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 02-23-2009, 08:44 AM   #1
Matt Unthank
Member Matt Unthank is offline
 
Matt Unthank's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Carrollton  TX
Posts: 48
Exercise "Science"

In watching coach’s recent journal piece on the “New 3-D approach to fitness”, I realized the degree of his contempt for the exercise physiology community.

Could anyone expound on the disdain? What is exercise phys missing?
 
Old 02-23-2009, 08:58 AM   #2
Rayna McGinnis
Member Rayna McGinnis is offline
 
Rayna McGinnis's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 256
Re: Exercise "Science"

research?
__________________
When I grow up, I want to be superwoman, but today I'll settle for me. www.raynamcginnis.com
 
Old 02-23-2009, 09:01 AM   #3
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Exercise "Science"

Watch the war college lectures. That'll give you a better idea.
__________________
Posts are NOT medical, training, nutrition info
Bodyweight Article, Overcoming Gravity Book
 
Old 02-23-2009, 10:08 AM   #4
Gavin Harrison
Member Gavin Harrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Forest Hill  Maryland
Posts: 479
Re: Exercise "Science"

Lets say, the popular Western exercise science and health sciences kind of suck. Where did carb-protein-fat ratios of 75-15-10 come from? Why is the american heart folks saying 20-40 minutes of moderate intensity walking is what you need to do to be healthy? Why are there studies testing the effectiveness of the valsalva maneuver tested on machine exercises, such as elbow flexion and extension, knee flexion and extension.. etc. Also, +1 for the war college series.
 
Old 02-23-2009, 10:56 AM   #5
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Exercise "Science"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavin Harrison View Post
Lets say, the popular Western exercise science and health sciences kind of suck. Where did carb-protein-fat ratios of 75-15-10 come from? Why is the american heart folks saying 20-40 minutes of moderate intensity walking is what you need to do to be healthy? Why are there studies testing the effectiveness of the valsalva maneuver tested on machine exercises, such as elbow flexion and extension, knee flexion and extension.. etc. Also, +1 for the war college series.
They came from the place power cleans, and Tabata, and interval traning came from. There is nothing wrong with Exercise Science. Coach just doesn't seem to like that the science world treats all valid science equally, even if it's science he doesn't agree with. BTW 20-40 minutes of moderate activity is all you need to be healthy. Healthy and fit aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Old 02-23-2009, 11:04 AM   #6
Shane Skowron
Member Shane Skowron is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queens  NY
Posts: 3,800
Re: Exercise "Science"

Coach's claim is that exercise science has done nothing to advance sports and athletics. Of course there have been advancements here and there (even CF uses the Tabata principle) but I think most athletic training is based around what has worked for athletes and coaches previously, not what scientists say will work.
 
Old 02-23-2009, 11:11 AM   #7
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Exercise "Science"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
Coach's claim is that exercise science has done nothing to advance sports and athletics. Of course there have been advancements here and there (even CF uses the Tabata principle) but I think most athletic training is based around what has worked for athletes and coaches previously, not what scientists say will work.
There is a lag between the two, but not an antagonistic approach. The "on the field" tactics happen, and then they are tested "in the lab". Nearly everything sports performance coaches are currently doing on the field is published in journals and studied in the lab. It's how ideas are shared and advancements made. Nearly everything CF does is validated by exercise "science"
 
Old 02-23-2009, 11:18 AM   #8
Shane Skowron
Member Shane Skowron is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queens  NY
Posts: 3,800
Re: Exercise "Science"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrison View Post
There is a lag between the two, but not an antagonistic approach. The "on the field" tactics happen, and then they are tested "in the lab". Nearly everything sports performance coaches are currently doing on the field is published in journals and studied in the lab. It's how ideas are shared and advancements made. Nearly everything CF does is validated by exercise "science"
True. But advancements for who? If a team finds that Workout X brings them a championship year after year, do they really need a scientist to say "yes that works"?
 
Old 02-23-2009, 11:25 AM   #9
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Exercise "Science"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
Coach's claim is that exercise science has done nothing to advance sports and athletics. Of course there have been advancements here and there (even CF uses the Tabata principle) but I think most athletic training is based around what has worked for athletes and coaches previously, not what scientists say will work.
Athletes and coaches try something and decide empirically whether it works or not. Scientists test it in the lab under controlled conditions and figure out why it works (or not). That knowledge allows athletes and coaches to more intelligently apply the underlying principle outside of the original domain. Exercise science also helps protect less gifted coaches (and their athletes) from the dangers of bad training.

People were building things for thousands of years before the development of a science of structural materials and structural mechanics. That doesn't mean structural mechanics is useless: we just don't hear as much about the cathedrals that fell down because the builders didn't know what they were doing.

Katherine
 
Old 02-23-2009, 11:29 AM   #10
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Exercise "Science"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
True. But advancements for who? If a team finds that Workout X brings them a championship year after year, do they really need a scientist to say "yes that works"?
Advancement for science. Coaches only care about that workout X works. Scientists try to understand why it works, and thus see if it can be improved. If it wasn't for science coaches and athletes today would still be jogging 3 miles a day and doing push ups as their "workout"
 
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
Article "Minimum exercise you need to be healthy" Brian Solar Fitness 19 02-20-2009 06:13 AM
WOD thoughts on "As prescribed" with rest vs "Scaled" straight through Matt DeMinico Workout of the Day 15 10-02-2008 02:29 AM
The "Bradstock" Jump Squat: Is it an effective exercise? Roald Bradstock Exercises 15 05-15-2008 07:34 PM
"Zone perfect" Bars vs Dr.sears "Zone" bars Rohan Sookdeo Nutrition 8 05-15-2008 01:36 PM
"The Neurotic Zone" or "On Counting Walnuts" Christin Street Nutrition 32 04-27-2008 03:17 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.