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?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-31-2008, 05:17 AM   #111
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

I like the idea Matthew. It won't tell you everything but it'd be more than we have now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Johns View Post
Sometimes being able to just tell your untrained friends that you can deadlift twice your body weight and do 30 pull ups in a row and having the body to prove it is enough.
In that case your goal appears to be "impress your friends." That's a goal.

Actually, that may secretly be the goal for rather a lot of CrossFitters, but never mind.

Quote:
If you train and have a 20% increase in 1RM and a 20% improvement in your 5km time, I find it hard to believe that you won’t see corresponding improvements in any activities you’re doing, including shovelling gravel and soccer. The basic fitness measures are right there in the program.
I can assure you that nothing, not even a better squat, will automatically improve your ability to do ANY activity.

But anyway, yes, we have a few widely-applicable benchmarks built in. But if strength and endurance were the core of this program, then we might as well drop all this other stuff and just lift and run, right? We'll get stronger and run faster. But that's not all we're about. So more is needed.
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:19 AM   #112
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Johns View Post
You're still confusing science with evidence Phillip. Graphs etc are simply a way of summarizing evidence. Science is a method, and they make no claims on CF being confirmed by science method. Only that they have evidence and that is available to the public.

There is no claim of proof either. All is basically says is that CF produces gains in "work capacity across broad modal domains..." and that the evidence for it is available in the form of workout logs.

This is silly, time for me to stop wasting time and go run 15km
I'm not confusing anything, you are. To compare data such as that, it needs to be analyzed statistically. CF has not proven is increases gains in work capacity across broad modal gains, it's proven that if you consistently do the WOD's you'll get better at them, thats not the same as comparing it's ability to perform at validated and reliable tests, that have been scrutinized to ensure they will reliably predict actual performance measurments.
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:23 AM   #113
Jake Di Vita
Member Jake Di Vita is offline
 
Jake Di Vita's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Fenton  Michigan
Posts: 280
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

I don't know, but instead of using my time and energy to "prove it" or argue the point otherwise - I'm just gonna go work out.
__________________
Jake Di Vita, A46718
http://www.uspsa.org
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:28 AM   #114
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Gotcher View Post
I feel like I kind of already addressed what you're talking about, Phillip, but I'll add on to what you're saying to hopefully clarify.

There is a problem with Crossfit. This problem has a million expressions, but they all sound relatively like your post:



Crossfit's issue is that it holds as invalid most of these measures of fitness, and its stated enemy, the "Globo-Gym", doesn't bother with them either. Why should body composition matter? I've seen tanks of men, big and fat looking, who could not only squat more than me (155#), but run faster and swim longer. VO2 Max is entirely event dependent with little relevance to our claims of general, inclusive fitness. Vertical leap is a good test, but often overrated. Force production and the Wingate test are useful, but the bike ergometer... perhaps not so much. A Crossfitter is more likely to fail from strength than metabolic capacity, and bike-strength is only tangentially related to many of the exercises we hold dear.

So what if Fran is a good measure of fitness? Nobody else uses it.

Now that I've somewhat agreed with you and somewhat disagreed, a few criticisms:

You never listed any activities which are held to the same scientific scrutiny as you are demanding of Crossfit in comparison to other training protocols. Most of them wouldn't care about the scientific scrutiny: many skill-based sports communities are an example: few soccer players look for 'scientific evidence' that their sport generates inclusive fitness. Few even look for 'scientific evidence' that, say, one drill is better than the others. The standard bodybuilding split has been proven less effective for building mass through the intermediate and advanced levels of lifting and creating effective lifters. Do they care about the 'science' of the 3X8? I'm curious.

The battery of tests I just listed have all been validated by lots of scientific research as tests which can accurately and reliably test improvements in fitness. vo2 max is not even dependent, everyone has a finite vo2 max, and there are several tests which can reliably measure that, no matter your sport. Yes it's true most soccer players don't look for science, but their sport performance coaches do. There is plenty of research in scholarly journals on the energy system demands of soccer players, and training protocols which can and will improve those various measures of fitness. All of the tests that I listed earlier have been shown to reliably measure fitness outcomes, such as power production, aerobic capacity, anearobic capacity etc. Body composition is a valid test, since one of the main tennants of CF is that metcons will improve body composition, and metabolic efficiency. You say these tests aren't valid, but why not? If CF trully does produce better broad based fitness then other modailities the, a CF'r should score better then other methods of training. Using the WOD's as proof of CF's broad based fitness is a poor standard by which to measure
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:32 AM   #115
Chris Walls
Affiliate Chris Walls is offline
 
Chris Walls's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Battleford  SK Canada
Posts: 1,722
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

I don't think it's a matter of validity but how can you compare the results between programs and people? There are just too many variables that can affect the outcome. What it comes down to for me, and why I am sold on it, is that I've seen what CrossFit has done for me personally when compared to all other programs I tried, what it has done for my wife when compared to all other programs, the athletes I train, my brother and his friends... basically everyone I know who has tried CrossFit, taken it on as their training method and have seen all aspects of their fitness and sport improve when compared to their old methods.

