CrossFit Discussion Board  

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

Community Catch all category for CrossFit community discussion.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-19-2008, 06:05 PM   #401
Pat McElhone
Member Pat McElhone is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Naperville  IL
Posts: 179
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
The initial study prompted other studies with more samples all of which have suggested the same thing. High intensity intervals with a 2:1 work/rest ratio increase anaerobic and aerobic capacity. You honestly mean to tell me not a single study ever done in science was of any value?
Not science, specifically exercise science geared toward improving athletic performance. Yes, I think actual scientific studies have contributed zero to improving athletes. Studies like Tabata's may have inspired coaches to use them, but ultimately it was the observations of coaches and athletes on a specific exercise. No great coaches quote studies, they talk about lessons learned coaching athletes.
 
Old 11-19-2008, 06:21 PM   #402
Leonid Soubbotine
Affiliate Leonid Soubbotine is offline
 
Leonid Soubbotine's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longwood  Fl
Posts: 1,586
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Robb - stay focused! Your book is a whole lot more important than keyboard battles!

Don't make us wait a la Coach Sommer's "Gymnastics Bodies" book, plz!
__________________
CrossFit Evolution
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:16 PM   #403
Steve Liberati
Affiliate Steve Liberati is offline
 
Steve Liberati's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pennsauken  NJ
Posts: 1,649
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Its funnny while some people in this world need to get the last word, others need to get the last rep (I think *most* crossfitters fall into the latter category). Remember, while all the squabbling and **** contests take place over the internet, there are thousands of athletes and non-athletes busting their butt this very minute busting their butt getting the results they desire. The best athletes and coaches are the ones out there doing the work on a daily basis (and making changes and improvements based on observations and intelligence). Improvements happen in the real world. Not sitting behind a desk or working in a lab mustering up studies and writing papers.
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:52 PM   #404
Joe Cavazos
Affiliate Joe Cavazos is offline
 
Joe Cavazos's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Houston  Texas
Posts: 775
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Liberati View Post
Its funnny while some people in this world need to get the last word, others need to get the last rep (I think *most* crossfitters fall into the latter category). Remember, while all the squabbling and **** contests take place over the internet, there are thousands of athletes and non-athletes busting their butt this very minute busting their butt getting the results they desire. The best athletes and coaches are the ones out there doing the work on a daily basis (and making changes and improvements based on observations and intelligence). Improvements happen in the real world. Not sitting behind a desk or working in a lab mustering up studies and writing papers.
I'm sorry, but I do have a problem with daytime-talk-show, applause-garnering comments like these.

No one trains during all their waking hours, and the clash of ideas is the best way to discover the truth. Just because someone posts on a message board during their free time doesn't mean they don't train or coach to the best of their ability (Rippetoe runs a message board -- what are you saying about him?). If this thread bothers you, ignore it, but please don't try to squelch discussion.

And I'm not even going to touch on your idea that writing papers isn't a worthwhile endeavor.
__________________
My WFS Log || Stats I'm least proud of: Max Muscle-ups: 1 | Max Push-ups: 38 | Max HSPU: 9 | 19" Vertical Leap | Max L-sit: 5 sec.
 
Old 11-19-2008, 09:52 PM   #405
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Walls View Post
Well the results I'm seeing here are faster then I would have imagined, and injuries are non-existant so far in my gym (at least due to training in my gym... what these yahoos get into on their own time isn't my or CF's fault... heh)

Basically it ain't broke so there's nothing to fix.
The black box is awesome for confirming personal results after the fact.

It is of much less value for determining causal mechanisms (which you need if you want to reveal new theoretical avenues, which would suggest further ideas to test), or for validating recommendations to other people (since you don't know how they differ from you or your other boxees).

Conversely, these areas are where controlled experimentation shines.

