CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-02-2008, 12:52 AM   #81
Daniel Mick
Member Daniel Mick is offline
 
Daniel Mick's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Portland  OR
Posts: 278
Re: Steroids

This might be hijacking the thread, but I think it's directly applicable (all wfs links):

Some people are really pushing the lost idea of inventing sports for the benefit of sport itself. Trying new sports is a main principle CF. But inventing and playing new sports really pushes the idea of total fitness forward by the participants discovering the requirements of a new sport. Talk about fun! The 10 tenets of fitness are constant, but every sport emphasizes different ones. New sports force us to discover which are most important, or even to exploit aspects that haven't already been impeded by numerous rules and restrictions like they have in mainstream sports.

Here's a wonderful article from Wired about the joy of creating, exploring, and tweaking new sports. Money quotes:

"Yet how many new major physical sports have you played in recent years? Zero, I'll bet. The pantheon of major team-sports -- football, basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey -- hasn't significantly altered in decades.
So Russotti decided to expand the field a bit. By creating a new sport, he decided, he could level the playing field between athletes. When you join a pickup game of basketball or football, it's always slightly marred by the fact that some of the players will be totally experienced -- making it slightly more dull for the less-expert folks. A new sport wouldn't have that problem."

"Essentially, were figuring out how to play. And this is, counter intuitively, a big part of what makes a new game so great: You get to explore the intriguing and unpredictable ways that the rules interact.

Video-game players understand this implicitly: We often find that the thrill of a new game is in the process of mastering it -- not the mastery itself. (Indeed, once a video game is mastered we often stop playing it.) You never get this experience with an existing, well-known sport like soccer or football, because the rules have been exhaustively explored.
"


I haven't read Junkyard Sports, but it looks like it really explores this spirit. This pdf answers a few basic questions about it. Here's a couple:

What inspired you to develop junkyard sports?
I was looking for a way to bring fun back into sports, because I think traditional sports tend to fail a lot of kids, which helps explain why so many lead inactive lives. I asked myself, when are sports actually fun? And that led me to the kinds of sports that seem almost to be made up as they go along -- the kinds of informal games you see played in backyards and streets.


What makes junkyard sports different from conventional sports?
In conventional sports, the game determines whether you're good enough to play. In junkyard sports, the players determine whether the game is good enough. Since the games are designed to suit the needs of all the players, junkyard sports tend to foster a feeling of community. They're supportive, inclusive, and ruled by a sense of fun.

Here's a couple of reviews of the book also. Some money quotes from those:

In The Phillipine Star:

"Junkyard Sports emphasizes fun and creativity, teamwork and leadership, inclusion (as opposed to exclusion and exclusivity) and adaptability, compassion and acceptance, humor, playfulness and community. The activities are designed not only to engage mind and body but also to help participants develop the arts of collaboration and effective teambuilding, acquire leadership, and experience the power and practicality of using problem solving and the scientific method."

"I share DeKovenís views that as schools reduce the scope of physical education to sports and calisthenics, as more parents force their children into organized sports for which they have neither the skill nor the inclination, we find ourselves with a growing population of sedentary, obese, disenfranchised, isolated kids who lack basic physical and social skills. Entering the community and the workforce, these people find themselves unable to function as part of a team or to muster the physical and mental stamina necessary to reach their goals. Lack of teamwork is, by the way, one of the reasons why this country has tremendous difficulty putting its act together.

Junkyard sports therefore give people a way to have fun together. It really doesnít matter what people are playing. It also doesnít matter who wins what. What matters is that they are all engaged, challenged, involved, and enjoying themselves and each other. As far as weíre concerned, fun is the whole reason for playing the sport. Junkyard sport is an invitation to have fun with each other, with oneís bodies, abilities, minds and hearts. It is an opportunity to create new, funny sports for which winning isnít the point. Playing together is."

From the New Hampshire Gazette:

"Think about it. Every sport that we shell out $100 or so a season for our kids to play started out as a junkyard sport. Fast-pitch softball is said to have started on military bases with gloveless players using overstuffed socks as balls. Basketball began using a peach basket."

"Certainly, they don't fail because the parents who so generously volunteer their time and energy are uncaring or because the community leagues and resources that support them are all poorly run. They fail because most organized sports are about developing particular athletic skills, which is great fun to those who develop the those specific skills and ultimately defeating to those who do not or cannot no matter how badly they want to participate."



