IGX

Freki wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Please wait 1 hour after eating before reading this

http://daiglebreathesfire.blogspot.com/ ... hirty.html

Oy vay.

Ed Zachary wrote:

Freki wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Please wait 1 hour after eating before reading this

http://daiglebreathesfire.blogspot.com/ ... hirty.html

Oy vay.

I couldn't read that shit.

protobuilder wrote:I liked it better when the self-absorbed couldn't clutter up the information highway with vapid blogs.

Gin Master wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:

Freki wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Please wait 1 hour after eating before reading this

http://daiglebreathesfire.blogspot.com/ ... hirty.html

Oy vay.

I couldn't read that shit.

That's like CnP if he had a closed head injury, lost half his IQ and 3/4 of his strength. I feel more pity than anger.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Gin Master wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:

Freki wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Please wait 1 hour after eating before reading this

http://daiglebreathesfire.blogspot.com/ ... hirty.html

Oy vay.

I couldn't read that shit.

That's like CnP if he had a closed head injury, lost half his IQ and 3/4 of his strength. I feel more pity than anger.

Yeah, but he was KILLING those 6 minute miles on the treadmill! KILLING!!!

Gin Master wrote:Off to a good Wednesday on the Gorilla site. A couple of them are thick enough for some good wrasslin', a nice change from the anorexic types.

You know you have a good thing going when a woman says, "hey, I'm going to squat in heels, and I want you to take a picture of my tits for that Gorilla site."

God bless bad fathers.

Freki wrote:Girl on girl?

WildGorillaMan wrote:Last week it was CFE and today I'm getting a malware detected warning from CF Football. WTF?

WildGorillaMan wrote:Last week it was CFE and today I'm getting a malware detected warning from CF Football. WTF?

Cowboys and Aliens wrote:Big lulz @ fucking gay FaggotFitters/USAW event... question of the day: WHAT TO WEAR?

Check it: http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/Cros ... ToWear.mov

Nice quote: "You know what Faggotfitters might bring, like bike shorts or some nice Lulus"

Justin Smith wrote …

This is a commendable step in the right direction instead of assuming CrossFit is too "black boxey" as to even be studied scientifically, or the "shut up stupid, don't question it, just look at the results!" approach which is my impression of how many people consider(ed) it.

The authors of this work can be commended for the idea and for the detailed tracking of progress using work calculations.

However, the study has some flaws as mentioned by various people (including the authors):

1) no control group

2) small sample size

"Both a larger sample size and the addition of a control group would generate more data and a greater understanding of the impacts of a functional fitness program."

They would generate *better*, higher quality data, not just more data.

3) most positive results seem to be obvious newbie gains. Ie:

"First, recognizing that some athletes’ level of fitness at the beginning of the study was minimal, we acknowledge that any fitness program would likely achieve some increases in work capacity and fitness. Many of the athletes prior to the study were not working out four or five days a week. Therefore, simply conducting more physical training regardless of its quality would have produced positive gains in work capacity."

For example,
Person 3 ("Athlete" seems awkward to say here) having their Fran time be cut in half
Person 5's back squat doubling
Person 11's gaining 100lbs on their deadlift
Person 14 gaining 100lbs on their deadlift.

These are very obvious effects of just newbies practicing, and working out more frequently and getting familiar with new movements. The authors say as much in regards to pushups and situps with:

"It is our assessment that the reason the increases in push-up and sit-ups were not as great as the other WODs is because all of the athletes in the study had significant experience doing push-ups and sit-ups as opposed to many of the other movements introduced in the study. This is because all of the athletes in the study were military officers who have been required to pass a physical fitness test throughout their career that included these two exercises. Therefore, these athletes had less potential for significant improvement in a short period of time in the APFT than in the other WODs."

4) the results of CrossFit are confounded with results from just having coaching. Ie

"We cannot over-emphasize the important role that we believe effective coaching played in the results the athletes achieved in this study."

So is the article saying CrossFit is the cause of results, or coaching? One cannot tell.

5) are the percents from the 3 lines in Figure 1 supposed to add to 100%?

