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 01-29-2014, 01:29 PM   #1
Lance Neumeyer
Member Lance Neumeyer is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Oceanside  CA
Posts: 216
CF and Steroids article

This guy tries to provide a statistical analysis for last years CFG top 10 and use that to say if it's likely they are juicing or not. Interesting read, some of you may be able to provide some insight if his reasoning and methods are sound. I don't know enough about his methods, which used fat free mass index and fat mass index, to say one way or the other.

It also looks like he used listed weights, which may or may not have been correct. What difference would +/- 5 lbs. make? 10 lbs?

You may need to click on the image to enlarge.

(wfs) http://i2.minus.com/icTZdeulHfUcR.png
__________________
42; 5'10 190
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 01:53 PM   #2
Jason Kelley
Member Jason Kelley is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Leatherhead  UK
Posts: 117
Re: CF and Steroids article

There is no doubt that some will be juicing. Maybe slightly easier to 'spot' in women but I agree with the article when it says no sport is 100% clean. Why would CF be any different.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 02:15 PM   #3
Chris Mason
Banned Chris Mason is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Charlottesville  VA
Posts: 4,708
Re: CF and Steroids article

I honestly don't care. I do understand a basic curiosity, especially for those who might want to stay clean and would like to get an idea of what is possible, but beyond that if they pass a test then I don't care.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 02:23 PM   #4
Lance Neumeyer
Member Lance Neumeyer is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Oceanside  CA
Posts: 216
Re: CF and Steroids article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Mason View Post
I honestly don't care. I do understand a basic curiosity, especially for those who might want to stay clean and would like to get an idea of what is possible, but beyond that if they pass a test then I don't care.
I would think you have a unique perspective, Chris, since you know some/most of these guys. You've also spoken about steroids to some extent on your podcast, but I think that related mostly to why you didn't use them personally when competing.
__________________
42; 5'10 190
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 02:24 PM   #5
Jeremy Schultz
Member Jeremy Schultz is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Colville  WA
Posts: 168
Re: CF and Steroids article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Mason View Post
I honestly don't care. I do understand a basic curiosity, especially for those who might want to stay clean and would like to get an idea of what is possible, but beyond that if they pass a test then I don't care.
I certainly don't mean to belittle your opinion, but the reason that I think people would or should care more about CF Games participants using gear is because, once upon a time, the CF Games were meant to be a gathering of a bunch of dudes at some guy's ranch to have fun. In other words, anyone who was a good/avid CF'er could potentially show up and be competitive.

We all know that those days are long gone, and the fact that many of the competitors are now juiced makes the Games an even further reach for the average, JoeBlow CF'er.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 02:40 PM   #6
Christopher G. Woods
Member Christopher G. Woods is offline
 
Christopher G. Woods's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ellicott City  MD
Posts: 2,119
Re: CF and Steroids article

This article was all over Facebook earlier in the week, to the point that the guys who published it had to pull it down, because the overwhelming number of hits it was getting was crashing their site.

My personal take is that the science behind their assertions is sketchy at best. This is motivated heavily by the fact that, with a FFMI over 27, their data would indicate that I am most likely on steroids. Last I checked, I'm pretty sure that statement would be false. Now, at 5'4" and just shy of 190lb., I know that I am a physical outlier, but all elite athletes are physical outliers; if they weren't, they wouldn't be elite.

My main issues are with the data sets that made the basis of the FFMI study they were using. The study stated that their data sets were pulled from 83 modern steroid users, 74 modern non-users, and the 20 Mr. Americas from 1939-1959, who are also presumed to be non-users (I'll comment on that later).

First, these are all very small data pools; the 20 Mr. Americas especially make up not only a very small pool, but also a very narrow one. Second, they give no indication of the athletic backgrounds of the modern users and non-users, or any other information which may give us any indications as to the range of body types that are being represented in the data. If we are comparing 80 steroid using bodybuilders with 70 non-using endurance athletes, then we have a seriously flawed data set.

I also have some particular issues with the data set of the 20 Mr. Americas. Where are they getting the BF% to calculate the FFMI for these individuals? Is this something that was measured as part of the competition at the time? If so, what method was used to measure it? If not, what is the basis of the BF% used for these individuals? Also, we are asked to operate on the assumption that these individuals were not steroid users, because they predate the accepted "steroid era"; however, oral and injectable testosterone have been around since the late 1930s; therefore, there is no reason to take it on face value that these individuals were not using PEDs simply because they are from before the time when it had entered the public consciousness.