Finally, for some real feats of athleticism, try Calvinball.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2008, 11:52 AM   #82
Pabis Jack
Member Pabis Jack is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vienna  Vienna
Posts: 5
Re: Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Cummings View Post
Source please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Gibbs View Post
The 5 % increase has been dragged out for years.

No research but some real life examples.

In PLing back in the 80's two different lifters in different years won the USPF 110kg champs both doing a 870lb squat.

About three months later they just got there openers at 660lbs at the Worlds failing in the low 700lbs.
(Different lifters different years, but same team)

Now IPF depth was not that much different back then, I am willing to say that it was going off, back then that cost them so
much. (squats tended to respon better than other lifts). Can you imagine what losing 200lb in your squat in three months
would do to your head.

That 5% was quoted back in the days when someone thought 5mls of Dianobol was steroid taking. Back then it probably was.
But the WR in the C & J was around 400lbs too.

Guys who use, love to say, " they don't really help me lift more / get bigger etc. it just makes my progress faster."
Living in denial.
One source supporting 5-6% (German wfs: http://www.svl.ch/doping/doping_wfrey.html)

The "5% rule of thumb" doesn't apply to strength sports (super heavy weight), nor bodybuilding.
I am not so sure about lower weight classes as I never compared the data, but it won't apply to free-for-all weightclasses as they'd tend to correlate w/ bodybuilding (extending the natural capability of one's body to add muscle tissue, no good bodyweight:strength ratio but tremendous absolute strength possible..)

Neither does it really work w/ endurance sports, because apart from steroids&hGH also blood doping (e.g. EPO) is involved which seems to add another dimension to it. EPO is supposed to add ~10%.

Comparing track and field results from the 40s and 50s to today's world records the increase averages out at ~5%.
(I don't think anyone needs supporting evidence why the 40s/50s were 'clean' but today's world records aren't clean anymore?)

100: 40s: 10,1s (35,64km/h) 50s: 10,2s (35,29km/h) today:9,74s (36,96km/h) (-3,7% -4,7%)
200m: 50s: 20,6s todays: 19,32s -6,6%
400m: 40s: 46s 50s: 45s 43,18s (-6,5% -4,2%)
longjump 1935: 8,13m 1960: 8,21m today: 8,95m (-10% -9,0%)
no good example, longjump = too much variability, should correlate w/ sprinting
800m: 40s: 1' 46" 6 (106,6s) 50s: 1' 45" 7 (105,7s) today: 1' 41" 11 (101,11s) (-5,4% -4,5%)
decathlon: 30ss: 8.790pts today: 9.026pts (+2,6%)
[not sure about comparing just the achieved points, but have had a quick glimpse at the data]

http://www.athletix.org/statistics/stats.html (wfs)

Also one cannot simply discout certain legal supplements for specific sports: creatine for repeated sprint performance; Sodium triphosphate; Sodium citrate/backing soda; etc.. which could make comparisons for those specific sports very difficult.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2008, 08:58 PM   #83
Terry Gibbs
Member Terry Gibbs is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney  NSW
Posts: 235
Re: Steroids

Good post, not sure if we are at cross purposes here but my take on this is as follows.

If you look at a 100m man then 5% is the difference between winning the OG and breaking the WR and not placing in a college meet. But do drugs make a difference . Yes. Can drugs take a man who gets run out in the 1/4 finals at the US trials who breaks WRs a few years later. Sure can.

Do steroids help distance runners, well I am amazed if anyone ever thought a marathoner needs more bodyweight. Clearly steroids give gains to the bulk and power athletes. Not sure if gymnasts 800m runners or rowers use it and have no knowledge of that but some facts to consider.

In the 20 plus years since the last OGs held under the more primitive drug testing regime despite our training protocols being more sophisticated and depsite the huge increase in the professionalism of T & F (you can now make a living throwing Shot) the throws records except for womens hammer and Javelin (new implement) are untouched.

Regarding the ligter weight classes in lifting I believe they are of substantial help.

The venerable Bill Starr in the article that got him fired from S & H mag, stated that one of the first things you will see in a lifting starting use is a jump in weight class.

OL was so embarrassed by the futility of its lifters failing to catch the records of their predecessors that it changed the weight classes to prevent such comparisons.

My take on it is this. If you are stuck throwing 20ms in the shot and steroids give you 5% then you are now 21m. Gone from can't get a medal at NCAAs to 19cms less than Gold in 2004 OGS.

