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 11-20-2008, 11:25 AM   #431
Matthew Stafford
Member Matthew Stafford is offline
 
Matthew Stafford's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gaithersburg  MD
Posts: 321
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

For what it's worth, I'm completely convinced that CrossFit is an amazing condition program. It's easily the best thing I've ever done to improve my fitness and conditioning for rugby.

I'm probably misconstruing what a lot of people are saying about the studies, then. I get defensive when I feel that anti-science vibe, but from what I'm understanding is that exercise science is much different that the physical sciences and that my ideas of "research, research, research", at least in the manner I am familiar with (set up an experiment, collect hours/days/years of data, analyze and publish and then argue) may not necessarily be how things are done? Correct?
__________________
5'9" - 176lbs. - Down 30lbs. since starting CrossFit in July 2008
 
Old 11-20-2008, 11:56 AM   #432
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 Christian Mason View Post
I have to disagree here.

I have a ton of respect for Rob, but both he and Coach are responding with Ad Hominem attacks on Phil G, who is just pointing out that further scientific verification would be useful. Attacking the messenger seriously damages your credibility.

To be clear, it's my understanding that Phil is an advocate of Crossfit, I certainly am. I'm also convinced that what Rob Wolf says is true - the brains behind Crossfit have been tweaking their approach for years, with thousands of points of data.


None of this changes the fact, that for it to be accepted in a rigorous academic setting, we need to see carefully controlled studies, performed by people not directly associate with the community.

There seems to be a community attitude here of "burn the witch!" when someone questions the dogma. When I first decided to start eating paleo I read what I could get my hands on about it, especially the effects of grains.

I came across a thread here where someone, who was practicing the paleo diet, asked Rob Wolf about scientific studies supporting the harmful effects of grains, and the response was much the same "you don't get it", "try it for yourself", "how dare you question Rob, this is why he doesn't come here", etc... The guy responded that he HAD tried and WAS personally convinced, but wanted to see some of the science behind it.


Just to be clear:
I am an advocate of both Crossfit, and the Paleo diet. I've had good results with both. I strongly suspect that when there are some strictly controlled, publicly accepted studies of both are published in peer reviewed journals the community will look at them and say "I told you so".

That doesn't change the fact that we should still do the studies.
christian-
It is not my intention to squealch discussion OR conduct some kind of straw-man/ad-hominem attack. BUT...if someone asks me for science behind the paleo diet I can offer them to:
1-the peer reviewed research at thepaloediet.com
2-numerous studies from the Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism
3-an opportunity to experiment on a sample size of N=1
The observations possible with #3 include:
a-How a person feels
b-how a person looks
c-how a person performs
d-easily tested bio-markers


This is a fairly beefy list, folks (who just want to argue) will ignore all of this...and it's still somewhow left to me to "prove" this. Proof in these circumstances is a very dicey thing. Every day, there are thousands of coronary artery bypass graphs (CABG) performed in the US. CABG has never been shown to improve survival or reduce angina. But they continue to crack'em and rack'em. I'm a bit jaded I guess towards the notion of academic legitimacy.

So...oftentimes i become terse about some of this it's because if folks want info I offer it in plenty, I provide a simple framework for self analysis...and if that's not good enough I just can't help the person.

Now, with regards to Phil, when he first jumped into this it was to the tune of "you guys need science...you don't know what you are doing". I argued that point and told him "If it's "Science" you want, go generate it. We are already doing this every day, but have at it". So, that either makes me an idiot or I might have some kind of insight into this. Or, maybe Im an idiot with an insight...like monkeys at keyboards making shakespear's collected works. Whatever the case there is something afoot here that people are not getting:
YOU ARE THE EXPERT.
The sentiment sniffs of Liberitarianism and Anarchy...but the reality is with the advent of the internet and the simple access to virtually ANY bit of information the distinction between "experts" and lay-folk is disappearing. Steven Levett talks about this at length in Freakonomics. Oftentimes the best informed individuals, those who have the most timely and accurate information and understanding of a situation....happen to be EVERYONE EXCEPT THE ACADEMICS.

