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 07-13-2008, 06:56 PM   #1
Max Williams
Member Max Williams is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Birmingham  UK
Posts: 15
Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Hi All, not trying to start a war but I' am very confused.

In modern training programs almost all the scientific evidence and trials points to the fact that for muscle to grow its needs 24 - 48 hours recovery time, and also that you should train at about 80% of your one rep max for 3 sets and between 10 - 15 reps including supersetting.

My question is how far do you agree with the above (as it has a lot of scientific evidence supporting it) and why is crossfit apparently so much better even though it does not have any long term evidence to support its claims.
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:04 PM   #2
Shane Skowron
Member Shane Skowron is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queens  NY
Posts: 3,800
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Williams View Post
In modern training programs almost all the scientific evidence and trials points to the fact that for muscle to grow its needs 24 - 48 hours recovery time, and also that you should train at about 80% of your one rep max for 3 sets and between 10 - 15 reps including supersetting.
What is the source for this training program? It sounds like bodybuilding to me. Athletes that train for strength - weightlifters, strongmen, gymnasts - don't touch that kind of program.
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:07 PM   #3
George Mounce
Banned for Ethical and Integrity Violations George Mounce is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Steens  MS
Posts: 3,295
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

First off CrossFit isn't a hypertrophy bodybuilding program. So there is no need to even answer that part. Apples and oranges.

CrossFit is primarily concerned with the production of power, which is work over an interval of time, in functional aspects of life. No long term? The evidence is in the thousands of pages of workouts logs in the forums that show short and long-term improvements in all areas of fitness by regular people. (WFS) www.logsitall.com is a great site where over 30,000 workouts have been logged and show people improving. It would only take someone to put together a data chart to show how much people have improved in a scientific manner to prove it works to increase the ability for people to produce power. Would be an interesting collection of data.

There was also a comparison of CrossFit versus traditional methods done by the Canadian armed forces sometime back, and can be found in CFJ #41.
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:07 PM   #4
Derek Maffett
Member Derek Maffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Castle Rock  WA
Posts: 3,544
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Compound lifts instead of the usual machine work? Anyhow, CF isn't better than SS for mass gain (which is similar to what you prescribed, except 5 rep sets with really, really heavy stuff).

Regardless, though, who said that anything outside those parameters will not build muscle?

And of course, that science could easily be faulty - I'm not judging that right now.
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:08 PM   #5
Daniel Mick
Member Daniel Mick is offline
 
Daniel Mick's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Portland  OR
Posts: 278
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Why? Well, to borrow from someone else on the forum, because CrossFit turns people into frothing beasts.

So, according to the scientific method (the collection of data through observation and experimentation) we have:

A. subject X before CrossFit = not frothing beast
B. subject X after CrossFit = frothing beast

Looks like solid "scientific evidence" to me. End of thread.

Last edited by Daniel Mick; 07-13-2008 at 07:11 PM..
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:10 PM   #6
Max Williams
Member Max Williams is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Birmingham  UK
Posts: 15
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
What is the source for this training program? It sounds like bodybuilding to me. Athletes that train for strength - weightlifters, strongmen, gymnasts - don't touch that kind of program.
well those athletes you refer to are not the only athletes as golfers, soccer players and rugby do use those kind of programs and i will ask again where is the long term evidence that a crossfit style program is better?
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:13 PM   #7
Shane Skowron
Member Shane Skowron is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queens  NY
Posts: 3,800
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Williams View Post
well those athletes you refer to are not the only athletes as golfers, soccer players and rugby do use those kind of programs and i will ask again where is the long term evidence that a crossfit style program is better?
What do golfers have to do with strength? And why should I use their strength-training program? More importantly, why do they even have a strength-training program?
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:15 PM   #8
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: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Quote:
well those athletes you refer to are not the only athletes as golfers, soccer players and rugby do use those kind of programs and i will ask again where is the long term evidence that a crossfit style program is better?
Your post begs the question, have you followed the WOD - and if so - for how long?

The long term evidence is in the experience. I don't really need to read a paper telling me how it increases my work capacity across broad time and modal domains. Just knowing that it does is good enough for me.
__________________
Jake Di Vita, A46718
http://www.uspsa.org
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:16 PM   #9
George Mounce
Banned for Ethical and Integrity Violations George Mounce is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Steens  MS
Posts: 3,295
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Williams View Post
well those athletes you refer to are not the only athletes as golfers, soccer players and rugby do use those kind of programs and i will ask again where is the long term evidence that a crossfit style program is better?
Again, I say its in the thousands of pages of workout logs you can read through.

Example in mine - my first 1 rep weighted pull-up was a measly 25 pounds. 9 months later it was 125 pounds.

My 2 mile run time has gotten below my high school track 2 mile run time - 15 years later.

I went from a sorry 135 pound deadlifter to a 465 pound deadlifter.

My crappy immature squat I did at one time was 350 pounds. I now am a 350 pound squater at 30 pounds less bodyweight and can go well below parallel.

Thats just me, go look at all the other logs, collect the data, and if you can't see thats enough evidence that CrossFit works for what it is trying to improve with people, we can't help.

You are trying to compare a bodybuilding program to a functional power production program.

If you want to get big and show off beach muscles, CrossFit is not for you. If you want all the girls at the beach to see how amazing you are with your handstand, completely great looking functional body, CrossFit will get you there, and I guaruntee you'll be a very happy person that can do this for the rest of your life, which is much more important. Hell, look at Arnie, he looks like crap compared to when he was Mr. Olympia. I can see myself looking exactly the same at 70 as when I'm 30.
 
Old 07-13-2008, 07:17 PM   #10
Derek Maffett
Member Derek Maffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Castle Rock  WA
Posts: 3,544
Re: Crossfit vs Scientific Evidence

Oh, great - if this thread goes where I think it's going, then I'm leaving. See the "Crossfitter vs. Bodybuilder" thread still going on.

Better for what? For a specific sport? For hypertrophy?

Never mind - just read this thread.

http://www.board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=33913 wfs, but your head will explode.
 
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
More medical evidence favoring CrossFit Rainer Hartmann Health and Medical Issues 1 06-10-2008 10:28 AM
Evidence that Hillary does CrossFit? Maryanne Scales Stuff and Nonsense 0 12-12-2007 11:39 AM
Argh, another bogus "scientific" study Lincoln Brigham Community 3 01-30-2007 10:39 AM
Morales's "Scientific" Training Sean Pizel CrossPit 2 11-15-2006 09:19 AM
Scientific mystery! Marc Anton Branski Injuries 1 02-10-2005 08:48 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.