Finally, one of the most obvious differences you will see between athletes and bodybuilders of the modern era versus the middle of the last century is body fat percentage. Modern athletes are leaner across the board, and that is due primarily to advances in nutritional science and training methodologies. The knowledge that we use to track calories and macros in the modern day simply didn't exist 50 years ago; therefore, any comparison of athletes from different eras that relies on lean mass percentage is fundamentally flawed.

That is all.

Last edited by Christopher G. Woods : 01-29-2014 at 03:09 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 02:46 PM   #7
Andrew Bell
Member Andrew Bell is offline
 
Andrew Bell's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Houston  TX
Posts: 4,021
Re: CF and Steroids article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Mason View Post
I honestly don't care. I do understand a basic curiosity, especially for those who might want to stay clean and would like to get an idea of what is possible, but beyond that if they pass a test then I don't care.
Agree. I wish they didn't test at all, so that it could be the Wild West out there and guys could do whatever the heck they wanted. Let them, it's their bodies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Schultz View Post
I certainly don't mean to belittle your opinion, but the reason that I think people would or should care more about CF Games participants using gear is because, once upon a time, the CF Games were meant to be a gathering of a bunch of dudes at some guy's ranch to have fun. In other words, anyone who was a good/avid CF'er could potentially show up and be competitive.

We all know that those days are long gone, and the fact that many of the competitors are now juiced makes the Games an even further reach for the average, JoeBlow CF'er.
Jeremy, the NFL was the same way at one time. Professional body building was the same way at one time. As much as I hate to do the same, it's time to take the rose colored glasses off.
__________________
| Log (wfs) |
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 02:47 PM   #8
David Meverden
Member David Meverden is offline
 
David Meverden's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charleston  SC
Posts: 2,802
Re: CF and Steroids article

Interesting article. I've been batting back and forth ideas for several responses, but for right now I'll just point out that I don't think their FFMI analysis is very compelling for the following reasons:

1) 25 isn't a high threshhold and is COMPLETELY attainable without banned substances. I calculate out to 25 despite focusing more on strength than size, working full time at a desk job, and not having done anything resembling real strength training until I was 25 (I'm 30 now). If I quit my job and committed to bulking I could be 26 or 27 no prob using just creatine, beta alanine, and a lot of milk.
2) Legal supplements and improved training methods definitely make a difference, so comparing 1940's athletes to even clean modern one's isn't fair.
3) They use Eugene Sandow as the theoretical peak of pre-drug muscularity, but he WASN'T. Other people had WAY more muscle, and way higher FFMI, they just weren't cut. Lou Cyr, a late 19th century strongman, weighted 290 lbs at ~5'10". Sure, he was probably 25% body fat, but that still gives him an FFMI of 30.

So, basically, I don't find their FFMI analysis very persuasive. I DO think some/many top people are using illegal substances, but don't see that particular analysis as good evidence for it.

I will also say that, based on the strength requirements of this sport (~500 lb deadlift, ~315 C&J) we have not yet reached the point where you have to do anything illegal to hang with the big dogs, and I don't want articles like this to make people feel like they have to take that step to do so.
__________________
CERTIFICATIONS: CSCS, CrossFit LVL 1
SEMINARS: Starting Strength, Ultimate Advantage, CFE, CF O-lifting, MovNat
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 06:19 PM   #9
Steven Wingo
Member Steven Wingo is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ocala  FL
Posts: 506
Re: CF and Steroids article

I think the author makes some very convincing arguments. But the whole FFMI analysis using bodybuilders as an upper attainable PED-free standard is not one of them. There are way, way too many problems for his analysis to have any real value. His other arguments, correctly pointing out that every sport has athletes beating the testing system is much more convincing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2014, 07:08 PM   #10
Dustin Wintczak
Banned Dustin Wintczak is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Richland  WA
Posts: 1,788
Re: CF and Steroids article

DNRTFA

But I agree with Chris and Andrew on this. I'm totally indifferent and could give a rip if they test or not.

These "discussions" eventually devolve into name calling and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0 <-----sums up my feelings

Link is WFS
  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
Article about Steroids in CF Clifton Mack Competitions 6 11-12-2013 08:07 AM
Wow, there all on steroids... Mike Berger Pukie's Bucket 35 10-05-2012 08:08 AM
Steroids Bill Gibson Nutrition 84 08-09-2010 06:09 PM
steroids use Joseph Jackson Pukie's Bucket 12 01-09-2009 10:13 AM
"You must be doing steroids." Jon Michael Varese Testimonials 16 05-27-2005 09:02 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 PM.


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