6) I'd think that readers will not be convinced that the Army or military in general is adopting or should adopt CrossFit from this article, despite the 'official' look of the paper to those outside the military. It looks like a handful of people in the military are doing CrossFit, which is different.

7) not a random sample, but highly selected volunteers. One cannot infer results to larger population.

8) techniques used are not "specific CrossFit movements" in my opinion. Many programs use deadlifts, squats, pullups, runs, etc., in various combinations. That is, do a similar study but take out the name CrossFit, the named workouts, change the specific order of exercises, etc. I'm not sure what adding a brand to the study adds to the science.

9) it appears that no scientific sources are cited

10) article doesn't talk enough about decreases in performances

Person 1 had their backsquat go from 285 (pre) to 265 (post)
Person 5's Fran time going from 8:22 to 8:29
Person 9's Fran time going from 7:08 to 10:38
Person 10's Army pushups going from 79 to 73
Person 13's Army pushups going from 77 to 64
Person 13's FGB score going from 252 to 251
Person 14's Fran time going from 12:18 to 15:41

Especially the decreases in APFT pushups and APFT situps, since the participants have hopes of improving the APFT presumably. "But sir, while my APFT decreased my average power output in Fran increased!" probably won't cut it to their superiors.

Also, by looking at average power, the individual decreases in power are "hidden in plain sight".

11) the "metabolic pathways" and "ten general physical skills" models included seems forced to me. Why not just talk about pre and post performance in the workouts?

12) "The second consideration was the desire to allow for adequate recovery for athletes during the week, especially in the first two weeks of the program. For this reason, the training plan specifically sought to avoid the same type of movements multiple days in a row. This allowed athletes who had not been working out regularly before the study to maintain the intensity of their workouts throughout a week."

seems to violate "constantly varied if not random". You'd expect to get some of the same movements or even identical workouts back to back if it was constantly varied and especially if random.

13) I'm not convinced that increases in power is all there is to fitness. For example, if you do more sloppy reps to me that is not as good as solid but less reps. Same with time, if you finish faster but your work is less quality. If you do more reps with lighter weight and get more power than another who does less reps with a heaver weight. Some things are just difficult to compare.

14) re: combining data for male and female into a single mean, the means should probably be computed separately for each gender.

15) I'm surprised that power output for pushups is relatively close to power output for Fran

Again, GOOD work overall, to be commended and improved for the future.

Justin

kreator wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Last week it was CFE and today I'm getting a malware detected warning from CF Football. WTF?

CFE, CFFB, SealFit, and a few other sites are designed/hosted by Sites as Rx'd. So if one is affected, it's probably a server-wide issue that will affect the rest.
Server must have gotten rhabdo or something.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:That Crossfit Army study is fucking insulting. When did the scientific method become optional when looking at shit like this.

syaigh wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:That Crossfit Army study is fucking insulting. When did the scientific method become optional when looking at shit like this.

Well, this is my pet peeve with CF.

They don't understand real science.

Been CFing since January. Have put on muscle and lost fat. I'm smaller than when I started but much more muscular. My on again-off again boyfriend of 8 years (fireman who won't even try CF) has told me that I "need to stop working out," that I "look like a man" and that I'm "not attractive." It's pretty painful to hear. CF makes me really happy and I like the way I look. It's clear I need to be rid of him, but if anyone has any insight as to why significant others are not only NOT supportive but actively working against working out...would help me in this moment. Thanks.

kreator wrote:

Been CFing since January. Have put on muscle and lost fat. I'm smaller than when I started but much more muscular. My on again-off again boyfriend of 8 years (fireman who won't even try CF) has told me that I "need to stop working out," that I "look like a man" and that I'm "not attractive." It's pretty painful to hear. CF makes me really happy and I like the way I look. It's clear I need to be rid of him, but if anyone has any insight as to why significant others are not only NOT supportive but actively working against working out...would help me in this moment. Thanks.

http://www.board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=61316



WGM, please fix this situation stat.

I'd just never let exercise define my life so much. It is important but there are more important things,

kreator wrote:

WGM, please fix this situation stat.