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 02-28-2009, 07:30 PM   #261
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 Barry Cooper View Post
So if, as an Exercise Scientist, I assert something which is flamboyantly wrong--and you have offered already several examples without prompting of flawed scientific premises, as well as admitting in a general way that the system of science is imperfect and mistakes are in fact made--then it is "true" in your renderingly if I honestly believe it, and false if and only if I am intentionally, knowingly deceptive?
I think he already said that "true" is not a word most scientists would use to describe a current working hypothesis. This thread looks to me like it's degenerating into pointless word games.

Some exercise science is bogus. I don't think anyone has challenged that claim. So is some medicine, some physics, some astronomy. That does not mean that the entire discipline of astronomy, physics, medicine, or exercise science is bogus.

You have been asked, repeatedly and politely, to provide citations to support your claims about the alleged position of the NSCA on various issues. You have not done so. You wouldn't try to change the subject rather than admit you were incorrect, would you?

Katherine
 
Old 02-28-2009, 08:17 PM   #262
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Exercise "Science"

I am merely being methodical. My case, in point of fact, is much stronger than I am making it here, and I haven't yet begun that aspect of my case. All in good time. Phillip, being obstinate, has compelled me to check off one point at a time, rather than helping me by understanding me at the outset, or sharing with me a desire to learn something rather than defend a position that is indefensible.

The foundational error he is making is a logical one. You, like him, are misunderstanding me. I will stick for the time being with simply drawing for him the logical consequences of statements he himself has made. If this makes you uncomfortable on his behalf, that is well justified, as he has painted himself in a corner.

But of course he can't admit that. He is much too smart, no doubt, to be concerned with incoherence or logical constradictions, so we will continue. This is useful for me, if no one else.

And amusing, in that vanity betrayed is always interesting.

I have roughly the next six or seven steps mapped out, regardless of what he says.

You see, logic has value. Its abuse, consequently, bothers me, much the way people singing off key, or doing squats with poor form bothers me.
 
Old 02-28-2009, 08:55 PM   #263
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 Barry Cooper View Post
I am merely being methodical. My case, in point of fact, is much stronger than I am making it here, and I haven't yet begun that aspect of my case. All in good time. Phillip, being obstinate, has compelled me to check off one point at a time, rather than helping me by understanding me at the outset, or sharing with me a desire to learn something rather than defend a position that is indefensible.
So that's a yes, you're changing the subject? Ok. Just so we're clear on that.

And since your new subject is one that doesn't interest me, I think I'm done here.

Katherine
 
Old 03-01-2009, 01:04 AM   #264
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Exercise "Science"

I'm done too. This went from debating the merits of exercise science as a discipline to him grinding an axe against someone who disagrees with him. Arguing on the net is futile.
 
Old 03-01-2009, 07:54 AM   #265
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Exercise "Science"

Then I will complete as well. Let's review, though, what we learned.

According to Phillip "Truth" (big T) is the province of philosophers. It is of no interest to him.

According to Phillip, all scientists (including Exercise Scientists) can and have been wrong in the past. He offers the movement from a terracentric notion of the universe (held as orthodoxy by the power elite, aka the keepers of knowledge) to a heliocentric one as one example.

Since Truth (big "T") is not his province, and since truth (little "t") is mutable, it follows either that his views (and those of every other scientist) might be wrong, or that he holds the method, not the output, to be sacrosanct. He says as much in his last substantive comment, that it is the integrity of the scientists--and by extension the method--which for him is the defining characteristic not just of the method, but of Truth (big T).

You see, we all have defining epistemologies. Regardless of our ability to argue it, we all hold certain things to be true, and others to be false. We might say that science is in the explanation, and philosophy is in the rationalization. Both are prone to error.

Thus, we have reached by a process of deduction what was intuitively obvious to me, namely that Philip flat out views the views of scientific orthodoxy to be better IN PRINCIPLE than the views of those who have not embraced his precise method. This is a functional definition of arrogance, which Edward de Bono has well defined as an error in the future. By this is meant that a person can gather together information brilliantly in a moment, but be utterly unable to incorporate new inputs as they become available, which leads necessarily to a progressive estrangement from available truths (little t).

Truths can exist of which Exercise Science is unaware, ergo it is not necessary to the apprehension of said truths.

Propositions can be offered by Exercise Science which turn out to be wrong--sometimes disastrously so, as in the case of the low fat cult--ergo it is not sufficient.