I wrote an article about this (wfs) that may be helpful. The most relevant bit:

Quote:
What if my interest isn't just in whether the drug will help me, but whether it will help other people -- whether I can recommend it? The black box would tell me next to nothing here. It is what's called in science an anecdote, or a single piece of data gathered non-rigorously. The fact that I only know what happened to me (one person) means that my results are very unreliable; for all I know, I'm an incredible fluke and nobody else in the world would have the same results. Worse yet, the fact that my "experiment" was done without any controls means that, in truth, I don't really know what caused the results. Maybe the creatine would have worked, but because I happened to go on a vacation in the second week, my output tanked and I saw nothing come from it. Or maybe it didn't work after all, but I changed my diet in the meantime, which produced better performance. Since I haven't controlled any of these factors, I can't even say that "the drug did xyz to me"; maybe it did, but maybe it didn't. All I can infer is a correlation, not a causation, and a very weak one at that. So can I tell my buddy to try this stuff because it works? No. The black box can't tell me that. What if fifty of us all tried it, and it worked for most of us? Well, now we have more anecdotes, which is at least better than just one, but they still lack controls, so it's not much better; if there were some systematic confounder (some other factor that most of us unknowingly added to the system which produced our results without our realizing its role), then we'd still know nothing about the drug itself. What if we all tried to control the other aspects of our lives to prevent confounders? Now we're getting somewhere, and this is basically what a scientific study consists of. But that's a far cry from the personal black box that we started with.

What if we wanted to know if a similar drug, not creatine but a compound based on it -- call it Fakeatine -- was a worthwhile substance to try? Would our creatine black box tell us this? No. All we know is whether creatine helped us, not how it did it; we have no data on its mechanism, even if we pull some creative theories out of our ***. We therefore can't begin to speculate on whether Fakeatine would do something similar, better, or worse, since we don't know what effect the differences between Fakeatine and creatine might have on creatine's (unknown) biological mechanism. All we can do is start a new Fakeatine black box . . . but hopefully the problem with this is clear: if you don't know causal mechanisms, and hence can't extrapolate predictions, then you can never make any progress of knowledge beyond what you actually personally tried yourself. You can never say "this would probably be a bad idea," because you haven't tried it yet, so you don't know. For that matter, you can't even really say "creatine worked for me yesterday, so it will probably work for me today" -- how do you know? Maybe its mechanism is one that self-destructs after fifteen days of use. In short, you lose the predictive power of science, which is really the whole point of the stuff, since it's what tells us that poison is bad (odds are that it will kill you) and brushing your teeth is good (odds are it will reduce cavities).
 
Old 11-19-2008, 10:58 PM   #406
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Walls View Post
This sounds to me like "increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains"
Chris, you are a genius...Phil, I think you are loosing your direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
Work capacity in several domains. But to know what domains you've improved in, you got to test them.
Nein, Schizen, and that is called the WOD. OR a Olifting meet...or whatever you want to test. Phil, you are trying to impose a reductionist approach to something which is vastly complex...complex to a degree that outcome based science and experimentation is what works best. this is what bedeviled food research...its the three body problem in calculus...tweak one variable, change all other variables. The most expedient way to solve this problem of performance is stopwatch, a means of measuring distance and a clip-board to record the above information in the form of RESULTS. Someone may in fact cut thier MS or Phd. teeth on some of this at some point. At present YOU are the only one who appears to want to stop the whole program so we can prove the obvious. ALSO...and I will address this more later, you keep saying that this focused, reductionist analysis will yield great insights into how to build better programs and by extension better performers. DO IT. All eyes are on you amigo...field a team for the crossfit games. I'll personally pay you $5K if you do it. Put up or shut up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
Sure they work for me, so long as we measure O2 consumption and force production at some point.
So we can just peese our time away? This will influence our coaching HOW? If you read the velo piece you see that work capacity is king...but hey, testing all this tripe will keep several ex-phys labs funded for a while, no?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Walls View Post
Why do you have to measure O2 consumption if you can show improvements in aerobic and anaerobic capacity? Force production, does not a 1RM effort show this? Maybe not in the terms you're used to, but seriously, why aren't these enough? (genuinely curious here....) And don't just say "because that's how these things have always been measured" because I won't accept that as a valid reason for me. That'd be up there with using "I was drunk" as an excuse for anything.
Chris, you are a genius.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
Well improvements in time for a 5k, 10k, etc are due to many factors including VO2. Also by measuring consumption and exhalation we can determine Respiratory Quotients at various levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_quotient

By knowing this we can tell when the athlete has transitioned from anaerobic to aerobic systems, lactate thresholds, the type of fuel consumed etc. From this type of data we can tweak and fine tune a CF protocol to fit the needs of the athletes doing it, since not everyone does CF for the exact same reasons.

