years of CrossFit), but 480# would be nice - that would be 3x body weight.

Phillip Garrison 11-17-2008 01:57 PM

Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit
 
A 200% increase in deadlift would be an impressive metric by anyones standards IMO

Sean Dunston 11-17-2008 02:03 PM

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

Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq (Post 448681)
A 200% increase in deadlift would be an impressive metric by anyones standards IMO

Most of that increase happened in WAY LESS THAN ONE YEAR, while I was losing bodyweight and body fat content.

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 02:25 AM.

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