How was that 5% delivered. By a 35 lb bodyeight increase from 240 to 275 and a increase of 25 % in the bench from 400 to 500.

Yep it is 5% but without it that journey from 400 to 500 will never be made.

Now my real angst still lies with the denial of the PLer, BBer who loves to tell people it is only 5 %, big lie, big denial.

As I said I am not sure if I disagree with you or at cross purposes in the argument
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2008, 09:48 AM   #84
Pabis Jack
Member Pabis Jack is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vienna  Vienna
Posts: 5
Re: Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Gibbs View Post
Good post, not sure if we are at cross purposes here but my take on this is as follows.
let's see
Quote:
If you look at a 100m man then 5% is the difference between winning the OG and breaking the WR and not placing in a college meet. But do drugs make a difference . Yes. Can drugs take a man who gets run out in the 1/4 finals at the US trials who breaks WRs a few years later. Sure can.
yep, just arguing that the playing field is level, because most if not every athlete abuses doping substances. Thus you still need to be devoted, talented, have a strong will and a lot more to become an elite athlete.
Naturally everyone would be very close and even the smallest fraction of a percent CAN make a difference, thus, in certain sports, 5% can be a lot..

Quote:
Do steroids help distance runners, well I am amazed if anyone ever thought a marathoner needs more bodyweight. Clearly steroids give gains to the bulk and power athletes. Not sure if gymnasts 800m runners or rowers use it and have no knowledge of that but some facts to consider.
I guess this isn't common knowledge, but:
endurance sports still make use of muscle. testosterone is involved in regeneration, hence certain, supraphysiological, testosterone doses indeed help recovery and supercompensation in endurance athletes.

another steroid, cortisol, and artificial glucocorticoids (e.g. prednisolone), can help fight chronic inflammation, pain, and afaik (I am not realy into endurance sports) acute administration increases blood glucose levels (-> more energy during races). As cortisol is our main catabolic hormone, some added testosterone can help to balance out muscle and tissue break down caused by glucocorticoids.

Quote:
In the 20 plus years since the last OGs held under the more primitive drug testing regime despite our training protocols being more sophisticated and depsite the huge increase in the professionalism of T & F (you can now make a living throwing Shot) the throws records except for womens hammer and Javelin (new implement) are untouched.

Regarding the ligter weight classes in lifting I believe they are of substantial help.

The venerable Bill Starr in the article that got him fired from S & H mag, stated that one of the first things you will see in a lifting starting use is a jump in weight class.

OL was so embarrassed by the futility of its lifters failing to catch the records of their predecessors that it changed the weight classes to prevent such comparisons.

My take on it is this. If you are stuck throwing 20ms in the shot and steroids give you 5% then you are now 21m. Gone from can't get a medal at NCAAs to 19cms less than Gold in 2004 OGS.

How was that 5% delivered. By a 35 lb bodyeight increase from 240 to 275 and a increase of 25 % in the bench from 400 to 500.
Which shows that strength alone ain't everything, doesn't it?

Quote:
Yep it is 5% but without it that journey from 400 to 500 will never be made.

Now my real angst still lies with the denial of the PLer, BBer who loves to tell people it is only 5 %, big lie, big denial.

As I said I am not sure if I disagree with you or at cross purposes in the argument
no serious PLer or BBer would (should) say that, it's naive, perhaps most have to lie in public but to be honest it's more like 30-50% in BB...
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2008, 03:46 PM   #85
Terry Gibbs
Member Terry Gibbs is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney  NSW
Posts: 235
Re: Steroids

Agree and thanks for that piece on endurance type athletes. Very informative.

Bill Kazmier was quoted once on steroids and it went something like this.

Bill used a miler as an example.

If you can run 4.00 for the mile and steroids can get you to 3.50 you can justify using them.

If you are running 4.40 and they can get you to 4.25 then you are probably kidding yourself.


Thanks again for the info
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Presentation on Steroids, the Media, and the Law Steve Shafley Community 0 05-18-2006 01:18 PM
True life:im on steroids Jeffrey Crawford Community 40 01-19-2006 07:00 AM
Steroids John Walsh Nutrition 11 12-22-2005 01:01 PM
"You must be doing steroids." Jon Michael Varese Testimonials 16 05-27-2005 09:02 PM
Olympics and Steroids Brad Hirakawa Nutrition 11 08-13-2004 06:54 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.