1RM and force production are related, but they are not exactly interchangeable again due to many factors. For example two people with exact peak force production (FP) could have different back sqaut 1 RM's and different rates of force production (RFP). A study that just came out showed that doing ballistic training increase peak power (PP) and RFP, but did not show an increase in FP or 1RM. Doing tests like this can show exactly where strength and performance increments are being made, and this data can be incorporated into adjusting a program to improve the needs of your athletes.
I could also stick a carrot in my fanny and dance a gig...but it will be effective for improving performance in a similar manner to the above. People need to: Get stronger, get efficient and build engine to run faster (as an example). The point of a race, last I checked, was getting across the finish line faster than you did last time or faster than everyone else.

In your example above, I'm to guess the Chinese Olifting coaches have thrown their collective hands in the air in joy that they have a better understainding of RFP? This is absolute rubbish, the studies of today are simply VERIFYING what coaches already know. Is it interesting? sure. Is it valuable? Maybe....but it seldom changes anything of merit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert D Taylor Jr View Post
Wouldn't measureable increases in speed strength power and endurance be just as valid as increased VO2? It seems that you're stuck on the science and everyone is trying to say but look over here, this stuff is working. Most FF that you train are going to care about the science more than the result I'll bet.
Those results show up in workout logs and the comments section all over this site. I recognise there are limits to this as a research tool, but every other method suggested has been as limited, so here we are.
Robert-
This is exactly it and it appears to be beyond Phil to grasp that WOD results are as or more valuable than ANY other measure we could apply to the problem. Sometimes the obvious is anything but.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
Results is what it's all about. The science is done to fine tune the results and figure out exactly where the results are coming from and why. This is how sports performance works.

Protocols and theories are tried in the gym, results are recorded, studies are then done to find out who, how, where, and when. From this research the protocols are modified as the data shows what works best, what doesn't and why. Then the practioners use the new model, results are recorded, and then studied again. It's an ongoing never ending "fine tuning" process that leads to greater improvement and achievement. If you don't think this model works, ask anyone who cometed against the Soviet Union in athletics
Phil, you have just encapsulated the daily process of Crossfit.com. Congrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
Not a scientist or two, but many who come from different places who are neither for or against CF. Would you rather guess that CF is currently doing the best it can, or explore it through rigorous testing?
Rigorous testing?!? Are you serious? I tweak variables, I see results...I can track these in my gym to a degree that is tough to reach when I do QA/QC for chemical assays, GC-MS and a host of other validation heavy chemistry. It really is not getting through to you that the WOD results are as valid of outcomes as anything else...and it appears to be beyond belief that they are in fact SUPERIOR to what you are proposing for tests. Amazing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
Thats not the nitpicking that got us there. Sales and marketing and the desire to do whats easy go us into nautilus and fast foods. It was sports scientists and strength coaches that brough people back to whole foods and whole body movements.

Seriously why this inherent distrust of science, and the scientific process?
Phil-The scientific process is all around you and you are completely blind to it. This is not distrust of the scientific process, this is incredulity that you are for real...IMO you are a Trol. How you respond to this post will tell me whether I'm right or wrong. BTW-You are now my subject in a scientific experiment...this is what this stuff looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
I'm saying that the only way to improve anything is through rigorous study of it to find it's strengths and weaknesses.
Ahhh...this dead horsie just needs a little more love...Phil, there are several thousand data points collected daily. This is equivalent to a vast pool of combinatorial chemistry reaction vessels, cooking up the goods. This is like an open market which is the most efficient method of uncovering the truth when we hang our hats on performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Walls View Post
But why does it have to be dissected in a lab to find this? Look back at the very first WOD's posted in the archives... things have been evolving a LOT since cf.com's beginning. This is based on rigorous testing (the WOD) and seeing how it impacts benchmark results. (benchmark WODs instead of your benchmark science, V02, etc...) And tweaking and testing and tweaking and testing... 6 of 1, half dozen of the other I guess.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
Than do what you think works best for you, but what do you have to fear or loathe from others wanting more?
Nothing Phil, you have your 5K challenge...produce results.
 
