View Single Post
Old 03-27-2014, 07:14 AM   #5
Russell Berger
Member Russell Berger is offline
Russell Berger's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 92
Re: CrossFit affiliate lawsuit against Steven Devor, Michael Smith, and NSCA

Originally Posted by Ben H Young View Post
My first thought, before Crossfit or anybody responded to this study was "How do you define injury?" If people just stop coming, it doesn't necessarily mean they're injured, even though they say so. When somebody complains of pain here or there is it an injury, or is it an excuse? Soreness doesn't necessarily mean injury as well. It would be difficult to diagnose an injury unless people were getting MRI's and X-ray's done to verify. Many people including myself have bad mechanics and mobility. I have tight ankles, and I knew this before I ever started Crossfit. So, when my ankles start getting sore because of a pre-existing condition it isn't a Crossfit problem, it's a personal problem.

IMO, the participants would have to have a workup from a physical therapist just to know what was pre-existing. Even at that point you can't force people to keep coming. Let's face it. If people want to quit coming they're just going to make an excuse like...I'm injured. Who is going to say, "I'm just too lazy for Crossfit." Just because the participants might have had some pain after starting Crossfit doesn't mean Crossfit caused just pointed it out. So, how do you conduct a study to assess Crossfit's rate of injury? You don't. It would be too difficult to even define injury, or that Crossfit caused it. It could be a pre-existing condition or it could be caused by being a desk jockey Mon - Fri. All Crossfit owner's can do is make sure people know the risks, how to mitigate them, medicine ball squats aren't included in the routine.
I agree with some of your points, but the Devor study is actually guilty of something worse than failing to define basic terms. Of the participants who failed to show up to re-test, the study claims that

“Out of the original 54 participants, a total of 43 (23 males, 20 females) fully completed the training program and returned for follow up testing. Of the 11 subjects who dropped out of the training program, two cited time concerns with the remaining nine subjects (16% of total recruited subjects) citing overuse or injury for failing to complete the program and finish follow up testing.”

Unfortunately, not a single person out of the 11 was contacted by anyone from OSU, and none of them were injured. This means that the only explanation for these specifics in the data is fabrication on the part of the authors.
  Reply With Quote