Being neither sufficient nor necessary, the meat of the matter must rest elsewhere. This is the reason for Coach's skepticism.

To this summary, I would add the following point. In any effort to increase knowledge, we must have a means by which to measure improvement. Logically, "knowledge" that leads to nothing which can be measured is much like a spice you never use, sitting in the cupboard.

With respect to Exercise Science, the metric, one would logically assume, would be increased human performance. With respect to competitive sports, the metric, obviously, is success. With respect to overall health, the metric is resistance to metabolic and other illnesses, and longevity. With respect to fitness, however, the landscape was relatively barren until Coach came along. Since Exercise Science did not just spring up last week, this is a massive gap, indicating a lack of a holistic, well thought engagement with the process of generating fitness.

We have defined fitness as "work capacity across wide time and modal domains". This is a good definition. All of us would be amenable to considering others, but this is a good one.

Now, the human body is a complex system, analogous to the atmosphere, or economic sphere. We can never be entirely sure how, say, the endocrine system affects, say, your 10k time.

Science consists, necessarily and sufficiently, in a testable hypothesis, coupled with an actual test. Now, if the end result is an increased work capacity, . . then tests which enable us to measure outputs relative to inputs are going to be much more useful than tests which measure some small subcomponent of human performance, such as VO2 Max.

Hence the Black Box. I would submit that there are two types of Exercise Science: reductive, and non-reductive. Reductive tests and measures components of the human organism which are believed to relate to human performance, but only indirectly, through a complex mediating system--that of the human body.

Non-reductive Exercise Science measures actual performance directly, based upon "macro" variables such as work/rest ratios, volume of work, intensity of work, etc.

I would submit that the better word for non-reductive Exercise Science is "coaching".

Does anyone serious think Coach has not read any number of foundational scientific texts? That he had not done so 20 years ago?

To say, then, that he himself is not an Exercise Scientist is ridiculous. What he is not--and what I don't want to be--is a REDUCTIVE Ex. Sci, who spends enormous amounts of time sweating about things like VO2 max, red blood cell counts, and the activation of fast twitch muscle fibers.

You mention POSE. Dr. Romanov was an Olympic coach. Non-reductive.

HIIT appears to have been spontaneously adopted in the 90's, because it was better than what came before. If you can point to a journal that initiated it, I would be open to considering your view that someone like you came up with it. Until then, I will assume it was a coach, presumably a running coach.

The "Tabata" protocol appears to have been invented by a speed skating (w/fs from what I can tell: http://www.chrisstroud.net/movement/...-about-tabata/) COACH. Tabata is the one who took SOMEONE ELSE'S idea, and developed the EXPLANATION for why it was (empirically) effective.

Undulating training was invented by Russian strength coachs, in all likelihood, although you'd have to be more specific about what type of periodization you're talking about.

Net, net: You have effectively demonstrated in this thread that you consider yourself and your colleagues superior, IN PRINCIPLE, to those who do not want to concern themselves with the minutiae of sports science.

I have shown that reductive Exercise Science is neither sufficient nor necessary to the increase in human performance.

On the contrary, I would conclude by saying that in my view the HOSTILITY of mainstream science to anything new they didn't invent (which is almost everything, since they do not value creativity but rather consistency), acts to SLOW the progress of human knowledge

Certainly, I fail to see where you have added anything here, other than a confirmatory bad example.

Last edited by Barry Cooper : 03-01-2009 at 07:59 AM.
 
Old 03-01-2009, 08:07 AM   #266
Lynne Pitts
Administrator Lynne Pitts is offline
 
Lynne Pitts's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond  NH
Posts: 3,232
Re: Exercise "Science"

Barry,
You are violating at least two of the Acceptable Use Policies, which you agreed to conform to when you joined the board:
  1. We require a high level of respect to be shown at all times to other users of the board. Insults (either direct or indirect), bickering, and flaming of any kind will lead to suspensions and/or banishment from the board. Tolerance level for this behavior is extremely low.
  2. Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, and denigrates another member at any time. We have zero tolerance for taking an argument about any topic to a personal level. For instance, the use of terms such as "idiot, moron, stupid" and other derogatory terms constitutes harassment. Repeated critical and sharply negative posts can also constitute harassment. This applies to all content submitted by users including posts, PMs, avatars and signatures.
This isn't the main-page WOD comments; please keep your discussions on point without making them personal attacks.

Thanks
 
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 10:20 AM.


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