IGX

l-tree wrote:

The news has been scary: a virulent strain of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, a staph bacterium usually associated with hospitals and nursing homes, has been surfacing in other settings. In the last month, schools across the country have reported outbreaks, some of them deadly.

The infection can be spread by a shared towel, razor or piece of sports equipment, or through skin-to-skin contact.

This may have fitness enthusiasts wondering if they can contract MRSA at a gym. Health officials say yes, although the risk is low. Staph grows rapidly in warm, moist environments, but could potentially live on surfaces like the grips of exercise machines. “It’s still a healthy thing to work out, but people need to make sure they don’t have any open sores on their body, and if they do, to keep them covered,” said Dr. Kent Aftergut, an assistant clinical instructor of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. He has treated about a half dozen patients who say they contracted staph at the gym.

Dr. Rachel Gorwitz, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, said 25 to 30 percent of the general population carries staph in the nose (only 1 percent carry MRSA), but it normally does not cause an infection.

Crust Bucket wrote:

l-tree wrote:

Norman U. Senchbau wrote:

l-tree wrote:

Paging Dr. Freud.

Why the fuck do I find this hot as hell?

Norman U. Senchbau wrote:

l-tree wrote:

Paging Dr. Freud.

Why the fuck do I find this hot as hell?

lasalle wrote:Attention @ssfit lurkers. Yes, you, the ones glorifying open sores brought on by improper grip and those stupid pullups. Have you heard of staph infection? Unless there are buckets of bleach being applied liberally to the bars, floors and mats at every opportunity, bloody hands should be your signal to get the fuck out of that gym instead of paying $200 per month to be there.

Here's some fun reading to get you started: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/fashion/01staph.html

protobuilder wrote: Staph Infections? HA! Cultfitters laugh in the face of staph infection!

http://www.hmb.org/blogs/article_detail ... icleID=130

Staph Infections? HA! Cultfitters laugh in the face of staph infection!

w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-yO80dgyvo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=don7aNiNALA[/youtube]

hoorah for dance and primal scream.

and now for up close and personal
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXf90SPWsjE[/youtube]

There seems to be some conflation here between data and evidence. I hope I'm not contributing to that.

You want data? Every single WOD posting is a critical data point for a kinematic analysis of the athletes performance and eventually the quality of the conditioning stimulus. (Especially when height, weight, and age are included.

Are you looking for data with regard to my suggesting that the fitness industry needs to define it's terms (fitness, intensity, functionality, and health), or our offering of definitions readily amenable to precise and accurate measurement? Like our defining of fitness across broad time and modal domains? If so, the request makes no sense. I can neither produce data nor evidence to support the call for defining terms and quantifiable/empirical/scientific methodology. That cannot be done.

Are you asking me for data or evidence to support the claim that CF increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains? Every athletes log with increased performance is EXACTLY that.

Are you asking me top support the contention that CF increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains better than any other protocol? If so, two things, 1. I've never said that, and 2. To be validated or invalidated the terms we insist on defining still need to be defined and the metrics we're suggesting for measure need to be made.

You want evidence for CF's implementation at BUD/S in Phase 2 and won't take the word of the LDO who actually did the work, because he is an ensign? Come, on, you're falling apart on me. You want evidence of CF's implementation or evidence of an official endorsement from the Navy?

You discredit Mark Devine because he's running a business. Guess what, so am I. So is the Navy. So is Mike Caveston. Think for a minute or two about your disqualification based on being paid. It's silly. Right?

Finally, I want you to fully understand that I have publicly, professionally, and repeatedly asked that the industry define some universal lexicon and if possible give definitions that meet scientific muster. We offered some for functional movement, intensity, fitness, and health that will meet muster - everything we suggest measuring can be readily measured, and by several means, and by solid (accurate and precise) whether absolute or relative in metrics. We then put workouts forward that have found broad acceptance in mil/LEO communities - we're doing private mil/LEO certs every single week.