The past summer norther california, for all intents and purposes, burned down. Our trainer, Adam Lambert is a Cal-Fire Captain. When fighters are called out to an event they do not check the Cal-Fire website for intel...they check a private blog that has the goods on what is happening. Over time, the fighters have found that this "non-academic, non-professional, Non-institutionalized" blog has FAR better information, is updated more frequently and is more accurate than any governmental agency. It is maintained by a couple of geeks who crack-out on fire info and these guys have become integral to the fighting of fire in california.

Do we need a study of this to prove the private blogers are better? Again, it might be an interesting social science graduate project, but how much thought and time do the fire fighters need to devote to this? They have better information, it works, lets roll.

This is the same situation as crossfit. Y'all are the experts, you just need to get in and tinker, see what works and run from there. An academic evaluation of this program would (my opinion here HQ may not agree but I suspect it would mirror this sentiment) provide little of merit.

"Oh Robb! That's preposterous! You are getting kool-aide enemas! You need to step away from the CrossFit Cult and get some perspective..."

Academics are not going to know WHERE to start. This is evidenced by Phil's intense desire to find somekind of outside validation of the programming:
vertical jump+800mrun+CrossFit total=best analysis of CrossFit. Perhaps...I think it's not a bad one, what about simply tracking the WOD and noting changes in specific benchmarks? I think this tells us much more, lends itself to much more rapid development...and is completely inappropriate for a reductionist approach to fitness.

If someone want's to study this stuff, by all means do it. I'll be busy trying to help as many people as I can.

If I've been a dieck I apologize. A little. But I've stated the case as clearly as I can, provided an opportunity to be PROVEN WRONG...yet the merry-go-round continues.

Garcon!! Check please...I'm done.
 
Old 11-20-2008, 11:59 AM   #433
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 Christian Mason View Post
It's coming, just much more slowly than we would like. Some of the mainstream media are starting to carry reports of successful trials of paleo or paleo like diets, and it IS getting attention. I believe the FDA revised their recommendations to include more fat recently (still grain based though)

I managed to find one study abstract from a Scadanavian MD. who did some research with pigs on a paleo vs ceral diet that showed promising results. It'll take more than this to change the deeply entrenched ideas that are there, not to mention the agendas many groups have due to their financial agendas. As a rule, people fear change, and resist it.

I think it's coming, just not as quickly as we would like.

I also agree, there is an entrenched dogma in the scientific community, if not science itself, the AHA makes some horrible recommendations, etc...

Lets change it. IF we really want to help stop people from dyeing from preventable causes, we can't just thumb our noses at the scientific community because "we know what works". We need to work on changing what is recommended to Joe Sixpack.
I was the review editor for that paper. Great work, well designed. More needs to be done. The folks who want to ignore it's implications however, will never be swayed.
 
Old 11-20-2008, 12:02 PM   #434
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

Matthew, for the record, I love good research. I would like to see more of it. But, I do not see good research coming out of the exercise physiology people. I see studies that have poor design, no randomization and ridiculously small sample size.

Here is a study I would love to see using CrossFit, intense exercise effect on the battlefield trauma patient. Take 2 groups of rats. Condition one with Tabata intervals on the wheel, leave the other ones alone. Next, hemorrhage the 2 groups to a degree of hypovolemic shock. After a set period of time, controll the bleeding and re-perfuse the rats. Next measure the degree of acidosis and reperfusion injury in the 2 groups. Did CF-type, high intensity exercise condition the rats for better survival in an oxygen debt environment? Were the fitter rats harder to kill? Next repeat the trial, results the same?

This is what I would like to see science use CF to answer. I think the answer is yes. This is the type of science and scientific experiments that I believe in.

But, this is not the type of research being conducted. I think it is a waste of a scientists time to prove that CF is better then Curves, Jazzercise or whatever.

Last edited by Pat McElhone : 11-20-2008 at 12:04 PM.
 
Old 11-20-2008, 01:37 PM   #435
Christian Mason
Member Christian Mason is offline
 
Christian Mason's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 298
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Robb - Thanks for the response, and very well said.

Some of my frustration may be due to the fact that I'm currently both learning a lot and being feed some of the ACSM fare in grad courses. I find myself biting my tongue a good deal, not so much because the information I'm being taught is wrong, but but because I feel like there is a bias to it.

