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 06-20-2009, 06:41 PM   #1
Greg Harrington
Member Greg Harrington is offline
 
Greg Harrington's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 85
We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

I'd rather die strong, young and skinny than fat and old........

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
(WFS)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2009, 06:57 PM   #2
Shane Skowron
Member Shane Skowron is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queens  NY
Posts: 3,800
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

Very misleading article title. Chubby people don't live longest. They live longer than people who are abnormally skinny.

Abnormally skinny people are weak. Slightly chubby people have average strength or better.

What's so surprising?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2009, 09:25 PM   #3
Thomas Bailly
Member Thomas Bailly is offline
 
Thomas Bailly's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Girdwood  AK
Posts: 629
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Harrington View Post
I'd rather die strong, young and skinny than fat and old........

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
(WFS)

Let me guess, you are young, strong and skinny?
Lets talk when you are fat and old
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2009, 09:35 PM   #4
Stephen R. Lampl
Member Stephen R. Lampl is offline
 
Stephen R. Lampl's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Twain Harte  CA
Posts: 4,965
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

I am old and fat - - well, perhaps not so fat now that I've been a die-hard CrossFitter. I'll keep CF and die fit and happy......thank you!
__________________
Steve 5'10"/197/60 yrs. My Log Perseverance through adversity
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2009, 10:30 PM   #5
Michael Bruce Mailman
Member Michael Bruce Mailman is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Auckland  New Zealand
Posts: 165
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

I'm to lazy to provide links to support this, but isn't there a widely held notion that those who live in a calorie deficit (of maybe up to 20%, I don't remember the exact figures) are more likely to live longest?

I believe the idea came from a study of rats or mice, who when put into a calorific deficit of similair numbers lived 10 % longer, or some such.

I think there is a whole society of people devoted to the method in the belief they will live longer for it. Apparently the body spends more time repairing and maintaining itself then trying to grow, the analogy being that a car which is regularly serviced (the repairs the body makes to itself, as opposed to growing) means it lasts longer then an unserviced car.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2009, 11:18 PM   #6
Rob Johns
Member Rob Johns is offline
 
Rob Johns's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sapporo  Hokkaido
Posts: 471
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

I would also point out that the study was carried out in Japan. I live in Japan and the definitions of "skinny" and "chubby" here are very different from that in North America. Their chubby would most likely be well below the average size in NA.

Also, the BWI calculation does not apppear to control for lean body mass: height-squared times body weight is a pretty vague calculation.
__________________
M/33/5'8"/195
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2009, 01:35 AM   #7
Kasper Garnell
Member Kasper Garnell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Copenhagen  DK
Posts: 4
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Bruce Mailman View Post
I'm to lazy to provide links to support this, but isn't there a widely held notion that those who live in a calorie deficit (of maybe up to 20%, I don't remember the exact figures) are more likely to live longest?

I believe the idea came from a study of rats or mice, who when put into a calorific deficit of similair numbers lived 10 % longer, or some such.

I think there is a whole society of people devoted to the method in the belief they will live longer for it. Apparently the body spends more time repairing and maintaining itself then trying to grow, the analogy being that a car which is regularly serviced (the repairs the body makes to itself, as opposed to growing) means it lasts longer then an unserviced car.
Previously yes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0305202936.htm

But now I guess not?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0123101224.htm

Both WFS

Once again the fat mouse gets the last laugh... Damn you fat mouse!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2009, 05:09 AM   #8
Kevin Thomas
Member Kevin Thomas is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta  GA
Posts: 762
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

I thought the goal of CF was GPP, not longevity. Has coach ever claimed CF is focused on increasing life expectancy?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2009, 08:38 AM   #9
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Thomas View Post
I thought the goal of CF was GPP, not longevity. Has coach ever claimed CF is focused on increasing life expectancy?
Yes, there's quite a strong correlation between fitness and longevity. No, I don't know if CF has ever claimed to improve life expectancy.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2009, 11:47 AM   #10
Shawn Hansen
Member Shawn Hansen is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kailua-Kona  HI
Posts: 42
Re: We don't need CF anymore. Scientists prove it!

I eat plenty while on crossfit, my weight normalizes. I dont seem to gain too much mass or lose too much fat. The way we eat to your average person would probably look like overeating. I know i eat way more then your average person, i have to to sustain my activity level.

Studies like these are designed around your average couch potatoe, not athletic people. The fact that they base the study around the BMI is evidence enough of that for me.

I remember a few years ago, i was much heavier than i am now but had much more muscle mass, and a bit more fat. My bmi was like 32, by the BMI i was at risk for death. But look at me then and you would have laughed at that notion.

Pay no attention to this crapola.
  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

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
It is NOT what it is and I will prove it! Steven Matheson Workout Logs 18 02-03-2009 11:24 AM
Deep and overhead squat unsafe according to scientists?? Rick Rakauskas Exercises 20 06-29-2007 03:54 PM
"I'm too tall for _____." (prove me wrong!) Matt Smiley Fitness 13 01-11-2007 05:15 PM
Scientists aim for lab-grown meat Troy Archie Nutrition 8 08-15-2005 06:26 AM
Scientists Still Looking for Fat Fighting Pill Jon Pappas Nutrition 0 06-06-2004 07:18 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:21 AM.


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