That's all you can really do. Does it work for me? You bet. Better then other methods I've done to date? Yup. Better then any and all methods? Can't say for sure as I haven't tried them.
__________________
Accept no excuses, only results
CrossFit North Battleford
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:33 AM   #116
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Leigh View Post
The CFer gets better at all of these:

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/excercise.html (WFS)

to the point where they are better than almost all of their peers (peers being people of similar genetics and similar age) and the CFer improves their body composition to the point where it is much better than the majority of their peers thus achieving elite fitness by just about anyone standards.
You know they are better than their peers based on what evidence?
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:34 AM   #117
Scott Mahn
Member Scott Mahn is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Maplewood  NJ
Posts: 245
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
The battery of tests I just listed have all been validated by lots of scientific research as tests which can accurately and reliably test improvements in fitness. vo2 max is not even dependent, everyone has a finite vo2 max, and there are several tests which can reliably measure that, no matter your sport. Yes it's true most soccer players don't look for science, but their sport performance coaches do. There is plenty of research in scholarly journals on the energy system demands of soccer players, and training protocols which can and will improve those various measures of fitness. All of the tests that I listed earlier have been shown to reliably measure fitness outcomes, such as power production, aerobic capacity, anearobic capacity etc. Body composition is a valid test, since one of the main tennants of CF is that metcons will improve body composition, and metabolic efficiency. You say these tests aren't valid, but why not? If CF trully does produce better broad based fitness then other modailities the, a CF'r should score better then other methods of training. Using the WOD's as proof of CF's broad based fitness is a poor standard by which to measure

Since this seems to be something you've investigated for other programs, what turnkey program currently is "best" according to the measures you espouse? What exactly would you be comparing CF to?
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:38 AM   #118
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavin Harrison View Post
We could always ask Rip what he thinks about "scientific" papers on training... meh.

EDIT (SPOILERS): Scientific papers are bull****, you can only learn about training by... training... and working hard... and spending ungodly amounts of time in a gym...
Mark Rippetoe is not the be all end all of fitness and sports performance. Basing your argument or conclusions of his biased opinion (or anyone elses biased opinion) is a great fallacy
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:41 AM   #119
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Walls View Post
I don't think it's a matter of validity but how can you compare the results between programs and people? There are just too many variables that can affect the outcome. What it comes down to for me, and why I am sold on it, is that I've seen what CrossFit has done for me personally when compared to all other programs I tried, what it has done for my wife when compared to all other programs, the athletes I train, my brother and his friends... basically everyone I know who has tried CrossFit, taken it on as their training method and have seen all aspects of their fitness and sport improve when compared to their old methods.

That's all you can really do. Does it work for me? You bet. Better then other methods I've done to date? Yup. Better then any and all methods? Can't say for sure as I haven't tried them.
You can compare them by having the adherents to both complete a battery of tests for which science has shown that they accurately and reliably measure real out comes of fitness. Why are cf'rs so afraid, or reluctant to put Cf up to the scrutiny of real research? Don't they more proof that it is a superior program?
 
Old 07-31-2008, 08:45 AM   #120
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Studies to confirm/prove CrossFit efficacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Mahn View Post
Since this seems to be something you've investigated for other programs, what turnkey program currently is "best" according to the measures you espouse? What exactly would you be comparing CF to?
The best for what? GPP? Sports Performance for skill based sports? Endurance based Sports?
 
Closed Thread


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
Efficacy of the false grip? James Rebesco Exercises 4 07-11-2008 03:29 AM
Efficacy of running downhill? Elliot Fuller Fitness 15 03-08-2008 11:13 PM
"I'm too tall for _____." (prove me wrong!) Matt Smiley Fitness 13 01-11-2007 05:15 PM
Efficacy of fish oils Taha Mohamedali Nutrition 3 09-17-2006 10:40 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:00 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.