I'd love to see Crossfit methodologies be more accepted in this community. I'm actually considering devising a study when/if I decide on a PhD program. I do get that most of the people behind the movement don't see it as a productive use of their time though.
__________________
Form, function, and curling in the squat rack - http://www.fitnessfail.com (wfs)
 
Old 11-20-2008, 01:43 PM   #436
David Wood
Departed David Wood is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
 
Posts: 3,303
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Mason View Post
I'm actually considering devising a study when/if I decide on a PhD program. I do get that most of the people behind the movement don't see it as a productive use of their time though.

Christian, meet Pat (directly above you). You two should talk.
 
Old 11-20-2008, 01:59 PM   #437
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

An important point on the purpose of scientific scrutiny on CrossFit:

Strictly speaking, the evidence available in the community, even ignoring issues like control, supports adaptation in certain areas, most of all in improving WoD results. (This is the main data mine available.) On a much smaller basis is available numbers like bodyfat and blood markers. What is largely NOT available is data on the CROSS-APPLICABILITY of the CrossFit adaptation -- that is, "how much it makes you better at other stuff," from football to shoveling gravel. The thing is that this is a critical area to look at, because the claim is that the program makes you better at everything, particularly things we don't even do -- whereas improving WoDs is only evidence that you got better at WoDs and the movements therein. It's possible that you improved at absolutely nothing else. Is it likely? No. How much did you improve at other stuff? Some of us know personally, but there's no data mine for this, and THIS is the core piece of feedback for a GPP system.

In the terminology you guys like, you can't really say you've improved across all time and modal domains if the only time and modal domain you're testing are CrossFit workouts. EVERYONE would accept that you got better at that. There's absolutely zero controversy in saying that you get better at the stuff you're doing. The controversy is whether it made you better at shoveling gravel, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat McElhone View Post
At this point we can not longer say CF works based on a black box model. Off the top of my head, the Canadian Infantry, Marine Force Recon, Naval Special Warfare, Colorado State Police have all done comparisons of the effects of implementing a CF based PT program vs traditional PT program and shown that CF based program produced high fitness levels (as defined by their physical fitness tests) with less injuries.
Can I see that material? I'm only familiar with the published Canadian study.
 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:02 PM   #438
Justin Gross
Member Justin Gross is offline
 
Justin Gross's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cardiff  CA
Posts: 237
Re: T-Nation, Shugart and the Truth About CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Wolf View Post
You are getting kool-aide enemas!
Does Rogue sell those?
 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:19 PM   #439
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=Brandon Oto;451718]An important point on the purpose of scientific scrutiny on CrossFit:

Strictly speaking, the evidence available in the community, even ignoring issues like control, supports adaptation in certain areas, most of all in improving WoD results. (This is the main data mine available.) On a much smaller basis is available numbers like bodyfat and blood markers. What is largely NOT available is data on the CROSS-APPLICABILITY of the CrossFit adaptation -- that is, "how much it makes you better at other stuff," from football to shoveling gravel. The thing is that this is a critical area to look at, because the claim is that the program makes you better at everything, particularly things we don't even do -- whereas improving WoDs is only evidence that you got better at WoDs and the movements therein. It's possible that you improved at absolutely nothing else. Is it likely? No. How much did you improve at other stuff? Some of us know personally, but there's no data mine for this, and THIS is the core piece of feedback for a GPP system.

QUOTE]

Andy Stumpf (sp?) stated on CF radio, that he collected data at the Naval Special Warfare School on students in BUDS. He compared obstacle course (O-course) times of students before and after the implementation of CF based physical training. The groups were of different classes, not the same subjects. The O-course was a unique variable because it had phsyical skills not done outside of the O-course. He stated when comparing the O-course times of the 2 groups, CF times were higher.

This is based on what was said on CrossFit Radio, 16 Nov 08. Again, a META-ANALYSIS can be done to statistically show this.

I will give you that Andy Stumpf (sp?) is not an un-biased observer of the CF method. I will also state that I have not seen the studies first hand, but I will take the word of a commissioned Naval Special Warfare officer.

If you want the study, Brandon, ask him for it. Do a META-ANALYSIS on it and let us know if the difference was or was not statistically significant.
 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:33 PM   #440
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

Thanks Pat. I'll contact him and try and get that data.

What about the material you mentioned on the Colorado State Police and Force Recon?
 
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 01:56 AM.


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