If you could well articulate what you want I'd provide it. You've not done that yet. You're looking for "data" but seem to mean evidence and you want evidence for something that I've never heard claimed anywhere. (See my original post you included above. Every word of it is exactly true. The soldiers and cops providing the evidence and data stand by their claims. No where was claim made that the US Army endorses CF, etc. Right? You're asking me to support something never claimed, not wanted, and of very, very, little commercial portent to CF Inc.

I do not think that you are being disrespectful, just quarrelsome. I'm also greatly intrigued by your science background. It would be outside of my experience to find a "man of science" balled up in the manner that you are. You've got me wondering how you could ask people screaming for evidenced based fitness (us) to provide data for that call?

Really Big Strong Guy wrote:

kreator wrote:

Crust Bucket wrote:

Someone tell me what's going on in this picture because I am honestly clueless.

It appears to be a cyborg attached to a ball and chain.

She's using a hip belt or squat belt to do squats. By the contraption on her left arm I'd say she ruptured a tendon in that arm and can't bend it. She obviously can't put a PVC on her back, so she upped the anty and put a 32kg on a belt to do 1/2 squats because the chain is too long.

sanchezero wrote:

w00tz wrote: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXf90SPWsjE[/youtube]

sanchezero wrote:

w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-yO80dgyvo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=don7aNiNALA[/youtube]

hoorah for dance and primal scream.

and now for up close and personal
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXf90SPWsjE[/youtube]

this girl is full of win. unfortunately she is not properly attired to workout. definitely needs to ditch the jammies for a sports bra and tiny booty shorts.

l-tree wrote:Got bored, so I asked couch for some evidence or proof of any of the claims he has made re @fit. Here's my response.

yada yad yada

1.Are you asking me for data or evidence to support the claim that CF increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains? Every athletes log with increased performance is EXACTLY that.

2.Are you asking me top support the contention that CF increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains better than any other protocol? If so, two things, 1. I've never said that, and 2. To be validated or invalidated the terms we insist on defining still need to be defined and the metrics we're suggesting for measure need to be made.

3.You want evidence for CF's implementation at BUD/S in Phase 2 and won't take the word of the LDO who actually did the work, because he is an ensign? Come, on, you're falling apart on me. You want evidence of CF's implementation or evidence of an official endorsement from the Navy?

4. You discredit Mark Devine because he's running a business. Guess what, so am I. So is the Navy. So is Mike Caveston. Think for a minute or two about your disqualification based on being paid. It's silly. Right?

yada yada

5.I do not think that you are being disrespectful, just quarrelsome.

yada

Couch wrote:Finally, I want you to fully understand that I have publicly, professionally, and repeatedly asked that the industry define some universal lexicon and if possible give definitions that meet scientific muster. We offered some for functional movement, intensity, fitness, and health that will meet muster - everything we suggest measuring can be readily measured, and by several means, and by solid (accurate and precise) whether absolute or relative in metrics.

Shave Astroglide wrote:

Really Big Strong Guy wrote:

kreator wrote:

Crust Bucket wrote:

Someone tell me what's going on in this picture because I am honestly clueless.

It appears to be a cyborg attached to a ball and chain.

She's using a hip belt or squat belt to do squats. By the contraption on her left arm I'd say she ruptured a tendon in that arm and can't bend it. She obviously can't put a PVC on her back, so she upped the anty and put a 32kg on a belt to do 1/2 squats because the chain is too long.

And like everything @fit, she has taken a solid training tool and completely fucked it up.

Jag Panzer wrote:

Couch wrote:Finally, I want you to fully understand that I have publicly, professionally, and repeatedly asked that the industry define some universal lexicon and if possible give definitions that meet scientific muster. We offered some for functional movement, intensity, fitness, and health that will meet muster - everything we suggest measuring can be readily measured, and by several means, and by solid (accurate and precise) whether absolute or relative in metrics.

You mean like that definition of fitness that Siff spanked your drunk ass with about 8 years ago, which you ignored to promote broad time and gin domains?

Don't feel bad Couch, I used to have memory problems when I drank all the time too.