Old 11-19-2008, 10:59 PM   #407
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
You have to understand the scientific method. Raw data is what is known as observed phenomenom. People do crossfit, stuff happens. Know how, why and where is the science, which invariably leads to better improvement.
This is where I just call BS on your science background. I've run a lab, I've done bench work from synthetic chemistry, to lipid analysis to QA/QC of protein purification. You are trying to create this sense that you have some secret insight into the topic...and you do not. You are missing the whole damn point. If the "scientific method" of which you speak is so powerful, produce some better results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Maffett View Post
You do realize that Phillip will now be complaining about how that statement also has to be dissected with extensive research projects?

Phillip, if you are affiliated with a college (did I get that wrong), then you're in a better position than most of us are in to conduct the studies you want.
Exactly. Hop to it Phil.

So if you want to discuss the details of the $5K challenge, I'll engage you on that, if not I'm done wasting my time on you. IF you were sincere in wanting to improve the methodology, you would be busy doing this and sharing results...not frittering away time here.

I felt like the Zone was a good but limited approach to nutrition. Over the past 4 years I've tinkered it such that I can dial it in for nearly everyones needs and goals AND people get better results. I had an idea, I experimented and now the product is improved. What have you done Phil?
 
Old 11-20-2008, 06:33 AM   #408
Steve Liberati
Affiliate Steve Liberati is offline
 
Steve Liberati's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pennsauken  NJ
Posts: 1,649
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cavazos View Post
No one trains during all their waking hours, and the clash of ideas is the best way to discover the truth. Just because someone posts on a message board during their free time doesn't mean they don't train or coach to the best of their ability (Rippetoe runs a message board -- what are you saying about him?). If this thread bothers you, ignore it, but please don't try to squelch discussion.
And I'm not even going to touch on your idea that writing papers isn't a worthwhile endeavor.
My point was that most of the data comes from people in the trenches. The studies merely set out to confirm what we already know. Rip is no exception. He started out as a lifter and trainer first, and through his experience and observations in the gym, he realized what worked and what didn't. He was then able to put his findings on paper and and gradually develop a system with studies to back it up.

And no, I'm not saying anything bad about Rip...as I think he is a wonderful coach. What I am saying is that we wouldn't have studies, if we didn't have people out there physically doing the work and hand tweaking the data. I think its safe to say that many coaches and athletes work hard to seek and obtain better results and improvements, not to test out a study that was theorized by an exercise physiologist tossing around the next best concept or training model.

Can we agree that CrossFit is largely driven from empirical evidence and that as it continues to evolve, we'll continue to discover scientific studies that will prove it consistent with what we already know happens from general observations?
 
Old 11-20-2008, 06:40 AM   #409
Tom Brose
Affiliate Tom Brose is offline
 
Tom Brose's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington   DC
Posts: 801
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Wolf View Post
Ahhh...this dead horsie just needs a little more love...
Robb, there are a bunch of people posting in "Starting" or "Digital Coaching" that could use you, John Brown, Leonid, Steve and the rest of the crews help.
 
Old 11-20-2008, 06:44 AM   #410
Steve Liberati
Affiliate Steve Liberati is offline
 
Steve Liberati's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pennsauken  NJ
Posts: 1,649
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

ok, didn't see Robb's post above before writing my post and sending it off. Now I feel very little standing next to Robb. The thread should end with Robb's final points. Phillip, now is where you give it up and quietly accept your lose in this argument.
 
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

vB 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
Crossfit-Like Program on Testosterone Nation Website wih link Kevin J. Fleming Exercises 0 07-31-2008 07:12 AM
Truth or B.S.? Larry Wright Nutrition 3 03-02-2008 03:18 AM
The Real Crossfit Nation James Besenyei Community 16 02-28-2007 06:46 PM
Thankfully Sonnon has finally revealed the truth about CrossFit Ryan Abbott Community 14 04-18-2006 09:23 AM
The truth about people David Heyer Fitness 13 08-08-2003 03:06 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:26 AM.


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